Talking Animal Ethics with Peter Singer | Within Reason #31
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Get 30% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/cosmicskeptic
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher often credited as the father of the modern animal rights movement.
- LINKS
Purchase Animal Liberation Now: amzn.to/450BB3e
Peter Singer's upcoming speaking tour:
New York: events.humanitix.com/peter-si...
Washington DC: events.humanitix.com/peter-si...
LA: www.ticketmaster.com/event/09...
San Fransisco: events.humanitix.com/peter-si...
London: hackneyempire.co.uk/whats-on/...
Virtual Event: events.humanitix.com/peter-si...
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Introduction
2:39 How things have changed since 1975
7:51 Does welfarism prevent animal liberation?
19:16 Exploitation or suffering?
24:48 Why is Peter Singer a "flexible vegan"?
34:00 Raising animals "humanely" before killing them
50:10 Am I immoral for buying cocktails?
56:40 Is there a clear line to draw in vegan ethics?
1:03:25 Peter Singer's upcoming speaking tour and outro
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 3 // FNC vs FUT | EDG vs PRX](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pw2T5v0ogDI/mqdefault.jpg)
Get 30% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here:
www.blinkist.com/cosmicskeptic
Wish I knew when this interview was done?
And yes, I will use it again you or not, according to the date 📆 (this IS the date today for example)
Well then, thanks in advance 💚🌿
Argh... But you never answer do you, I wouldn't either, there's to many here, where to begin and stop, I get it... anyways I asked at least...
When are you going to publish and sell books and articles alex?
Man I came across your video about being an atheist. I really do hope you find God. He is real and he has stopped time and spoken to me on 2 occasions. I’m telling you their is a creator. This is just to build our soul. Their is an afterlife
@@davidbarnes4742 "He is real and he has stopped time and spoken to me on 2 occasions." If you are hearing voices, maybe you need to see a brain doctor and get some brain medicine.
@@davidbarnes4742😂
Singer made me study philosophy, he made me change my life habits, he made the world a better place on the basis of argument, he's kind of my hero.
same
Don't ask him what he thinks about murdering babies
@@gascogne He doesn't defend that killing babies is particularly morally good, he doesn't encourage people to do it. But in cases where we know that the quality of life of the baby is going to be bad for him, he thinks it is permissible to commit infanticide. I'm not saying I agree, it's an issue I haven't really read about, but I don't think that's a position that makes him a bad philosopher or an immoral person.
@@maximeberthiaume9943 when you end up deciding that animals are more valuable than human babies you’re a bit lost
@@gascogne He's a utilitarian, he believes infanticide if okay just if we know the life of the baby will be bad for him. He would say the same about the life of any sentient being.
I'm glad you're continuing to talk about the concept of animal rights and how we treat them today.
yes! i had to do a double take when i saw the title
bro dahel d'yall expect him to do 🤦
I mean Peter Singer himself has sorta being doing that for a while, it be what it be eh 🤷♂️
yeah I'm glad too, because I was worried when he stopped the whole vegan thing. Just waiting for a video to explain why now.
@@wayfa13 I think he did explain, maybe on a tweet or something. Had to do with diet issues because he has IBS, and he started eating some animal products that dont cause his stomach too much stress. IIRC fish and some other things. He didnt suddenly start buying giant steaks and bacon.
@@carljonsson2647 ah ok so now he's just a hypocrite who used to believe in Animal Rights. Sorry, I'm just really disappointed, but not as disappointed as the other animals would be if they knew /shrug.
My grandson recommended this chat. I’ve been vegan for many years mainly due to ethics and reducing the suffering of animals. The conversation with Mr. Singer was very interesting and thought provoking.
More conversations on Ethics and Morality please. Professor Peter Singer is amazing! He has a consistent and rational meta-ethical framework which he then applies to practical ethics.
He may be consistent, but admitting that you see no moral problem with eating certain humans who have been bred specifically to be eaten feels like an ad absurdum and indicates that pure utilitarianism is not a desirable basis of morality.
@@hareecionelson5875 imo, the other route just leads you to Antinatalism. To say that non existence was better than net positive life is essentially antinatalist position and at the very least, that is also not very intuitive to me.
I think Alex was right in pointing out that you have to let go of some intuition as pointed by Derek Parfitt and Professor Singer also agreed to it. I think that is why meta ethical framework is important and i think singer has thought through all of this very carefully.
@@AkshatSharma-qx9wh Breeding someone into existence with the purpose of taking away their sentience against their will is nothing like anti-natalism.
At least someone who genuinely does not want to exist has the possibility of suicide, difficult as it may be, and undesirable as it may be for others. Someone bred to be killed does not get to choose to live.
@@hareecionelson5875 There are an infinite amount of moral thought experiments, many of which will give rise to intuitions that fly in the face of utilitarianism. However, most if not all of said thought experiments tend to be completely divorced from reality and the actual moral dilemmas we find ourselves having to deal with, and are therefore not worth worrying about. That particular thought experiment is one of them. Why should I give up a perfectly good normative theory which explains most of my real-world moral intuitions, such as utilitarianism; just because of some idiosyncratic fairy tales (such as killing a sentient being without causing suffering) that will basically never actually happen in real life?
@@irish_deconstruction Then you admit to being inconsistent, and therefore illogical, and therefore why should a sceptic accept your interpretation of morality. By what metric do you decide against the ad absurdum, other than emotion?
What a refreshing channel to discover. Love the environment of challenging respectfully- true discussion is so fruitful and inspiring.
Thank you for bringing us this discussion. Love Peter Singers thoughtfulness. He always makes me think.
I'd love an essay or short video explaining the argument and what you were unconvinced by.
@@jackistooloud wonder if he meant the points about killing humanely raised animals for food. He challenged PS a lot on this view.
