That is a pretty low bar to use the word "philosopher". This guy is an algorithmist. There is nothing profound in him. That is why he is relatively well known, because his ideas are simple (read simplistic) enough for the general public.
@@Thomas-gk42 It is not about me being a deep mind. There are people who I really respect for their insights. Bernard Williams for instance. This is not the typical case of an edgy teen, which you probably assumed. I will leave you at that.
I’m amazed by how sharp Singer still is at the age of 78 years old, but I also realise it was not likely for us to still witness this, and perhaps especially not for much longer. Best wishes, Peter!
What if a foreign invader wants to take over your country - If agony must be reduced, would the ethical choice be to surrender? Also, many would argue agony is part of living, so is making children immoral? And most importantly i think, if agony is defined without its utility, learning from it or fighting to defend one's nation - is there much left of this definition? what does happiness or agony mean without utility - just electric pulses in a mammalian brain no? - what makes one set of impulses created over eons by evolution more or less moral than another set of electrical impulses? it's just a feeling or sensation - so does feeling good mean something is moral? and also qualifying it by saying **"unless one's own interest are being jeopardized"** further dilutes this definition, what counts as personal interest and how much of it should be sacrificed for strangers?
Man who will find a healthy balance by deeply contemplating and according himself to nature will be thriving as a result and a balanced morality will be the natural outspring of this state. Similarly he might then meet others who have arrived to the same conclusions out of their own experiences.
Jesus, I'm out at whether people who disagree are wrong. He dodged the question. He dodged it very nicely, but he gave a precise EXAMPLE of someone who would be wrong... he did not deal with a direct disagreement. In other words: dodge.
Good interview. I am disappointed that Peter Singer does not provide any details of what exactly convinced him that moral realism was true (i.e., that morality is objective). He's discussed this change in his position on several occasions and has said a bit more elsewhere, but the exact reasons remain obscure. I would hope that were there good arguments for moral realism that he found convincing he could state what they were and why they were convincing, so that others could potentially evaluate the basis for this change in his views. But I haven't seen that yet, and it worries me that it's not clear why, exactly, his views changed. FWIW: I'm a moral antirealist and I don't think there is a single good argument for moral realism. I am primarily interested in this change in Singer's metaethical views because I'm curious about what prompted it.
it is an objective moral fact that one ought to assist one's neighbour before one assists a distant neighbour in our neighbouring galaxy. therefore, proximity is an objective moral fact. one senses that which is nearer with more accuracy than that which is further. Islam is false for example, because the Muslims project their violence upon host nations. the host nations absorb the propaganda and process with free speech. free speech rejects Islam. then, the Muslims force their violent reaction to rejection by local destruction. the Muslim kills their neighbour in every country and every context. neighbour's are independent, yet share events peacefully using the basic negotiating tools known as tongues and brains. sadly, the abhorrent meddling of russians/Chinese/Muslims upon free speech proves that they seek to silence, contain and eliminate their neighbour.
Singer makes a fundamental error that's obvious upon scrutiny of his "mathematical truths" analogy. A math theorem is true in the sense that its conclusion can logically be proved true if its axioms are true. But the axioms of a theorem are NOT objectively true; they are NOT necessarily facts about this world. Singer described the "axioms of morality" (10:10) as if they're like math truths, but they're really like math axioms and are NOT necessarily true. The well-known debate between Utilitarianism (try to maximize the total utility for society, even if this causes an individual to suffer greatly) and Rawlsian justice (try to minimize the suffering of the individual suffering the most, even if this costs society much more than it benefits the individual suffering the most) has shown that no formula can be proved objectively best, independent of (subjective) axioms. The Trolley Car dilemma is another example of the problem. We might be able to develop some consensus axioms qualified by "all else being equal," such as "less suffering is better, all else being equal." But in the world, "all else being equal" rarely holds.
>profgnome7938 : It leaves us with morality not being an objectively provable fact. The "better than" relation is a matter of socialization -- education & persuasion & indoctrination -- regarding which criteria to use when comparing alternatives.
First principles are necessarily true. Lots of math axioms are like that. I don't know what he means by that, but you can find some moral axioms that are also first principles. I'd be seriously surprised if he does though, and certainly Utilitarians and Rawlsians don't. They both are hedonists, so biased from the start. I bet Singer also is.
