Peter Singer - Non-Human Animal Ethics - EA Global Melbourne 2015
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2024
- Peter Singer discusses moral value of non-human animals - the history of moral progress around equality of human animals and how we ought to treat animals - from Judaism & Christianity to Aristotle to Bentham (father of modern utilitarianism). Singer highlights Benthan's view that the capacity for suffering/joy is the vital characteristic that entitles a being to moral consideration. He discusses why we should take non-human animal suffering seriously and what we can do to alleviate the suffering of non-human animals.
Slides are here: www.slideshare.net/adam_ford/...
Animal Liberation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_...
Peter paper 'SPECIESISM AND MORAL STATUS' where he convincingly rejects Speciesism: www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singe...
Abstract: "Many people believe that all human life is of equal value. Most of them also believe that all human beings have a moral status superior to that of nonhuman animals. But how are these beliefs to be defended? The mere difference of species cannot in itself determine moral status. The most obvious candidate for regarding human beings as having a higher moral status than animals is the superior cognitive capacity of humans. People with profound mental retardation pose a problem for this set of beliefs, because their cognitive capacities are not superior to those of many animals. I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans."
Plato.Stanford Entry on Moral Status of Animals: plato.stanford.edu/entries/mor...
Biography: Peter Singer is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, a position that he now combines with the position of Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Life You Can Save, The Point of View of the Universe and The Most Good You Can Do. In 2014 the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him third on its list of Global Thought Leaders, and Time has included him among the world’s 100 most influential people. An Australian, in 2012 he was made a Companion to the Order of Australia, his country’s highest civilian honour.
Many thanks for watching!
- Support me via Patreon: / scifuture
- Please Subscribe to this Channel: th-cam.com/users/subscription_cente...
- Science, Technology & the Future website: scifuture.org - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
If we are going to consider animals interests then we need to understand that sentient beings have an interest in wellbeing, in experiencing positive states. If you kill an animal, even without emotional suffering or physical pain. You are going against the interests of that animal. Unless the animal is in a period of prolonged and ceaseless suffering.
And I don't see why consequentialism is applied to animals in a way it would not be applied to humans. Humans have a fundamental set of rights, even humans of lower sentience and cognition. So why deny Animals Rights?
Predators increase biodiversity within there systems. Predatory animals interests also need to be considered. The unfortunate suffering and death of certain prey animals seems to create net value to all other sentient life within the system. Human carnivory seems to have the opposite effect, a loss of biodiversity, an unnecessary eating of the prey and a capacity for moral agency which exempts us from causing such suffering and death.
In my 2nd year in college, we emabrked on a field trip to few animals farms to see how the various farming systems is done pragmatically.. that's when I realized we humans are the worst slave masters. We fist stopped at a small pigsty where pigs were isolated from each other, well fed and then later sold for consumption. I could just feel the loneliness and sadness in the eyes of the animals especially the fact that the males were kept in solitary confinement and were only released for a day or two to mate with a female confined with her piglets. We visited birds farms that used the battery cage system for commercial farming and goodness... I couldn't believe the cruelty. The birds were debeaked, confined in small wired cages and fed for their eggs. They couldn't even turn their heads because the cages are designed such that they cannot move. At the exactly 6months, they are sold off and replaced with new birds.. and all they could blab about was the profit and stuff. After the trip, we had to write a report about what we saw and I did write on how the animals were cruelly treated just because they are not humans. The funny thing is no one gave a f*ck about it and even now, no one gives a f*ck about it.. because we are slave masters who only cares about our profits and selfish interest... That's how bad we humans are....
Well more and more people are becoming vegetarian or vegan, so I wouldn't say 'no-one gives a f***'. We're going in the right direction at least
@@alexgravelle164 Vegans still make up less than 1% of total population. For now, we're still at that point unfortunately
So many important questions! Love it!
I love how Peter has to wear a name tag. lol
I
I Respect Professor in Gary Franciioni!