@@LisaKeamy I mean, Peter Singer basically said that he can't say there's anything wrong with raising humans to then kill them humanely at 18yo for food. I feel like most people would disagree with that, Alex included it seems.
@@LisaKeamy The point is that once that person exists, it becomes immoral to kill them. That does not change no matter who does the killing, be it humans or gods.
I believe rasing animals to eat is a betrayal. To yourself and the animals. We wouldn't do the same with a cat or dog. It's a cultural issue. Once their is not necessary to eat animals we start thinking about ethics
It's not hard to understand. Peter thinks murder is okay and his excuses are illogical.
i read a lot of peter singer for college, i'm glad now video recordings like this also exist, to make his ideas more accessible to all :)
Yeah, Peter Singer really is the king of accessible philosophy. I think it comes from his philosophy of effective altruism, which leads him to try and convince the average person, rather than gatekeep with jargon.
Brilliant interview and I loved how Alex really interrogated and probed Singer’s views. The fact such Alex can really put one of the leading moral philosophers to the test like that is so impressive. You need to get Shelly Kagan on regarding similar topics on animal ethics. Outside of Singer, I’d say Kagan is up there as one of the major forces in moral philosophy.
His point is clear throughout the whole thing, and can be summarized into one simple phrase:
"Strive for better"
Very reasonable. Hard to dispute.
Very easy to dispute. What is better? Why? And no, I dont think I will. Now what :)?
@@zephyrus3554 well, ha I think his philosophy is clear on that too, he's a pretty standard utilitarian, and there you have your answers
@Ryan Lalonde I'd much rather put my faith in GOD!!!! Gee Oh Dee, GOD! I've never met him, and he's done some really jerk things in the past (apparently), but I'm STILL putting my faith in G O D GOD!
Alex seems to be too insistent on 100% perfection ethics. Not a general principle of betterment of the world.
@Ryan Lalonde True that. Unacceptable. When will he get challenged on that?
The question: "would you rather live a good life and die an early death or never have existed at all", seems to be a deceptive question.
Who is the "you" in this question?
If "you" refers to the person who does not exist yet then the answer is neither as a non existent person does not have the ability to prefer anything.
If the "you" is the person who already exists then they do not have the ability to have never existed given that they currently exist. Meaning they only really have 1 option, live a good life and die an early death, but that's no choice at all.
What are people thoughts?
Yeah, I think utilitarianism just ignores the individual aspect of morality a lot. He isn't thinking about the animal or person that gets that choice made for them; he's thinking about whether making the decision to bring an individual into existence for that purpose is immoral. I guess it presumes that existence is morally preferable to non existence, which doesn't seem like a rational thing to believe because of what you just wrote. A non existent person doesn't have a preference about whether they want to exist or not. The only people that have that preference for more people in existence are people who are already in existence. I think it's a dubious claim to make that it's better that there are more people/animals in existence. It seems more important to me that those who do exist right now are having as good a life as possible. What is important to me isn't that the number of good experiences is maximized and that the number of bad experiences are minimized in aggregate. For the current population size that would be a utilitarian optimization I can get behind i.e. maximizing the number of good experiences and minimizing the number of bad experience per capita. Having your life ended way earlier than natural doesn't seem like a good experience whether or not you see it coming or how it's done. That isn't optimizing per capita, but in aggregate. This isn't to say there aren't solid reasons for wanting a larger population size, but if the reason is you really want to taste the flesh of another person, then that seems like a terrible reason.
Fantastic discussion! Especially near the end of the video, the discussion around the topic of, "always being able to do better," is a very challenging one!
Peter Singer is fantastic. Thank you both!
Thank you for continuing to have important conversations about animal suffering 💚
Alex, out of all the episodes of your podcast i enjoyed your previous conversation with Peter Singer the most. Before having watched your second exchange with him i want to express how much i value "Within Reason"! Thanks so much for giving us access to such insightful philosophical discussions!!!
Grateful for your work, keep it up 🌞
Can’t believe you got one of your favorite philosophers on! Great conversation so far.
Why not? He already did an episode with him before you know
I really respect Singer as a philosopher because he didn’t appear to have a dismissive, visceral emotional reaction to your hypothetical human-farms, but instead really tried to find arguments against a practice which results in no distress, suffering nor pain. It’s not the easiest task for a debater, without resorting to the obvious “are you crazy?” stuff, but one thing he could have touched on more, is how it’s clearly obvious from an evolutionary perspective why we are more sensitive to violence towards our own species than others. In the same way we react worse to adult pigs being tortured than 12-hour old chicks being killed without really understanding anything of what’s going on.
Of course, people who believe in Divine Command Theory and whatnot will think I’m insanely reductionist, but Singer seemed to agree morality is an evolved mechanism, I would just like to hear more.
Agreed, thanks for highlighting this.
this is the first episode of the podcast that im interested in
Agreed
not the first episode with peter singer?
that's not even the first episode with Singer. I guess you mean the first episode that has been released to YT. Also it's weird to flaunt the fact that you're only able to listen to people you agree with.
read some of animal liberation in college. really opened my eyes on the issue and i really enjoyed yalls conversation.
Singer doesn't even advocate for animal rights. He sinks into the madness of utilitarianism...
44:05 I learned speciesism from Terry Pratchett. In Feet of Clay he uses golems that are created via magic and used as slave labor to analyze. Pretty good read!
Would love to hear you have a conversation with Bernardo Kastrup, first half about the incoherence of physicalist ontology, second half about why analytical idealism is more parsimonious and has more explanatory power.
Wonderful discussion. Peter Singer is one of my intellectual heroes, and it's really exhilarating to see him being challenged by such a capable interviewer and philosopher yourself :). Thanks, keep it up!