He never said that the interpretation of those axioms, let alone their practical applications were things that would be easily determined. But give me an example that contradicts that agony (which is the example here, but in philosophical discourse is a bit more nuanced, such as preference satisfaction and so on) is bad and I'll grant that you've proved your point.
>johnandersson8258 : I already provided two examples that contradict the axiom "agony is bad": Utilitarianism and the Trolley Car dilemma. As I wrote earlier, people can probably agree on the axiom "more agony is worse than less agony, all else being equal." But it's rare that all else is equal, so this axiom isn't useful in most situations. Can you provide a definition of "bad?" Since it's an adjective it hints at some absolute property, but adjectives are actually abbreviations for relative comparisons to unstated alternatives. For example, consider the adjective "big." The threshold between "big" and "not big" is undefined, therefore "big" lacks a clear meaning, and only the "bigger than" relation provides clear meaning. When playing the game Twenty Questions, "is it bigger than a breadbox" is a very effective question, and only a loser would ask "is it big." In the case of the adjective "bad" I think the only useful definition relies on the "worse than" relation: "Something is bad if and only if it's worse than at least one feasible alternative." But "worse than" requires a value judgment. For example, in the Trolley Car dilemma it's a matter of judgment, not an objective fact, whether actively causing the death of one person to save five is better than or worse than standing idly by while the five are killed. For an excellent & amusing discussion of the Trolley Car dilemma, watch "The Trolley Problem" episode (season 2 episode 6) of The Good Place.
@@brothermine2292 Hey, I agree with most of what you say. I was just trying to show to you that he never said that this should be understood as something that can be applied without ceteris paribus clauses, or that any valueable work from such axioms could (at least possibly) be done without a lot of labor pains. Which your answer shows you clearly understood. So, sorry for making you feeling the need to write a lengthish answer (and thanks for still taking the time to write a clear and respectful one) :)
Singer himself is relying on intuitions, notably "higher" ones rather than the rough and ready common sense that might often just be prejudice. The interviewer started to get him on this, but then strangely gave up.
Agony can be mental and not something you can fix. And some pain clearly helps us know when to stop or to seek care. And humans have inflicted pain and agony on others forever, all by people who claimed they were moral leaders.
All normativity (in relation to claims about what we ought to do) is based on not just our theories of value, but our ontology / epistemology (I get the irony of what I am saying here. lol). Without doing service to these deeper assumptions (some of which seem far more valid than others), it’s very hard to get into realism / pluralism / relativism etc. along with the ontological status of morality itself. Peter has done some incredibly important work. And he tends to communicate in settings like this quite accessibly. I don’t often agree with the process he executes to arrive at a normative claim, but as others have said, so good to see his clarity and conviction at this stage of his career.
"I don't think it's true that you need believe in God to think that morality is objective" (0.01), maybe like what struggling artist Leonardo de Vinci's portrayal of flawless religous deities implied, with third person language where things exist independently from us consistent "they" (50 s) supporting your position?
The hypothetical of torture and a nuclear bomb is taking that situation way too far. The decision to torture only depends on how dear you hold the outcome that would happen if you chose not to torture...
I was a philosophy major, and I still kinda reel when I hear the phrase "peer-reviewed" used about a topic paper in a philosophy journal. Sure one can check some logic, equivocation and historical summation, but "methodologies" or "reproducibilty" or "testing environment?" I don't think so. Hate to be such a pure emotivist, but it sure seems like we develop arguments over time just to feel better or worse about the decisions we have to make as human beings.
Its a presumption that other beings might be concerned about agony.. They may know what we call "agony" in completely non mammalian ways.. This argument for moral objectivity is very very thin. Not even using reason, just supposing..?
This theory on objective morality is fine, I suppose, when you're talking about the obvious examples like agony and torture. But to compare that to mathematical precision is problematic. The further one gets from agony and torture, it is objectively true that humans will increasingly come to very different conclusions and ideas. His idea that if one is thinking clearly and calmly, they'll come to the "right" conclusions is quite a leap. He seems to think that rationality exists apart from the physical body that we evolved in, and that this physical body simply impedes rational thinking.
Every time an objective moralist comes up with a 'principle' that we'd all agree upon, eg 'agony is a bad thng' they come up with something that clearly we don't all agree upon and not because we are 'irrational'. What about the Agony of the Cross?
