If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
48:00 Interesting. I consider myself a strong ethical consequentialist, and yet I very much agree with Richard that our bodies (including brains) are best described as ecologies. The view that experiences (some of which are positively or negatively valenced in a morally relevant way) are more ontologically fundamental than persons, and that what we call individual persons are vague, derivative concatenations of experiences, is at the core of my consequentialism.
Agree, agree, and agree with Richard Twine! For once, I read the book before watching the video! :) And what-a-book! The entire time I was reading it, I was internally cheering... I very much agree with his remarks too, on transhumanism, specifically, as it relates to wildlife/the natural world. Thank you both so much for this conversation.
Biotechnology, it is about GMOs, right? 20:13 I don't know, it seems like there is a lot of people who otherize others, on a consistent bases as if it is just the way they experience the world, (I'm not saying that it's right). 24:04 As it stands, I think, humans are just as speciesist as all of the other animals, even though we humans have logic and reason and the ability to learn and create, so to speak, a new culture. 30:41 The formal morality, is right. 30:49 I think, deep down, popular culture knows, so to speak, that those "isms" are wrong. 35:26 The definition of veganism, as the Vegan Society defines it, speaks of seeking to exclude exploitation of and cruelty to animals. Why not exploit? Presumably because it is cruel. Why is it about the exclusion of cruelty? Because it is about the "animals". 35:42 Human health and the environment are consequential, NOT the reason for veganism. 48:07 I can't speak for humanism but, there is an individual EXPERIENCE of being, and this, the subject of a life, should be considered to be the "person". 49:42 Yes Jamie, and the "happy ground" is where the individual begins. 50:06 Because human beings are smarter than the nature/god that created the human right? 52:09 Enculturation.
50:20 although reducing suffering completely isn't possible I still think it's great if humans find a way to reduce predation if it means less chance for more vulnerable beings to suffer, if it's possible.
48:48 If there ever was a reality, it would be the one that you experience in this present moment. In the truest sense, the one who experiences, the EXPERIENCER, would be the spacious consciousness of which there is this experience. It is the one that is behind your own eyes and beneath your nerves. This formless ghost, so to speak, is the true you, the true individual. It resides within your body throughout your life. And it is safe to say, that it is within the other too, non-human and human. This one is the same within you and me, non-human or human. You and I are the same, such is empathy. Feeling gives meaning to our lives and our eyes serve that. In the truest sense, if there ever was an individual, it would be the subject of a life, the one in the midst of your pleasures and pains and behind your own eyes. The space that holds the stars could be in representation of this, oneness. We need legal protections for our prized lives so we can feel safe and finish our stories.
35:20 Someone can eat a plant-based diet for environmental reasons, and because then, they may have less investment in violence unto other animals, that then may make it easier to question the cruelty that they're involved in, and so then it may be said that someone came to veganism because of environmental concerns, but no one can, accurately, be said to be vegan solely for environmental reasons, this is because veganism is solely about animals, by definition. The definition of veganism, as the Vegan Society defines it, speaks of seeking to exclude exploitation of and cruelty to animals. Why not exploit? Presumably because it is cruel. Why is it about the exclusion of cruelty? Because it is about the "animals". 35:42 Human health and the environment are consequential, NOT the reason for veganism.
Yeah, lots to do - end capitalism, quit anthropocentrism, adopt a sentientist world view (hopefully not in that order). I don't see capitalism as particularly anthropocentric. It's exploitative money-grubbing - commodification - for its own sake. Corporates have a certain disdain for the so-called customers, and often collude to exploit them. And self-centrism and group-centrism (anthropocentrism) is probably not bad in-of-itself (think loner animals, or herd or schooling animals). But if you combine capitalism and anthropocentrism you get an almost insect-like dynamic (think termites or ants who chase pheromones). That is what makes us particularly nasty. Worse still: We can thrive on hate and disdain (think misothery, think Trump and co.) Compassion is in there somewhere, but maybe only as a last resort fail-safe. Is that statement in itself disdainful? Yes, but seeing it is the first step in controlling it. There is a Nazi in all of us, and the Nazis felt they had compassion. They did, somewhere in there...🙄
If you prefer audio, here are the links to the Sentientism podcast: 🍎apple.co/391khQO 👂pod.link/1540408008. Ratings, reviews & sharing with friends all appreciated. You're helping normalise "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings" sentientism.info. Everyone is welcome in our online communities - come join us: facebook.com/groups/sentientism.
Looking forward to watching this
Thanks Louis - hope you enjoy - suspect you'll find a bit to disagree with in this one :)
👶
@@Sentientism
😆 🤣 😂 You're know me well!!