Alex you misunderstood the driving analogy. It’s irrelevant if there’s a consistency between how we treat animals and how we treat humans. That’s not the point of the analogy.
The point of the analogy is that we make exceptions for how we treat human life based on convenience. But that doesn’t mean we get to now breed humans and kill them intentionally for food, or that human exploitation or suffering is now permissible. In the same way, incidental crop deaths, or defence of crops deaths, does not open a can of worms where the exploitation and suffering that occurs on animal farms is now justified.
There are ways that by us merely existing we cause harm to humans, and even death to humans, by participating in certain systems set in place. So by the anti vegan crop death argument, we should be allowed to exploit and harm humans for pleasure or convenience as well. But that just doesn’t follow does it.
Great to see you engage in another intelligent discussion with such an impressive thinker! Singer is an inspiration! Someone in the thread recommended Shelly Kagan. If you could get him on to talk about his new book 'Answering Moral Skepticism', that'd be another coup!
I think it’s better to not bring a being into existence if you’re gonna kill them prematurely. There just seems something wrong about taking someone’s life against their will. Bizarrely Singer doesn’t seem to think animals want to go on living (like he admits humans do).
I can see why you'd think that bringing a being into existence just to kill them is bad for you, but I don't really see why it's bad from their viewpoint. If we assume that we are in fact living in such a scenario and that I am one of those who has been brought into being for that purpose ( and that I am unaware that this is the case) then I am sure that I n my own case I would prefer to have lived than not. If the question is about you ,then perhaps you are right but why should it be about you rather than me?
@@tamjammy4461So in that scenario it woul be okay to kill you?
@@tamjammy4461 Because that hypothetical being isn't involved in the decision. They cannot consent, and your view of your own life being worthwhile cannot be applied to them.
@@BronsontheNomad Why does YOUR life matter?
@Bronson the Nomad This kind of question leads to holocausting the mentally disabled. They're philisophically the same as non-humans.
My personal takeaway is: when we clearly can do better, please make the effort.
This applies to everything, IMHO. 👍
It doesn’t help that most people act in bad faith.
Almost every single omnivore around me I’ve talked to has simultaneously developed IBS at the same time, and they all happen to believe that IBS gives them a complete pass to ignore all vegan arguments.
@@xenoblad Even if it were true the harm caused by buying animal products would still be much worse.
I had a discussion about Singer’s paper from the 1970s this morning with my friend, only for this to appear. Thanks for reading my mind, Alex.
34:50 - I think David Benatar's Better Never To Have Been / The Human Predicament has good reasoning as to why it's wrong to bring them into existence in the first place.
Yeah, the idea that it would be actively good for them to come into existence is absurd to me
Alex has read Better Never To Have Been and interviewed David Benatar, and I was also thinking the same thing. Maybe he didn't mention it because it would have gone in a direction he didn't want to go in
Agree that if elimination of suffering is superior to the reduction of it then singers needs to face off with benatar
Or Schopenhauer or zappfe for that matter
I really don't. Discounting the potential good still feels like a sleight of hand, regardless of how many times explains it
Alex asks questions that I myself was itching to ask. I'm so thankful that he pushed the issue of "humane" killing.
I’m surprised that no one seems to bring up the novel Never Let Me Go, when discussing the hypothetical situation of humans being raised for meat and killed at a young age. If you haven’t read it, it’s a fantastic novel (not so much about ethical philosophy but more about human life, meaning, and love).
Really good talk you had! I laughed at the incredulous look on your face when Singer was talking about his tolerance of flexitarians eating meat in Paris. You did a good job at getting a clarification of his position like with the term 'exploitation,' pressing him on potential weaknesses of his view like biting the bullet of 'harm requires making one worse off,' and I think it was a very productive conversation overall.
To me, it seems like utilitarianism doesn't have a particularly clear ethical standard beyond absolute perfection, but I like how Singer seems to say that the standard we should have is basically any ethical improvement to the social norms at the time. Even this has problems I think, but it makes for a fairly tolerant brand of utilitarianism which is just nice to see. It beats the alternative of an utterly unattainable perfection that anyone would go crazy trying to achieve.
I'm looking forward to all your future conversations on the show! And it's great how frequently they come out!
Singer is a hypocrite. He is a reducitarian.
The cocktails gives you happiness and creativity which makes you produce great ideas/solutions that save more people than that money.
Great conversation!
The situation described at the 40 minute mark is roughly the same as the scenario described in the movie "The Island" where human clones are raised having a good life and then harvested when their original copies required something like an organ or a child surrogate.
Edit: some other movies with related plots.
- "Never Let Me Go"
- "Level 16"
- "The Promised Neverland"
Great movie.
Or the promised neverland
Oh yes Never Let me Go was a similar premise but it was this school rather than an island. Very depressing
@@ConceptHut it’s probably the best Michael Bay movie (tied with The Rock).
Thanks for sharing these movies everyone!
"To harm you we must have made you worse off then you otherwise would have been."
Given this rejoinder from Singer towards the end, unless I'm mistaken this would permit dictatorship. If a dictator earnestly believed they could improve your life (hence leave you better off than if they didn't subjugate you) they'd be justified in doing so. They'd be doing you a great service.
I mean, wasn't this a key justification of imperialism? I'm getting "greater good" theodicy vibes here.
If so, this bullet might break a few more teeth when bitten then is immediately obvious. Great convo, cheers!
A dictatorship from an all knowing and competent being that maximized the wellbeing of everyone in its care would be an ideal outcome.
The obvious reason we don't like dictatorships is the bad historical track record. And the reasons they haven't worked are also not surprising. Humans are incredibly flawed and lacking in sufficient knowledge to know how to distinguish good choices from bad ones. And also the bad incentive structure inherent in dictatorships.