I think a godless morality must come with an unprovable assumption that all humans are equal in value although distinct in character. A weaker stance might be to be a higher value on the degree of sentience a life form has. How objective can we be when we base our morality on these types of assertions.
The assertion that morality is based on is...the flourishing of our fellow mankind, unselfishly as a whole.... If the result of any action reduces the "flourishing" then we can recognize the action as immoral If the result of the action increases the flourishing then we can recognize the action as moral If the result of the action does not affect humanities flourishing positively or negatively then the action is amoral... This is how to recognize the morality of action objectively... Unlike morality from a god which humans can not understand "objectively" since humans must "interpret" what the god wants, and if the god can change their mind then they would need to always understand the mind of god in order to know if the action was currently being allowed or not... Funny how you point to man not being able to prove that all men "should" be treated equally since the Bible teaches its readers that slaves are not equal in value to men. I can knock out 100 of my slaves eyes and only end up having to set free 50 now blind slaves...while I walk away with both of my eyes, as eye for an eye does not apply since they are not my equal...Were you trying to support the Bibles position by saying that man only assumes all men are equal, while the Bible teaches us they are not?
I like your reply. Thank you. However, I would argue for a godless morality. However, those of faith might argue that equality is a construct that is unobservable and therefore an act of faith.
@@danielappell3484 When is "faith" needed or even useful without a valid reason to believe? Can equality be a concept that is stiven for in relation to our treatment of others? or Can we agree that striving for "equality in our chosen treatment of others" is not something one needs "faith" to perform? I still do not know the answer to my original question...Do you agree with the Bibles position that slaves are not as valuable as men and therefore are trying to devalue the concept of "equality"?
@@danielappell3484 Please tell me you are not merely being pedantic by trying to claim that since on a subatomic level no two things can be truely equal then one must use "faith" to consider all men equal in value? Please tell me that you are not that pathetic...
@@danielappell3484 I really hope that you are not merely saying that since on a subatomic level no two things can truly be equal then the concept of equality relies on "faith", as that would be disappointing and pointless...
Its easy to seem reasonable on 'Objective' morality (Objective based on what exactly?) when you stay intentionally vague on your answers "lets avoid agony. fetus should not get human Rights". Ok, so there is no difference or intuition needed between a Fetus at 3 weeks old and 8 3/4 months? How about if the mother considers it her unborn child at 8 months but a drunk driver ends it and it had no legal liability as a life lost? how about Intra-Familial reproduction between consenting adults? Ive heard many atheist scientists utterly stumble on such questioning. This was a cake walk with softball questions and no follow up. Also the equivalency between needing "God for Objective morality is no different than needing God for laws of Mathematics to work" is such a false equivalency im surprised anyone with a mote of intellectual integrity would utter it. Is there no challenge here?
I dont understand the argument of believing in god leading to objective morality because even then, youre believing in a book and set of beliefs invented originally by humans.
If god had all the super powers needed to make the world in 6 days and take a siesta on the 7th he could have the super powers to make the laws of physics and everything else we normally think of as objective. People who believe the bible is literally true believe that kind of thing is as true as objective truth even though they have different criteria.
Science seeks falsifiable relative truth, while religion seeks unfalsifiable absolute truth. It is foolhardy to discount absolute truth! Religion provides reason and framework for science. Evidence of God or ultimate reality is everywhere. It is the fundamental substance of the universe. Ethics is derived logically from the nature of this substance to give us the best life.
Peter Singer is one of the few philosophers, who doesn´t talk too much, but comes to the point. A pleasure to listen, thanks
Who's other philosophers who talked too much? 😂
That is a pretty low bar to use the word "philosopher". This guy is an algorithmist. There is nothing profound in him. That is why he is relatively well known, because his ideas are simple (read simplistic) enough for the general public.
@@agetss358 Oh, you´re a deep mind, way above the simpletons? Whom do you prefer? Sheldrake, Kastrup?
@@Thomas-gk42 It is not about me being a deep mind. There are people who I really respect for their insights. Bernard Williams for instance.
This is not the typical case of an edgy teen, which you probably assumed. I will leave you at that.
@@agetss358Your comment stinks of elitism. I'd venture to guess that you just don't agree with him
I’m amazed by how sharp Singer still is at the age of 78 years old, but I also realise it was not likely for us to still witness this, and perhaps especially not for much longer. Best wishes, Peter!
