Freedomain Radio

I would love to hear a good rebuttal to this modern day philosopher, Peter Singer. He seemingly suggests that it is only animals that are inflicted with great pain and suffering and that the only ethical stance regarding humans is to consider lifeboat scenarios such as canabalism..

I could well be missing something of course, and would appreciate some rational reasoning for this chaps philosophy, if there are any..

The problem with secular moralists like Singer, isn't their theories, which are fascinating, but their relevance.

We haven't even gotten to a point where using force against EACH OTHER is wrong, and he's worried about killing horses and cows?

I remember reading in one of his books once, he stated in a completely emotionless way, that he'd sooner pull the plug on his dying mother's respirator, than kill a cow, just because he wanted to be consistent with his own ethic - and if it weren't for his sister stopping him, he'd have already done it. I applaud him for at least his consistency, but I think it's pretty frightening that he had nothing to say about his emotional experience of his mother, or of that decision.

What's more, it's pretty easy to be that brazen when you have an excuse for why you're not acting on it.

Interesting how it all always comes back to personal relationships.

I just came to the thought that a meeting between Singer and Ayn Rand would have been priceless  Unfortunately, that won't happen so I will settle for a brief examination of the subject from another pro:

"UPB allows for exceptions based on objective and universal material or biological differences, just as
other sciences do. The scientific theory that gases expand when heated applies, of course, only to gases. I
cannot invalidate the theory by proving that it does not apply to, say, plastic.

In the same way, morality only applies to rational consciousness, due to the requirement for avoidability.
If I attempt to apply a moral theory to a snail, a tree, a rock, or the concept “numbers,” I am attempting to
equate rational consciousness with entities that may be neither rational nor conscious, which is a logical
contradiction. I might as well say that the Opposite Angle Theorem in geometry is invalid because it does
not apply to a circle, or a cloud. The OAT only applies to intersecting lines – attempting to apply it to
other situations is the conceptual equivalent of attempting to paint air.

In other words, misapplication is not disproof." ("Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics", pp.92)

I can't stand theories of ethics that invoke "minimizing suffering". Lets imagine a hypothetical situation where a human is born with a mutation without any pain receptors at all. Why does that change his moral nature? Or better yet, a mutation where a human feels ecstatic joy 24/7 because his amygdala keep firing and is always happy and feeling "pain" isn't unpleasant for this person just a "different texture" of happiness.

Ditto with theories that invoke "maximizing happiness". There is one brain disorder (I forget what it's called) that disables your emotional processing so you don't feel frustration, happiness, anger, etc. Why does your moral nature change here? (As a side note, I used to reject emotions as irrational but this disorder and Stef's podcasts helped turn me the opposite way. It turns out that if you have no emotions, you cannot make quick value judgments so people with this disorder have a really difficult time distinguishing between trivial decisions and important decisions and will waste hours deciding what cereal they want to eat).

There is a difference between UPB and these other theories. UPB is about ethics that are binding (i.e. you must do it). These other theories of ethics are non-binding (i.e. you should do it).

xelent:

I would love to hear a good rebuttal to this modern day philosopher, Peter Singer.

I'm curious as to which part/s of his philosophy you require a rebubuttal?

Is it: "Living ethically is not just thinking about yourself, but putting yourself in the position of other beings who are affected by your actions ... and asking yourself what it would be like."?  That part sounds remarkably similar to UPB.

Or is it: "Religious morality is purely selfish and based on a fear of god ... you don't want to be punished in the afterlife, you just want to be rewarded!"?  That part sounds remarkably similar to atheism.

Or is it: "[Biblical] religion reinforces the barrier between humans and other animals ... Darwinian evolution emphasises the continuum between a common ancestor and modern man"?  Is there a scientific flaw I missed?

Or is it: "Speciesism is a prejudice against any being of another species" or [my words] tribe or race or sex or sexual orientation or religious faith or skin colour or political leaning or football team or ...........? In my opinion, all of these isms (sexism, racism, judaism, etc) are simply extensions of speciesism: "we are special; they are different/lesser/fair-game".

I find it hard to fault any of his logic - even though, like Richard Dawkins, I'm still a [hypocritical] meat eater.

Though we have evolved as carnivorous mammals, we are still wrestling with many areas of morality. We have managed to dispense with slavery, some of us are no longer interested in marching off on crusades or pogroms against infidels, and many have come to vegetarianism. And with the forward march of biotechnology and neuroscience we will have many more moral issues to deal with in the decades ahead that were previously considered either taboo or 'the way it is'.

FreeSpirit:

"Living ethically is not just thinking about yourself, but putting yourself in the position of other beings who are affected by your actions ... and asking yourself what it would be like."?  That part sounds remarkably similar to UPB.

As Greg pointed out earlier humans are yet to learn to live ethically with eachother and it would seem that Singer takes human suffering as a lesser value than that of animals because of our dominant position to most of them (animals). I certainly agree that cruelty to animals is uneecessary and says a lot about that persons psychological makeup. But if we are to apply the principle to ourselves, then it would follow that we would protect all animals against all predators such as sharks or lions even. But that would be a violation of Singers principle would it not?

xelent:

FreeSpirit:

"Living ethically is not just thinking about yourself, but putting yourself in the position of other beings who are affected by your actions ... and asking yourself what it would be like."?  That part sounds remarkably similar to UPB.