The ends DO justify the means, but only if you're all knowing. Otherwise it's best to follow some deontological rules that have been time tested. This seems like the best we can do at the moment from a consequentialist point of view.
It would entail that a dictatorship would harm people if it causes them to be worse off than they otherwise would have been. I'm not sure if you're saying it entails something other than this?
You helped me a lot to master Critical thinking skills.
Thanks a lot.
Good job Alex!
Excellent discussion/interview!! Good job Alex!! Killing kills potential, wish that was brought up.
mr singers mic is so wholesome
Lol
He's a gamer
Great to see the two of you having another discussion. I am rereading Singer's The Most Good You Can Do, which inspired my latest book about effectively reducing animal suffering. I have The Life You Can Save and Animal Liberation on my desk as well. Though I struggle to get on board with all of the utilitarian principles, many of which Singer subscribes to, Singer has nonetheless been quite the inspiration for to me to embrace morally consistent behaviors. Listening to your conversation now....
Alex, consider the following possibility: The cocktails with friends give you an outlet that enables you to earn more money, which ultimately increases your capacity to give charity. And aside from the outlet, perhaps you'll cultivate a connection that ultimately earns you more money and gives you such a capacity. (Pehaps all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, and dull boys do less good.) Similarly, even if you grew out your beard you'd need to trim it (at an expense) to prevent looking dissheveled, a condition that would result in lower earnings and, again, a lower capacity for giving charity. Some things have utility in the long term if not in the short one.
That end was a knife in the heart for him in the end
I’m unconvinced by your arguments
keep up the great work Alex. Would love to see more conversations about ethics.
I was shocked with how tasty airplane vegan food is. Just explicitly state vegan when booking the tickets and again on arrival to the staff in the plane to make sure they got your previous note. There's NO need to contribute to the exploitation, enslavement and murder of individuals for their flesh or secretions.
Exploitation tho enslavement tho murder tho flesh tho secretions tho
Nice buzzwords still no arguments
@@Assassin99584 I feel bad that your parents failed and you ended up a Nazi-minded slave advocate . Oppression and slavery are wrong, despite you arguing they're good
Added bonus - you get your food before everyone else!
@@Assassin99584 the purpose of his comment was not to provide an argument.
@@HT-rq5pi I've never provided an argument in my life
I read his book "the most good you can do". Life changing
Great video !
Glad to see you talking about animal ethics again
It would be great to hear you in dialogue with Coleman Hughes as your both graduates of philosophy with high viewing figures on TH-cam
You're a real power house in debate Alex. I think you and Peter differ most on the totality of an ethical frameworks application to your life. Peter is mostly applying this to the biggest principals he sees and then trying to find workable solutions he finds ethically benefitial. Alex really enjoys the depth of the moral framework to see if it holds ethically consistent under all tests. I have probably misrepresented your actual views but its what i took. Its a brilliant discussion, I'm really enjoying the new podcast
i just love this podcast, thanks Alex
I think one should do both: demand better conditions for animals on farms and the abolition of animal exploitation. If it does not seem plausible that we will overcome the exploitation of animals in a short time, then at least we can make them have a better life, even if just a little bit. I do not see any problem in this at all.
Won’t happen if it’s not profitable though, money is what drives the machine - capitalists would treat humans the same way if it was legal and profitable. The solution is incentivizing investments into cruelty free plant based alternatives by hurting their bottom line enough to make a noticeable difference in gross profit. It can only work collectively.
@@breakingboundaries3950 Realistically, it is only those who are at least comfortably off in the world (who live mostly in 'first-world' countries) who'll be able to shift to a vegan diet and make it work, and those people don't come close to constituting everyone in 'the first world', much less the entire world.
Bear in mind that higher welfare for animals means more land which normally means Best carbon sink prevention (e.g. in the UK that would be natural forest) which means more climate change and resulting suffering for animals and humanity. That's aside from the horror of slaughterhouses, failed stuns, psychosis in workers etc, and for dairy it's practically impossible to do this in a morally acceptable manner, especially if profit is to be made. The nearest that comes to it would be some traditional Indian scenarios but even there the cows are tied up to be pretty much raped in order to make milk. However, if laws are introduced to increase animal welfare, then the price will shoot up and it will just become the food for the rich who want to feel good about eating animal products.
@@spiral-m higher welfare for animals? What kind of welfare ends in death?
Alex this is amazing. One note: I think your example of human farming would have been stronger had you used the scenario of never let me go where humans are cloned and used for organ donation. That would still be an hypothetical but it’s a much more believable scenario over cannibalism.
Hypotheticals don't need to be believable though, just logically possible.
@@henrywalton5967 They don't need to be, but Singer still used that as an excuse to dodge the question.
I listened to this in podcast form today and came here to leave this exact comment. Yes, hypotheticals can be useful for driving a point, but when possible it is best to make the hypothetical as realistic as possible to make it harder to dodge the implication by claiming the scenario is too ridiculous.
I’m still pretty new to hearing the actual arguments of animal ethics. Definitely raised pretty far on the other side. Will listen with an open mind! Thanks to both of you for this conversation.
Don't listen to this then. Go watch actual vegan and animal rights content. Neither of these man believe in animal rights and have openly stated as such.
Its a moral argument. Ethics can only happen between equals. For it to be an ethical argument you would have to consider animals as equals. If you aren't ready to grant them the right to vote and right to own, than it can't be ethics
I Just wanna make a little correction about the Kantian quote: Kant says always treat the other, as a end in himself and never as MERE mean to end. So yes, you can use people as a means, but what Kant said it wasn't about using as mean, but to use as .MERE means.
Singer has such a well considered position. He gets mocked so much of the time by people who either misunderstand him or misrepresent him. But he's always willing to give the hard answers to the hard questions.