The overarching humility of this conversation is inspiring.
What if a foreign invader wants to take over your country -
If agony must be reduced, would the ethical choice be to surrender?
Also, many would argue agony is part of living, so is making children immoral?
And most importantly i think, if agony is defined without its utility, learning from it or fighting to defend one's nation - is there much left of this definition? what does happiness or agony mean without utility - just electric pulses in a mammalian brain no? - what makes one set of impulses created over eons by evolution more or less moral than another set of electrical impulses? it's just a feeling or sensation - so does feeling good mean something is moral?
and also qualifying it by saying **"unless one's own interest are being jeopardized"** further dilutes this definition, what counts as personal interest and how much of it should be sacrificed for strangers?
Once life produces young in need of care, love in the form of care is existential.
or '...care in the form of love is existential.'
@fahadijazijaz3986 care and love are existential...for us.
What a thoughtful, caring, and mature take from this atheist
Man who will find a healthy balance by deeply contemplating and according himself to nature will be thriving as a result and a balanced morality will be the natural outspring of this state. Similarly he might then meet others who have arrived to the same conclusions out of their own experiences.
Jesus, I'm out at whether people who disagree are wrong. He dodged the question. He dodged it very nicely, but he gave a precise EXAMPLE of someone who would be wrong... he did not deal with a direct disagreement. In other words: dodge.
Good interview. I am disappointed that Peter Singer does not provide any details of what exactly convinced him that moral realism was true (i.e., that morality is objective). He's discussed this change in his position on several occasions and has said a bit more elsewhere, but the exact reasons remain obscure. I would hope that were there good arguments for moral realism that he found convincing he could state what they were and why they were convincing, so that others could potentially evaluate the basis for this change in his views. But I haven't seen that yet, and it worries me that it's not clear why, exactly, his views changed.
FWIW: I'm a moral antirealist and I don't think there is a single good argument for moral realism. I am primarily interested in this change in Singer's metaethical views because I'm curious about what prompted it.
it is an objective moral fact that one ought to assist one's neighbour before one assists a distant neighbour in our neighbouring galaxy.
therefore, proximity is an objective moral fact.
one senses that which is nearer with more accuracy than that which is further.
Islam is false for example, because the Muslims project their violence upon host nations. the host nations absorb the propaganda and process with free speech.
free speech rejects Islam. then, the Muslims force their violent reaction to rejection by local destruction.
the Muslim kills their neighbour in every country and every context.
neighbour's are independent, yet share events peacefully using the basic negotiating tools known as tongues and brains.
sadly, the abhorrent meddling of russians/Chinese/Muslims upon free speech proves that they seek to silence, contain and eliminate their neighbour.
He did explain it. He says agony is his basis and that this is objective. He believes it's objective because the subject of it cannot deny it.
@OneLine122 If that's his explanation it's remarkably feeble. I deny it. That shows subjects can deny it, which would mean he's wrong.
@@OneLine122 what kind of a reason is that?
@@lanceindependent How can you or any subject deny that they are experiencing agony? Or am I missing something here?
Singer makes a fundamental error that's obvious upon scrutiny of his "mathematical truths" analogy. A math theorem is true in the sense that its conclusion can logically be proved true if its axioms are true. But the axioms of a theorem are NOT objectively true; they are NOT necessarily facts about this world. Singer described the "axioms of morality" (10:10) as if they're like math truths, but they're really like math axioms and are NOT necessarily true.
The well-known debate between Utilitarianism (try to maximize the total utility for society, even if this causes an individual to suffer greatly) and Rawlsian justice (try to minimize the suffering of the individual suffering the most, even if this costs society much more than it benefits the individual suffering the most) has shown that no formula can be proved objectively best, independent of (subjective) axioms. The Trolley Car dilemma is another example of the problem.
We might be able to develop some consensus axioms qualified by "all else being equal," such as "less suffering is better, all else being equal." But in the world, "all else being equal" rarely holds.
>profgnome7938 : It leaves us with morality not being an objectively provable fact. The "better than" relation is a matter of socialization -- education & persuasion & indoctrination -- regarding which criteria to use when comparing alternatives.
First principles are necessarily true. Lots of math axioms are like that.