As Greg pointed out earlier humans are yet to learn to live ethically with eachother and it would seem that Singer takes human suffering as a lesser value than that of animals because of our dominant position to most of them (animals). I certainly agree that cruelty to animals is uneecessary and says a lot about that persons psychological makeup. But if we are to apply the principle to ourselves, then it would follow that we would protect all animals against all predators such as sharks or lions even. But that would be a violation of Singers principle would it not?

From a philosophical perspective, the search for truth and moral principles should not be terminated just because some (most?/all?) have trouble getting on with each other. Do you agree?

Protecting all animals from predators is quite different from not acting as a predator oneself. It would be analogous to current statism, where the government decides who to protect from what! It is also similar to the morality of stepping into your neighbour's house to protect his wife from a beating ... I would do so, but most others would say "it is none of my business ... she should call her DRO for compensation". How do you feel about that?

FreeSpirit:

From a philosophical perspective, the search for truth and moral principles should not be terminated just because some (most?/all?) have trouble getting on with each other. Do you agree?

Well, in fairness I wasn't suggesting that at all. I Was merely emphasizing what I considered to be Singer's point regarding the treatment of animals by humans and that we should protect animals where ever possible, even from other animals. I just feel he gets himself all tied up in knots trying to convince someone with that kind of argument.

FreeSpirit:

Protecting all animals from predators is quite different from not acting as a predator oneself.

Well, thats an interesting point that I was trying to allude to earlier. Singer seems to suggest that humans are the highest predator and therefore should become of lesser importance to that of animals, because of our enormous power. He completely neglects the hierarchal position that most humans find themselves in, not to mention children for whom are completely dependent upon the whims of their parents.

FreeSpirit:

It would be analogous to current statism, where the government decides who to protect from what! It is also similar to the morality of stepping into your neighbour's house to protect his wife from a beating ... I would do so, but most others would say "it is none of my business ... she should call her DRO for compensation". How do you feel about that?

Well yes, I would agree that protection is a choice and should never be considered an obligation, for sure.

I'm aware that I'm not completely au fait with Singer's principles as yet. But it would seem (to me at least) that Singers position that the only way to be ethical (as a whole) is to not be cruel to animals or eat them as one huge red herring. Singer seems to forget the huge incentive that humans have for living morally amongst eachother. Humans have so much more to gain or lose from developing or not their human relationships than from their animal ones, there just isn't anything to compare that too. I'm quite sure that UPB can provide people with a better understanding of how to treat animals. But only as a secondary response to peoples better understanding of ethics amongst themselves. Vast swathes of the population in the west see animal cruelty as perverse and barbarous already. UPB is only likely to encourage that notion further. Animals are only going to lead happier lives if ours are happier too. Just because I didn't harm an animal today, isn't going to make me any happier, if I managed to 'self attack' about an interaction I had with my wife, boss, friend etc. Peter seems to think our happiness will derive from respecting all species firstly. I say, that is only likely to occur once we start to apply UPB/RTR to our human relationships firstly and foremost IMHO..

GregG:

I remember reading in one of his books once, he stated in a completely emotionless way, that he'd sooner pull the plug on his dying mother's respirator, than kill a cow, just because he wanted to be consistent with his own ethic - and if it weren't for his sister stopping him, he'd have already done it. I applaud him for at least his consistency, but I think it's pretty frightening that he had nothing to say about his emotional experience of his mother, or of that decision.

What's more, it's pretty easy to be that brazen when you have an excuse for why you're not acting on it.

Interesting how it all always comes back to personal relationships.

Wow, that was an eye opener for sure and I think it illustrates (in a small way perhaps) his reticence towards human suffering.

xelent:

He seemingly suggests that it is only animals that are inflicted with great pain and suffering and that the only ethical stance regarding humans is to consider lifeboat scenarios such as canabalism..

xelent:

I Was merely emphasizing what I considered to be Singer's point regarding the treatment of animals by humans and that we should protect animals where ever possible, even from other animals. I just feel he gets himself all tied up in knots trying to convince someone with that kind of argument.

xelent:

Singer seems to suggest that humans are the highest predator and therefore should become of lesser importance to that of animals, because of our enormous power.

I think you are reading way too much into what he said (and may even be projecting your own rejection  ... Did your parents have pets that you felt were being treated better than you?).

All I could hear him saying was:

1. Humans are animals too. We're not "special".
2. All animals (including humans) feel pain and suffering and should be treated with empathy.
3. A human deserves no better (nor worse) treatment than any other animal.

xelent:

But it would seem (to me at least) that Singers position that the only way to be ethical (as a whole) is to not be cruel to animals or eat them as one huge red herring.

Peter seems to think our happiness will derive from respecting all species firstly. I say, that is only likely to occur once we start to apply UPB/RTR to our human relationships firstly and foremost IMHO..

Again, I think you are reading too much into what he might think. All he said was that all animals (human animals and other animals) deserve equal treatment to avoid pain and suffering. I don't see how this is a "red herring"?