Have a podcast with Dr Avi Bitterman
Hey Alex, did you say on twitter the streamer Destiny was going to be on the podcast? Best wishes.
Now that would be a very interesting conversation depending on what the topics involved were and where the conversation got steered.
Yes Alex make this happen.
I watch Destiny regularly and I remember him saying the podcast was recorded. Alex has yet to publish it, it seems.
Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing Alex talk to vaush, I really can't stand the dude and I think he's full of a lot of rhetoric but he is well-spoken and he certainly not stupid and I think again depending on the conversation where that's steered and what they were talking about could be quite interesting.
@@skeptischism1324 I agree, Alex should definitely get Vaush on the pod if he's having Destiny on. Although I fear neither discussion will amount to anything philosophically substantial, I still think they'd be entertaining though.
All I keep thinking about is the movie The Island...
Trying to apply their thought process to that movie is shockingly terrifying!
Learned about Mr. Singer in my POV 101 class in university and I instantly found his philosophy very interesting and considered it when developing my own ethical philosophy
What is your own ethical philosophy?
@@aaronclarke1434 Conamorism
@@justforfunlol2258 lovely, wonderful, but way too many syllables even for me😂
@@justforfunlol2258 😏
It seems that Alex have forgot that more animals are killed by produsing meat than eating plants directly. It will never be perfect, but thats a pretty clear line that is avoiding most animal suffering, comapred to not having that line, in an easy to understand ethical and practical way.
He is fully aware of that, he's simply pointing out that there is a lot of inconsistency within veganism when it comes to drawing red lines in some cases but not in others. Most vegans view killing one chicken to eat as morally reprehensible but see little issue with the person who over-consumes plants, even though they know it involves excess crop death.
I agree with your point that having a red line is better and more practical than not having one, but i think it would be helpful to acknowledge that the line isn't always consistent.
@@jw-ob1wv while we are purposely killing trillions of Marine animals annually; breeding and killing 80 billion land animals annually; killing about 7.3 billion wild animals via crop deaths most of which are due to animal ag; it seems a bit odd to speak of what, a fraction of an incidental crop death due to “extra plant consumption” one might indulge in? We’re speaking about growing plants which isn’t inherently violent or cruel, and doesn’t cause any death in fact in the Jains methods of removing all worms before harvesting plants, to purposely bringing a life into existence via forced impregnating and exploitation, only to slit their throat. We’re also talking about the trauma and desensitization that goes along with Inflicting violence and harm purposely onto vulnerable, defenseless, and innocent beings, which we see in slaughterhouse work. What is that doing to us. We would never bring that up in human terms- I might as well just kill one human purposely for meat, cause Humans die in car accidents anyways. Or even dogs. Imagine in the west someone “just killed one puppy” for dinner, but vegans “are not consistent” if they have an issue with it, cause puppies die in other scenarios that aren’t inherently cruel. Humans die in industry that provide us with goods all the time, we don’t use that as justification to throw human rights out the Window, nor should we throw animal rights out the window.
So, How about we respect the bodily autonomy of everyone, not engage in inherently violent and intentional behavior, and do our best to grow the food that we *need*- and not knit pick about someone consuming some “extra plant calories” as if it’s some sort of justification for the largest Holocaust to ever take place
@@jw-ob1wv That line is consistent. Thats why i use it. To move further just result in fringe cases soon bordering hypotetical. Again, its a clear line leaving most of the suffering behind, without spending a lot of time discussing cases with no etichal, practical or sosial value. It is part of the problem that we spend so much time arguing those cases. The intuition test where a man unconsius got his toe hurt by force to save the mans child are ridicoulus. The probability for that and simelar to happen in real life are microscopic. How many have to get exploitet for one of those to acure? And thas only how we get food. What about all the rest of our choises? Should we do the same for every part of our life. It will only lead to inabillity to act, for ever ruminating over endless hypoteticals, gray erya and paradoxes.
@@jw-ob1wv I am speaking as someone who believes we should only take what we need. For multiple reasons like limited resources, harm to earth and animals, and just a matter of health. But I think our route should be to advocate for the end of needless violence and exploitation full stop, and we can also have a conversation around eating too much as well, but not use it as a justification for intentional violence, or calling “hypocrisy” on those trying to end needless, intentional, and inherent violence.
@@seanogorman3617 On that we agree.
I think utilitarianism should involve, as Singer mentioned, considering the consequences of upholding a rule. for example, if we require of everyone to eat only to a caloric maintenance, we might create a standard which favors a particular definition of caloric maintenance that ends up being unachievable for some people, enshrining non-intuitive eating, diet culture, & fatphobia, & perpetuating more suffering than we prevent
I think there is also an inherent negative utility in coercion, which helps me to arrive at the intuitive conclusion of human farming being immoral. if a being is only able to exist under extreme coercion, I think it would be better to have not been brought into existence at all. to uphold coercion by giving a being such an existence is to assume that you are able to decide the best interest of another being w/out their consent
Also what people don't realize is that there are 2 types of luxuries. There are luxuries can can be served as "investments" and luxuries that aren't. A computer or a phone is a luxury, but if you use it to grow a brand, business or combat on real world issues then the luxury is justified and it's impractical to remove them. Luxuries that don't serve as investments like expensive cars or sneakers that you are using (decrease in value) are not justified. But it could also be the case that you are for example a "luxury car tester" or "sponsored to use expensive clothes" in which you gain more than lose from them and you could use that increase in fame or money to reach more people in need, but then it becomes an "investment" to help people.
Only you really know what you spend money on that you could be better off without or use less of.
We should thereby reduce all luxuries in a PRACTICAL sense because not doing so disrespects the people born with close to zero opportunity to thrive in this world.
This is amazing. I never thought I would see a worse non-vegan than Alex but he somehow managed to find one. Truly remarkable.