I agree w/ Peter re; wild animal suffering as far as the present goes although I do think there will come a time for future generations when the animal rights movement should legitimately look at promoting intervention in the wild albeit maybe 80-100 years from now. As far as society and technology goes, animal liberation is the only feasible goal but a wonderful goal all the same. However perhaps a century from now when the vast majority if not all countries hopefully no longer treat non-human animals as property and when technology is far more advanced, it will be time to look at wild intervention as a more practical consideration. The proponents of it not, all the same are pioneers or early theorists at least, as Bentham was an early theorist for utilitarian thought including in relation to speciesism even if he didn't label it as such. I've thought that 100 years from now simulations of the wild will be so detailed that we could know with extraordinary accuracy whether our plans will work or not and how exactly to intervene in the wild in a way that doesn't have terrible side-effects and further we could have 'robotic prey' with lab-grown meat attached to them for predators such as Lions to hunt down but of course robots that are hopefully not conscious but at the least will not have the capacity to suffer in any form and that way Lions remain alive and satisfy their inner nature. As for prey it will be important to avoid a population explosion but how we achieve that without rights-violations is a difficult issue to solve. Incentives/disincentives may be the answer by altering their environment without directly acting upon them in any form to prevent over-population.
VERY LOVELY
There should be mention of Porphyry! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher)#Other_subjects
Stop the pain and suffering of ALL animals!
how?
@@Peter-iu3dh we can start by human induced pain and suffering
@@Sam-_- that's as good a start as it gets, totally on board
Should I renounce my human rights and wonder as a feral creature?
Traduzione prego.
It's not possible to kill an animal painlessly. That's not how the brain and pain recovers work.
If there's a human baby and a dog in a burning building I would go for the baby first. Is that wrong?
No that's wrong.But fortunately most humans don't need to make that choice.
its the idea of being speciesist, you prefer your species over others, same as how iuf you had children, youd prefer your childrne over other children if they were to die in the saem situation. Its inherently morally and ethically wrong,but its a entiment innate to all humans so dont feel too bad
I think the most important thing to take away from this presentation is that fact the Jeremy Bentham is the Quaker oats man.
lol
What is strange about that guy is..he is not even vegan or against animal-experimentation. A bit insulting to have his name linked to Animal Liberation when he supports the mass cruelty in dairy farming and animal experimentation.
Don't mix up his professional opinion with his personal life. Philosophy tries to reach the maximum of rationality, while the ways we behave in real life often are very far away from being rational.
@@zabaks123 Do as I say and not as I do. The problem is..highlighting him as a top animal rights person can lead people to believe dairy farming and animal experimentation are acceptable. I have heard him say in persom that animal experimentation works! Sorry he has a voice but lacks behind Animal Rights/Liberation by quite a long way.
Have you read animal liberation?
Hello. Can you explain what you mean about Singer not being vegan?
Can we please normalizing speakers sitting on a chair as they speak ? Why are old professors made to stand for the whole duration of their lectures ?
Great video! visit my channel, I'm sure you will enjoy it.
Looking like Yoda
Umm, err, ahh, there are are umm, things that, err, matter, and umm, uhh, that would, err, benefit us.
Man gives himself permission to steal and kill in the name of god
why to discriminate ourselves as a different animal, a lot of animals consumes other animal's meat in the wild (and inflict them pain in the process)
The fact that other animals do doesn't mean that we should. The difference is we understand the impact of our choices and have the ability to make the better one.
should we, by the same token, fed all carnivors in the world with a meat substitute in order to avoid their preys suffering? are we so responsible?
Bernardo Buffa If we had the intelligence, wisdom and technology to intervene without completely disrupting the ecosystem and causing the millions of consequently overpopulated prey to eventually starve to death than yes, we would have that responsibility.
Hi, Bernardo.
Carnivorous animals have to eat meat, otherwise they'll die. But we can choose not to eat meat and still have a healthy life.
I think if we eat meat, we are causing unnecessary pain.
We don't need to..we have a choice.
Go vegan!!!!!!!!!
The Bible does in no way promote the suffering of animals, but rather a sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of man/ Old Testament. New Testament Jesus Christ the Lamb of God slayed for the sins of humanity/ thus no more animal sacrifice required.
Also animals themselves inflict suffering to themselves and other animals for survival/to live, as do we for food not pleasure. That would be wrong.
animals kill other animals because they need to. We as humans have such an abundance of other foods that we dont need to. We also kill lots of animals for sport, further the way these animals are treated and mass produced is sickening and it makes us evil.
Totally worthless.
This man is probably the worst ever philosopher in the entire history of philosophy!
I assume you must have taken his class at Princeton, read all of his books and of course are a philosopher yourself. Tell me if I ams wong trev.
@@bobleonard7122 tevor*
sorry if you were trying to communicate with me; I missed it
How come? I mean dont agree with his idea that animals should be looked after as much as humans but he's not the worst.