I don't know what he means by that, but you can find some moral axioms that are also first principles.
I'd be seriously surprised if he does though, and certainly Utilitarians and Rawlsians don't. They both are hedonists, so biased from the start. I bet Singer also is.
He never said that the interpretation of those axioms, let alone their practical applications were things that would be easily determined. But give me an example that contradicts that agony (which is the example here, but in philosophical discourse is a bit more nuanced, such as preference satisfaction and so on) is bad and I'll grant that you've proved your point.
>johnandersson8258 : I already provided two examples that contradict the axiom "agony is bad": Utilitarianism and the Trolley Car dilemma. As I wrote earlier, people can probably agree on the axiom "more agony is worse than less agony, all else being equal." But it's rare that all else is equal, so this axiom isn't useful in most situations.
Can you provide a definition of "bad?" Since it's an adjective it hints at some absolute property, but adjectives are actually abbreviations for relative comparisons to unstated alternatives. For example, consider the adjective "big." The threshold between "big" and "not big" is undefined, therefore "big" lacks a clear meaning, and only the "bigger than" relation provides clear meaning. When playing the game Twenty Questions, "is it bigger than a breadbox" is a very effective question, and only a loser would ask "is it big." In the case of the adjective "bad" I think the only useful definition relies on the "worse than" relation: "Something is bad if and only if it's worse than at least one feasible alternative." But "worse than" requires a value judgment. For example, in the Trolley Car dilemma it's a matter of judgment, not an objective fact, whether actively causing the death of one person to save five is better than or worse than standing idly by while the five are killed. For an excellent & amusing discussion of the Trolley Car dilemma, watch "The Trolley Problem" episode (season 2 episode 6) of The Good Place.
@@brothermine2292 Hey, I agree with most of what you say. I was just trying to show to you that he never said that this should be understood as something that can be applied without ceteris paribus clauses, or that any valueable work from such axioms could (at least possibly) be done without a lot of labor pains. Which your answer shows you clearly understood. So, sorry for making you feeling the need to write a lengthish answer (and thanks for still taking the time to write a clear and respectful one) :)
Singer himself is relying on intuitions, notably "higher" ones rather than the rough and ready common sense that might often just be prejudice. The interviewer started to get him on this, but then strangely gave up.
Agony can be mental and not something you can fix. And some pain clearly helps us know when to stop or to seek care. And humans have inflicted pain and agony on others forever, all by people who claimed they were moral leaders.
Your comment seems not to be related to the video, you talk about daily life, and not about philosophical truths
All normativity (in relation to claims about what we ought to do) is based on not just our theories of value, but our ontology / epistemology (I get the irony of what I am saying here. lol).
Without doing service to these deeper assumptions (some of which seem far more valid than others), it’s very hard to get into realism / pluralism / relativism etc. along with the ontological status of morality itself.
Peter has done some incredibly important work. And he tends to communicate in settings like this quite accessibly. I don’t often agree with the process he executes to arrive at a normative claim, but as others have said, so good to see his clarity and conviction at this stage of his career.
The rebuttal to Objective as a formal definition spawned from humans is "aliens might exist and they should agree agony is bad" lol
Fantastic presentation.
"I don't think it's true that you need believe in God to think that morality is objective" (0.01), maybe like what struggling artist Leonardo de Vinci's portrayal of flawless religous deities implied, with third person language where things exist independently from us consistent "they" (50 s) supporting your position?
The hypothetical of torture and a nuclear bomb is taking that situation way too far. The decision to torture only depends on how dear you hold the outcome that would happen if you chose not to torture...
I was a philosophy major, and I still kinda reel when I hear the phrase "peer-reviewed" used about a topic paper in a philosophy journal.
Sure one can check some logic, equivocation and historical summation, but "methodologies" or "reproducibilty" or "testing environment?" I don't think so.
Hate to be such a pure emotivist, but it sure seems like we develop arguments over time just to feel better or worse about the decisions we have to make as human beings.
@@michaelmaloskyjr peer reviewing is also checking the originality of the thought, in philosophy the most important
4:49
No, other Animals habe Moral Systems as well
Its a presumption that other beings might be concerned about agony.. They may know what we call "agony" in completely non mammalian ways.. This argument for moral objectivity is very very thin. Not even using reason, just supposing..?