I like that you pushed him on the utilitarian reductios. I think it's pretty clear at this point that utilitarianism isn't a viable ethical theory.
Yep. I mean, enslaving and mass murdering handicapped people under the caveat of "good conditions / net positive tho" (which seems to be his position) is just disgusting.
@@donaldanderson6578 Absolutely. It needs to be combined with a deontoligcal/rights based theory as well at the very least to be a justifiable universal ethical framework.
Alex please interview Graham Smith from Republic campaign 🙏. He's the leader of a republican pressure group in the UK. The biggest one in the UK and the one's who coined the "not my king" slogan said at the anti coronation protests
The conversation about 40mins in reminded me of the problems posed in Ishiguro’s novel “never let me go”
Is it any good?
Am looking for a couple novels to read during my vacations.
@@andresdubon2608 yes, highly recommended!
@@andresdubon2608 I dunno if it's a good vacation read. It's a very sad story.
It is insane to me that someone who once reproached themself for buying a razor is now paying for the abuse and murder of innocent beings. Alex does seem conflicted though, so hopefully he reconsiders his lifestyle choices. That being said, I'm glad that Alex pressed Singer throughout. The bullets he bit here are truly shocking and shows just how insidious welfarism is
Abuse tho murder tho innocent tho
Cope
@Assassin 9958 Always a pleasure chatting with ya buddy
@@TheVeganVampire I see you still have no arguments in favour of veganism
Hey you should listen to the podcast, this singer dude is quite smart
''Innocent beings''
38:00 I am legitimately shocked at what Singer has just said. The fathers of animals right..... And Alex of all people, with his struggles of veganism having to challenge his beliefs... I need a moment to lie down.
Yea I was quite shocked by this part too. He basically found himself in a corner and decided to use a weird meat-eater type argument, saying humans are just special and that’s why the analogy doesn’t translate.
I was just laughing as I ate my gyro
They're both creeps. Alex with his "oh, so hard to be vegan, poor me, I just can't" and Singer's insane pro-vivisection human supremacy.
It is hard to imagine what is right and wrong in a cannibalistic society when you have never lived in one, even for a philosopher like Peter Singer.
Maybe in a slightly different scenario, he would have given a different answer. For instance: Two parents having a second baby to be an organ donor to the oldest child. Does it really matter much how well this second baby is treated if it was born to die to save the life of the first child?
Would it have been better if they would make the second child not sentient by some intervention in the womb or later?
Or: How about human lab meat? We would not even have to kill a human to get a sample that we would then grow in a lab.
Clearly, the absolutes of right and wrong have a full spectrum in between.
@Bronson the Nomad Did God ever say anything clear about human lab meat? Is there anything in the Bible about cannibalistic societies? What about having a child to sacrifice for the other?
Do other religions/gods have the same answers to these questions?
I think that a big difference between humans and other animals is that animals are instictive. They care about how they are doing in the moment. Humans think about themselfs in the futere and in the past and have mental capability to disire more than well-being.
Great discussion!
Bruh...u didn't even watched the damn vdo
@@nayeemather1252 it wasn't posted then here
@@nayeemather1252 I am one of Alex's patreons.
@@irish_deconstruction Why are you paying him still? Yikes.
@@irish_deconstruction oh, thank u for the clarification.
Fascinating conversation, I'd be interested to hear where Alex differed from Peter and Alex's responses to Peter's points.
Likewise. He didn't seem to go into the great number of points where he was unconvinced.
47:48 I don't believe that having people raised for the sole purpose of killing them humanely later, while giving them "good life" is hypothetical at all, it is called human cloning. The movie 'Island' describes it well, including the moral dilemma. Clones are given good, albeit, ignorent life and deceitfully sent to a "paradise island", when the time comes to harvest their organs for the "originals'. The clones even blissfully celibrate that as winning in a lottery. If that's not immoral, I don't know what is. Alex, Petr, your thoughts?
interesting. The problem with hypotheticals concerning obscure and unlikely edgecases is that arguing them has the side effect of making it overall more unlikely that people consider veganism at all and so making those impossible edgecase arguments potentially responsible for increasing suffering.
Suffering.....
My ethics are suffering tremendously on behalf of the whole human race, because most don't understand that it's not only about the victims suffering, it's also about the suffering of our emphatic humanity, that we even think of reducing....
We simply just don't even have to go there, we just got to "behave rational/reasonable and nice" and leave the animals alone, period 🌿💚
Exactly, we should stop suppressing our empathy.
If not for the animals' sake then at least for our own.
All of Which, in the end, is fully based on your subjective morals. Its unrealistic and unreasonable to switch to veganism on a mass scale
It’s about individual intention.. which PS seems to completely miss in his reasoning and odd ‘flexibility’.
Not trying to argue or anything but what does this mean?
Great interview! You should have Cornel West on.
Why Cornel West (genuine question from someone who doesn't really know him that well)?
Peter's views on flexibility were very convincing. Don't know what Alex was talking about. Peter maintained throughout that there is always going to be more that can be done to be more ethical, so moderate steps leading to incremental change is still a good thing. Only a fundamentalist could disagree with that.
1:03:40 "As always, it was challenging and stimulating to talk to you". Is that a suble burn I'm feeling? :D
Is it true that you eat animals?
I'm 55 and stopped when I was 11 years old.
Does anyone know if Alex has reconsidered his veganism? Has he worked out his health issues to be able to do so? He us such a powerful influencer....it would be great to have him back.
He lives his life based on what he sees as ethical, if you consider him "lost" you may have some biases to confront.
@@critture Well, who doesn't? You could say the same thing about serial killers. Do you consider them lost?
@@critture is that bias? Or is that just "having an opinion"?