I agree that we should start in our own backyard as a practical step towards ultimate happiness ... but we should not lose sight of the [assumed] moral imperative to treat all animals (human or otherwise) with empathy. IMHO, any other position simply falls back on the [biblical] religious dogma that "humans are special and were placed on the earth last by god to have dominion over all the animals".

Does he distinguish between animals and bacteria? Does he wash his hands?

If he does distinguish between animals and bacteria, then he is saying that there is an arbitrary line somewhere down the food chain where violence and 'murder' becomes OK. I certainly would be interested in knowing where he draws his line, and why...

Stefan Molyneux:

Does he distinguish between animals and bacteria? Does he wash his hands?

If he does distinguish between animals and bacteria, then he is saying that there is an arbitrary line somewhere down the food chain where violence and 'murder' becomes OK. I certainly would be interested in knowing where he draws his line, and why...

I don't know, Stef. Maybe we both need to listen to it again and see whether he considers bacteria to be animals. But I certainly don't consider bacteria to be animals. Maybe a definition of "animal" will help?

FreeSpirit:

I think you are reading way too much into what he said (and may even be projecting your own rejection  ... Did your parents have pets that you felt were being treated better than you?).

Well that's interesting, as my first reaction to that comment was irritation, which I concluded could be one of three things (I'm open to others of course). Either it is my distinct lack of knowledge on this subject regarding Singer's position, which is quite possible, as I have only recently begun reading articles by him. So I could be irritated by my own inept understanding of his concepts. Or it is because you provide me no tangible evidence for such a suggestion. and that you are actually projecting onto me. Otherwise you could be right and I am indeed projecting in some manner that as yet is unclear to me. I'm happy to explore these possibilities with you, if you are happy to explore your own feelings on the matter as well.

I will admit that I found the cold manner in which Singer discusses empathy with animals as neither touching nor enlightening whatsoever. These are just my feelings of course, which could possibly be projection of some sort. But it is unclear (at least to me) where that projection is possibly coming from. My parents were neither cruel nor overly protective of animals from my experience. When any animals were proving to be too difficult to live with, they nearly always found a more suitable home for them, after giving all other options a go. So I'm tending to the notion that my experience with animals was reasonably well balanced on the whole. But of course, I could be wrong here. So perhaps you could give me some logical reasons for why you consider I am projecting.

FreeSpirit:

All I could hear him saying was:

1. Humans are animals too. We're not "special".
2. All animals (including humans) feel pain and suffering and should be treated with empathy.
3. A human deserves no better (nor worse) treatment than any other animal.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that cruelty to animals should be justified. I was saying that inter human relationships were of a deeper importance to them. If I didn't place the importance of the suffering of child above that of a dog, (lifeboat scenario, I know) that this would be considered wrong innately by almost all humans, wouldn't it?. This is why I see Singers argument as a 'red herring', as it ignores the special relationship we have with our own species. To ignore this fact is to ignore our own personal incentives in life. I cannot necessarily explain my position entirely, only that I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice the life of an animal for that of a human. Something I believe Peter Singer might struggle with.

FreeSpirit:

we should not lose sight of the [assumed] moral imperative to treat all animals (human or otherwise) with empathy. IMHO, any other position simply falls back on the [biblical] religious dogma that "humans are special and were placed on the earth last by god to have dominion over all the animals".

I'm not sure how my position fell into religious dogma. Can you explain that for me?

Stefan Molyneux:

Does he distinguish between animals and bacteria? Does he wash his hands?

If he does distinguish between animals and bacteria, then he is saying that there is an arbitrary line somewhere down the food chain where violence and 'murder' becomes OK. I certainly would be interested in knowing where he draws his line, and why...

His arbitrary line is "the capacity to experience suffering". He states it as a continuum. The more a creature is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, the more it "matters", in a universal sense, and thus, the more "moral responsibility" we have to it.

He applies this standard according to specific circumstances, not as a general guideline by species. So, in other words, a "fully sentient" human (where "fully sentient" means a being with a measure of intelligence and consciousness above a certain amount), would "matter" more than a "fully sentient" cow. However, a "fully sentient" cow, would "matter" more than a human being who's cognitive capacity and consciousness has been diminished by disease or age.

Hence, why he boasts in his book that he would pull the plug on his mother, before he would eat a cow (and his cowardly escape from that, in saying that his sister won't let him).

Everything I put in quotes is his words, coming from articles I've read, and from this video clip.

Stefan Molyneux:

Does he distinguish between animals and bacteria? Does he wash his hands?

If he does distinguish between animals and bacteria, then he is saying that there is an arbitrary line somewhere down the food chain where violence and 'murder' becomes OK. I certainly would be interested in knowing where he draws his line, and why...

If Singer considers bacteria life, then his entire body is an enclosed, anti-bacterial biological warfare factory.  He has enzymes in his saliva and digestive tract that constantly destroy incoming bacteria.  His immune system slaughters bacteria by the millions.  It doesn't matter if he washes his hands or not even.  The very functioning of his body is anti-bacterial.  Perhaps he makes a special exception for self-defense?