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
👶 🫂
48:00 Interesting. I consider myself a strong ethical consequentialist, and yet I very much agree with Richard that our bodies (including brains) are best described as ecologies. The view that experiences (some of which are positively or negatively valenced in a morally relevant way) are more ontologically fundamental than persons, and that what we call individual persons are vague, derivative concatenations of experiences, is at the core of my consequentialism.
Agree, agree, and agree with Richard Twine! For once, I read the book before watching the video! :) And what-a-book! The entire time I was reading it, I was internally cheering... I very much agree with his remarks too, on transhumanism, specifically, as it relates to wildlife/the natural world. Thank you both so much for this conversation.
Thanks Erika - glad you enjoyed our conversation - and Richard's amazing book too.
Has anyone here read "The Buddhist and the Ethicist"? I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Not yet. Have you seen our (sometimes challenging) interview with Peter Singer here? th-cam.com/video/1Q6NCSFYtb0/w-d-xo.html
Love these videos.
Thank you! I’m so lucky to have these conversations - and to have you watch.
Biotechnology, it is about GMOs, right? 20:13 I don't know, it seems like there is a lot of people who otherize others, on a consistent bases as if it is just the way they experience the world, (I'm not saying that it's right). 24:04 As it stands, I think, humans are just as speciesist as all of the other animals, even though we humans have logic and reason and the ability to learn and create, so to speak, a new culture. 30:41 The formal morality, is right. 30:49 I think, deep down, popular culture knows, so to speak, that those "isms" are wrong. 35:26 The definition of veganism, as the Vegan Society defines it, speaks of seeking to exclude exploitation of and cruelty to animals. Why not exploit? Presumably because it is cruel. Why is it about the exclusion of cruelty? Because it is about the "animals". 35:42 Human health and the environment are consequential, NOT the reason for veganism. 48:07 I can't speak for humanism but, there is an individual EXPERIENCE of being, and this, the subject of a life, should be considered to be the "person". 49:42 Yes Jamie, and the "happy ground" is where the individual begins. 50:06 Because human beings are smarter than the nature/god that created the human right? 52:09 Enculturation.
Thanks for watching and for your thoughtful comments
50:20 although reducing suffering completely isn't possible I still think it's great if humans find a way to reduce predation if it means less chance for more vulnerable beings to suffer, if it's possible.
48:48 If there ever was a reality, it would be the one that you experience in this present moment. In the truest sense, the one who experiences, the EXPERIENCER, would be the spacious consciousness of which there is this experience. It is the one that is behind your own eyes and beneath your nerves. This formless ghost, so to speak, is the true you, the true individual. It resides within your body throughout your life. And it is safe to say, that it is within the other too, non-human and human. This one is the same within you and me, non-human or human. You and I are the same, such is empathy. Feeling gives meaning to our lives and our eyes serve that. In the truest sense, if there ever was an individual, it would be the subject of a life, the one in the midst of your pleasures and pains and behind your own eyes. The space that holds the stars could be in representation of this, oneness.
We need legal protections for our prized lives so we can feel safe and finish our stories.
35:20 Someone can eat a plant-based diet for environmental reasons, and because then, they may have less investment in violence unto other animals, that then may make it easier to question the cruelty that they're involved in, and so then it may be said that someone came to veganism because of environmental concerns, but no one can, accurately, be said to be vegan solely for environmental reasons, this is because veganism is solely about animals, by definition. The definition of veganism, as the Vegan Society defines it, speaks of seeking to exclude exploitation of and cruelty to animals. Why not exploit? Presumably because it is cruel. Why is it about the exclusion of cruelty? Because it is about the "animals". 35:42 Human health and the environment are consequential, NOT the reason for veganism.
Yeah, lots to do - end capitalism, quit anthropocentrism, adopt a sentientist world view (hopefully not in that order).
I don't see capitalism as particularly anthropocentric. It's exploitative money-grubbing - commodification - for its own sake. Corporates have a certain disdain for the so-called customers, and often collude to exploit them.
And self-centrism and group-centrism (anthropocentrism) is probably not bad in-of-itself (think loner animals, or herd or schooling animals). But if you combine capitalism and anthropocentrism you get an almost insect-like dynamic (think termites or ants who chase pheromones). That is what makes us particularly nasty.
Worse still: We can thrive on hate and disdain (think misothery, think Trump and co.) Compassion is in there somewhere, but maybe only as a last resort fail-safe. Is that statement in itself disdainful? Yes, but seeing it is the first step in controlling it. There is a Nazi in all of us, and the Nazis felt they had compassion. They did, somewhere in there...🙄