I don't think he's commented on it since he stopped being vegan. He probably won't, unless he knows he can fully commit (which is unlikely)
@@brixan... Keep in mind he never once said he stopped being vegan, that's what other people are saying. The only thing CosmicSkeptic has said is that he no longer practices a fully plant based diet. In the exact same way all vegans are not fully plant based in all possible aspects of their lifestyle
This is a talk worth the watch, contrary to the one Alex did with Mikhaila Peterson. I'm not sure if Alex has changed his views on animal rights or he's just displaying a narrative for the views, but he did very well pushing Singer's utilitarianism to the corner. The whole point of hypotheticals from an ethical perspective is to test one's moral consistency, which Singer failed miserably, reason why he resorted to blaming hypotheticals as a category. However, Alex was trait equalizing the animal scenario to the human scenario, so there was commensurability. There was no deception involved. The only deception is the person who pushed the idea of speciesm in his book being a speciest.
Singer is a madman. It can't be the same guy who wrote Animal Liberation....He doesn't even advocate for animal rights. What a buffoon.
You are on TH-cam watching videos when you could be spending your free time saving more animals. Don’t act hypocritical by condemning Peter Singer.
He wrote the book that inspired thousands, and you're sitting behind a screen calling him a buffon because you don't agree with him. Not everyone is going to think like you.
@@Mahi-nw5vh he wrote a great book back in the day, but now he seems senile or something.
@@pepperpig649 you know what I am doing in my spare time, asshat?
Do you still have those crazy drawers Mr O’Conner?
Wow - eye opening. I know Mr. Singer is a bit of an icon but I was floored by his equivocation. Need to have a showdown with Earthling Ed to review what “suffering” and “exploitation” really are.
I love Earthling Ed and he is a powerful debater with regular people, but he simply isn't capable of going up against a genuine philosophical powerhouse like Singer. He even struggled in his conversation with Alex last year
My thoughts before watching: Oh this is gonna be good!
1:2:57 the point of morality is.. couldn't agree more Mr Singer
Economics, the privatization of Earthly resources, and or capitalism is the problem. It’s not, my razor has become Oscar Schindler’s ring, but that no one should be forced into labor for simple, fundamental resources. The needs of all can be met if we reject the dogma of theft of the public trust. See Chief Seattle…
Spot on.
It's interesting that Peter Singer, one of the godfathers of veganism, is actually a lot less vegan than most people think he is
My guess is vegans who understand animal rights don’t consider him one of the godfathers of Veganism at all
@@seanogorman3617 Yeah it seems there's the animal rights camp and then the utilitarian camp
He might be one of the most influential utilitarian vegans, but he's not really popular with animal rights vegans.
When Peter Singer first brought up the topic of Veganism in 1970s.. Being vegan was so unheard of. Vegetarians were considered hippies. He is the godfather because no one thought about it in 1970s... He has been vegan longer than anyone judging him not good enough. come back in 20 or 30 years let alone 50 years.. 80 percent of today's young vegans will no longer be vegan.
Here's more from Peter in case of interest. I ask him (and all my guests): "What's real?", "Who matters?" and "How Can We Make A Better Future?" th-cam.com/video/1Q6NCSFYtb0/w-d-xo.html
Alex you need to talk to someone like perspective philosophy, someone you can debate these things on rather than interview. I think he can really answer some of your doubts.
1:02:00 Flexitarian supports the idea of inconsistency. It might lure some people to commit one horrendous crime once in their lifetime because they think they are already a "generally good enough" human being.
🥱😐🫤🤢🤮
How do we know the blankets summary is well made?
Great interview. Would love to see Alec Ryrie on the podcast.
I enjoy your podcast a lot, and I think Shelly Kagan would be an excellent guest.
Bro I love kagan. We read one of his books for our ethical theory class
I prefer Singers realistic flexiblism over idealistic absolutism. His view takes into account happiness and well being of the individual with the goal of reducing suffering in the world as much as possible without drastically increasing your own suffering. Being overbearing and judgmental about every action you and others take and weighing it against the greatest possible outcome increases suffering and unhappiness in the world.
"I prefer an ethicist who is flexible in their belief on owning slaves. You have to take into account your own happiness!!"
@@rosannepub3122 spot on example of overbearing and judgmental though you reminded me I left out those who disingenuously straw man the opposing sides arguments lol
@@amphernee overbearing and judgemental, maybe, but are they wrong?
Is it okay to intentionally support animal exploitation/abuse 1% of the time because being against it 100% of the time is too hard?
@@druski888 part of his argument is that using animal products in some circumstances can be either non exploitive/ abusive and/or is the lesser of evils when it will go to waste. He lays out perfectly cogent examples of these instances one of which is when food will be thrown away. He draws his own line there as well saying in that case he would consume some animal products but not meat. Some folks believe ethical bee keeping is not only non abusive and exploitive but a net positive for the species and natural ecosystems.
And yes, the act of being overbearing and judgmental is wrong by definition because doing so employs disingenuous tactics. Examining an argument and presenting an opposing one is far different.
@@amphernee I wasn't sure if you were solely speaking of consuming animal products in those very specific scenarios. If you consume animal products that would otherwise be thrown away, I personally don't see a problem with that either.
As far as the latter half of your comment, can you elaborate? "Overbearing" and "judgemental" are entirely subjective. I don't see how that means you're being disingenuous with your argumentation. People throw those terms around when they're dealing with the most reasonable vegans, solely because they're being told something they don't wanna hear.
Hi Alex, I have a question that I think is not discussed enough. Why do we instinctually put suffering as the top criteria to justify ethics? If you think about it, suffering and pleasure evolved to push animals to do or not do things that favour their fitness (number or offsprings that survive). This does not mean however that more pleasure is necessarily a good thing, because we may enjoy stuff that is irrelevant to the modern life, or find stuff painful that in reality could be good for us. To me it seems like it is somewhat fallacious to rely on them as moral standpoints, as both of them seem not only to underline utility, but perhaps a form of utility that helped us to evolve in the form we have right now, and that could be irrelevant to the modern or future needs.