This theory on objective morality is fine, I suppose, when you're talking about the obvious examples like agony and torture. But to compare that to mathematical precision is problematic. The further one gets from agony and torture, it is objectively true that humans will increasingly come to very different conclusions and ideas. His idea that if one is thinking clearly and calmly, they'll come to the "right" conclusions is quite a leap. He seems to think that rationality exists apart from the physical body that we evolved in, and that this physical body simply impedes rational thinking.
Every time an objective moralist comes up with a 'principle' that we'd all agree upon, eg 'agony is a bad thng' they come up with something that clearly we don't all agree upon and not because we are 'irrational'. What about the Agony of the Cross?
I think a godless morality must come with an unprovable assumption that all humans are equal in value although distinct in character. A weaker stance might be to be a higher value on the degree of sentience a life form has. How objective can we be when we base our morality on these types of assertions.
The assertion that morality is based on is...the flourishing of our fellow mankind, unselfishly as a whole....
If the result of any action reduces the "flourishing" then we can recognize the action as immoral
If the result of the action increases the flourishing then we can recognize the action as moral
If the result of the action does not affect humanities flourishing positively or negatively then the action is amoral...
This is how to recognize the morality of action objectively...
Unlike morality from a god which humans can not understand "objectively" since humans must "interpret" what the god wants, and if the god can change their mind then they would need to always understand the mind of god in order to know if the action was currently being allowed or not...
Funny how you point to man not being able to prove that all men "should" be treated equally since the Bible teaches its readers that slaves are not equal in value to men. I can knock out 100 of my slaves eyes and only end up having to set free 50 now blind slaves...while I walk away with both of my eyes, as eye for an eye does not apply since they are not my equal...Were you trying to support the Bibles position by saying that man only assumes all men are equal, while the Bible teaches us they are not?
I like your reply. Thank you. However, I would argue for a godless morality. However, those of faith might argue that equality is a construct that is unobservable and therefore an act of faith.
@@danielappell3484 When is "faith" needed or even useful without a valid reason to believe?
Can equality be a concept that is stiven for in relation to our treatment of others?
or
Can we agree that striving for "equality in our chosen treatment of others" is not something one needs "faith" to perform?
I still do not know the answer to my original question...Do you agree with the Bibles position that slaves are not as valuable as men and therefore are trying to devalue the concept of "equality"?
@@danielappell3484 Please tell me you are not merely being pedantic by trying to claim that since on a subatomic level no two things can be truely equal then one must use "faith" to consider all men equal in value? Please tell me that you are not that pathetic...
@@danielappell3484 I really hope that you are not merely saying that since on a subatomic level no two things can truly be equal then the concept of equality relies on "faith", as that would be disappointing and pointless...
Its easy to seem reasonable on 'Objective' morality (Objective based on what exactly?) when you stay intentionally vague on your answers "lets avoid agony. fetus should not get human Rights". Ok, so there is no difference or intuition needed between a Fetus at 3 weeks old and 8 3/4 months? How about if the mother considers it her unborn child at 8 months but a drunk driver ends it and it had no legal liability as a life lost? how about Intra-Familial reproduction between consenting adults? Ive heard many atheist scientists utterly stumble on such questioning. This was a cake walk with softball questions and no follow up.
Also the equivalency between needing "God for Objective morality is no different than needing God for laws of Mathematics to work" is such a false equivalency im surprised anyone with a mote of intellectual integrity would utter it. Is there no challenge here?
Belief in a god has no bearing on ethics. The biggest impediment to ethical behavior is adherence a religion like Christianity and Islam.
I dont understand the argument of believing in god leading to objective morality because even then, youre believing in a book and set of beliefs invented originally by humans.
If god had all the super powers needed to make the world in 6 days and take a siesta on the 7th he could have the super powers to make the laws of physics and everything else we normally think of as objective.
People who believe the bible is literally true believe that kind of thing is as true as objective truth even though they have different criteria.
Science seeks falsifiable relative truth, while religion seeks unfalsifiable absolute truth. It is foolhardy to discount absolute truth! Religion provides reason and framework for science. Evidence of God or ultimate reality is everywhere. It is the fundamental substance of the universe. Ethics is derived logically from the nature of this substance to give us the best life.
Lame
this guy is a crank
A statement like this should get anybody's attention, coming from him. Wow! 🩵✨🪻