Suffering and pleasure evolved by a blind mechanism to do the bidding of genes who don't even know animals exist much less care about their wellbeing. What is the ultimate goal here, maximize inclusive genetic fitness? Why? Why should we (conscious agents) care about pursuing the goals of the simple optimization algorithm that brought us into being?
Value and disvalue are intrinsically tied to pleasure and pain, suffering and wellbeing. One could argue they are synonyms. To pursue value is to pursue wellbeing.
You may argue that some pleasures are traps, like being addicted to drugs, or spending time doomscrolling on social media. But they are bad only as opportunity costs. They are bad because they ultimately lead to less wellbeing overall. And pain is valuable only in the sense that it can teach important lessons that result in better choices in the future that end up increasing wellbeing overall.
Some like to argue that there are better goals than happiness, like meaning not realising the only reason they like meaning is because it feels good.
@@RazorbackPT we agree on most points, even though my question was more about why it seems like entire philosophical and political branches (e.g. utilitarians, vegans) decided that the ultimate goal would be to avoid suffering. Is there a philosophical justification for that? Are they following the instinct? That was more or less my point of investigation.
@@domenico26752 Speaking for myself I believe wellbeing (eudaimonia) is the ultimate terminal value. Everything else is only valuable insofar as it is instrumental on increasing well-being or reducing suffering.
Reducing suffering seems like one of the most effective ways of doing moral good, because there's an asymmetry on the level of intensity between positive and negative valence. From experience I think most of us understand that intense pain is disproportionally bad, compared to how good pleasurable experiences can be.
@RazorbackPT makes perfect sense from an intuitive point of view, however as you pointed out, these things ultimately serve some underlying goals. This would put the goals on a higher moral ground, however to my experience this is not the case.
To give an example: animals and plants both want to survive and procreate. This seem to be the goal, both value the ultimate goal of existance. So what differences do we see? Animals due to being more complex, developed pain and pleasure, while plants (presumably) did not. At this step something goes wrong, or at least counterintuitively, because I would think that then, the difference that would be valued would the be higher complexity, however this is not the case, the moral discussions would rotate around pain itself, not complexity. This step has to be justified somehow, and I am not aware of valid arguments outside emotional ones.
@25:00 So it would be unethical to talk to a service worker for a service then? Since you don't see the END the whole human but the role the human represents?
Really good episode. Dare I say Alex is sounding very pro vegan in this?
He still seems like he's pro vegan, he's just not convinced that he can do it. Hopefully he finds out how he can in the future.
@@someguy2249 Yeh, because it's SO hard to be vegan in 2023, poor put-upon thing.
Think he may have been vegan when this was recorded.
@@someguy2249 I hope so...
I think he can be too gullible when it comes to subjects he doesn't know much about, but still he's the guy who pretty much taught me critical thinking in ethics and I just do not follow his logic here.
@@harveyplantharvester1502 it's good to see that you know other people's struggles better than they do.
So, if the risk of rumours arising about the 'humane' killing' of humans wasn't an issue, it could be permitted to kill humans? Have I understood Singer correctly?
I think in a strictly philosophical sense that is true, although you could say that since we are the most sentient of all animals our continual existence is intrinsically valuable. Although that could just be due to our very strong intuition that evolved to protect members of our species.
@@OmniversalInsect Ethics is about values and establishing right and wrong, so in a strictly philosophical sense this is one of the issues, actually a key issue, in ethics, which is far from having been settled in favour of what Singer claims in this interview.
Your evolutionary-based argument is very interesting and it might be that it reflects how things have actually come about in relation to our beliefs regarding our moral standing. However, ethics explores what 'ought to' be the case, not just what 'is' the case.
Of course, I haven't got an answer to this particular issue, but intuitively I'd start from the hypothesis of a universe without human beings. This would be a universe where self-conscious values wouldn't exist as nobody would be able to formulate the 'why' underlying choice and action. Ethics comes into the world through us. Does this mean we occupy a privileged place with respect to anything else that exists?
I don't have a definite answer to that, but the thought that human beings could be as expendable as everything else in the universe looks like at least a practical contradiction to me. For example, just like we kill some animal species because we need the nutrients they provide so that we can have a healthy life, we might start killing some of us if we found out that some animal species could only live healthily if they fed on human flesh. If taken to its extremes, just like we might decide to eliminate a species because it represents a serious danger to us, we might even 'rationally' decide to self-destruct if this were necessary to some other species' being better off. This would take the planet back to a reality without ethics where good, bad, better, worse, etc. wouldn't exist, where making sense wouldn't exist. Without us, nature would continue being without any value considerations. The lion would continue killing the gazelle in any way nature has programmed it to do so without any consideration for the gazelle's suffering. Species would come in and out of existence without any sense of loss or consideration of suffering.
In other words, an ethical stance that doesn't place humans in a privileged prosition or that doesn't protect our species above all others could paradoxically lead to the obliteration of ethics itself and of all the responsible choices we could make for other species that, despite not being considered as valuable as us, to a certain extent would still benefit from us.
This was great Alex. I just disagree with Peter Singer in the part aboutwhether there is a clear line to draw in vegan ethics. I think there is a clear line. Or at least a much clearer line than in the other examples he gave. To me, it's the same as if there is a clear line in assaults, in domestic violence, etc. There can't be nuance there. It's not ok for a person who doesn't abuse their partner for the whole year to suddenly lose it and abuse them that day. "I only hit you once" is not ok. "I only paid for an animal to be killed once" is not ok.