Is Everyone Capable of Evil? | Peter Singer and Lex Fridman
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2020
- Full episode with Peter Singer (Jul 2020): • Peter Singer: Sufferin...
Clips channel (Lex Clips): / lexclips
Main channel (Lex Fridman): / lexfridman
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton, best known for his 1975 book Animal Liberation, that makes an ethical case against eating meat. He has written brilliantly from an ethical perspective on extreme poverty, euthanasia, human genetic selection, sports doping, the sale of kidneys, and happiness including in his books Ethics in the Real World and The Life You Can Save. He was a key popularizer of the effective altruism movement and is generally considered one of the most influential philosophers in the world.
Subscribe to this CZcams channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - Věda a technologie
Peter Singer, a well-known philosopher, has written extensively on ethics and morality. However, it would be a misrepresentation of Singer's views to say that he believes ordinary people are inherently evil.
In fact, Singer's philosophical position is more nuanced than that. He argues that all people, regardless of their moral character, have a responsibility to act in a way that minimizes harm to others and maximizes the well-being of all sentient beings.
Singer has also argued that many people are too complacent about the suffering of others, and that we all have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. However, this does not necessarily mean that he believes ordinary people are evil.
Instead, Singer believes that our actions and choices are shaped by the social and cultural contexts in which we live. He argues that many of the harmful actions that people take are a result of ignorance, apathy, or a lack of empathy for others, rather than an inherent moral deficiency.
So while Singer may be critical of the actions of some people, it would be a simplification of his views to say that he believes ordinary people are evil.
Ordinary people are very selfish but are capable of being kind and humane when they quit believing the sociopathic lie that humans are born selfish and that it works out for humanity as a whole when we pursue our own interests. That BS philosophy has been a disaster for civilization.
what's wrong with saying that people by and large are evil?
We are capable of being evil. But it is a sliding scale. Some people are rotten to the core while some just are not perfectly good, there are people of all sorts between those extremes. There are people who are nearly saintly, while there are people who would give devil a run for his money. These two people can not be grouped under the same flag. They are different.
@@alexus267
they have a responsibility, tell that to all the central bankers. ill wait
I think he gave an example, suppose a child is drowning in a shallow pond and you choose not to help him cuz your clothes will get dirty, that will be morality bad right ? and that is equivalent to giving out money to prevent famine.
you really start agreeing with him once what you start seeing what the average person thinks to be justice.
look at what happened in Iraq, a prison set by the U.S forces was a torture house and they made ordinary people torture to death an iraqi taxi driver for example
Ofcourse. We are primarily animals! We live with much ignorance and hypocrisy about what morality is and how we should implement it. Unless you're forced to think about something, especially unpleasant, (which is a form of suffering and thereby punishment), we won't. Suffering and being a victim are drivers for moral thinking and knowledge... else its I do and take every possible liberty for my advantage. Our beliefs, morals, attitudes are not static and can sway and evolve accordingly with the zeitgeist and generationally.
The sadest thing is people are often not even willing to do anything even if the costs are not very high!
They just prefer not to care.😔
How does this not apply to you as well? Are you simply better than them?
So does you bud.
Only one or two friends were uncomfortable? Maybe you have really good friends?
I have been vegetarian for over 30 years. Unfortunately, I was taught to think about vegetarians as Mr. Singer apparently was, so my conversion was delayed despite my love of animals. My parents were some of those teachers.
To this day, my father makes fun of my family (wife* and daughter) and my brother for being vegetarian. Little digs sprinkled throughout most meals.
Harassment is still something I expect, whether from my parents, a friend or two, associates, coworkers, bosses who accomodate your diet for meals they provide while acting like it is a big imposition**, and those who will tell you that imposing vegetarianism on children is child abuse.
*My wife, due to a chronic condition has had to add meat back into her diet in recent years. She has tuna or chicken once or twice a month. She has to have a low fiber diet. I do not see meat eaters as evil. I once was one. Some of my best friends are. When you kniw better, you do better. I fall short on many things. If I see other ways to live better I will, but I can't if I don't know. You can't if you don't know. Our ignorance vastly outweighs our knowledge. I keep that in mind when I start to feel a certain way about others.
If they aren't ready to change, you can't change them. If they are, let them first show you, then maybe you can help and support them along the way. Maybe they have to eat some meat beacause of things you won't ever know.
** I do NOT volunteer my status as a vegetarian. I do not preach the vegetarian gospel. That just turns people off. My brother does and I have tried to tell him to it is a bad approach, but he still does.
I am actually easy when it comes to food. I have no food allergies. I like most foods and few non meat foods I will refuse to eat. I'll ask if the place has salad or pizza or pasta and usually one of these options is available.
Most people discover I am a vegetarian only after quite a few questions. A few observant (nosey?) people at work noticed I never ate meat, so they asked if I was a vegetarian.
I only go into my reasons if asked. Then I give them the one sentence summary. If they ask more, I will be happy to answer. I could go on and on like I too often do on many subjects, but I try to guage just how much they really want.
I just came here to talk about his 1972 essay; the first primary issue I found with it is that it is not sustainable on a real-world societal level where things like luxuries, excess wealth, power, prestige etc are the primary drivers behind wealth creation. We could try to model a society where prestige and power are gained primarily thru altruism and everything you donate is tracked, (kind of like a social credit score system but it would only be rewarding good behaviours and telling everyone else how moral you are compared to others in a quantifiable manner). This might drive some wealth creation by people willing to make money just so they can then donate it and gain more power and social standing later. Would this work on the average person? Most likely not, there would still have to be physical rewards (defined by singer as luxuries) that one could obtain after a certain amount is donated. I'm not sure if he still thinks there should be no limit on how much one must deprive themselves of luxuries and basic comforts; it seems like he feels in order to be truly moral, you have to be living on subsistence levels and basically subsidizing all the wealth and value you generate in order to help those most in need, similar to a parasite that needs to feed on another living thing which would otherwise die. That kind of brings me to my second major issue with the argument, that being that while luxuries in and of themselves may not have much moral weight attached to them, the end results of this moral system would definitely mean a lot of suffering for those who have the 'privilege' of living in areas where they are able to work and earn wages that allow them to have an excess of things. This is basically an argument for slavery or indentured servitude one is born into thru the circumstances of their birth, which will ultimately continue until everyone's basic needs are met. Will we continue until standard of living is also the same and will be keep going down that path until any form of inequality we can think of has been dealt with? I don't see why we wouldn't. This kind of system will also certainty collapse as the less productive and people who don't mind being called 'immoral' or don't care about their social standing will just move into areas with little job prospects and basically find the best areas that give them the highest value given least amount of work. It will completely destroy human innovation and wealth-creation, and within a few decades there won't be anymore wealth inequality but the entire world will be poorer and not only would we not have progressed forward in any sense but we would be in a much worse position in terms of life-saving and life-changing tech as well as number of highly skilled professionals needed to keep things running. So yeah. It would destroy society and it creates conditions where the only way to be considered moral is to be a slave or a willing host to parasites bleeding you dry (as long as they don't actually kill you). It would create so many mental health issues ans suffering and it completely disregards any form of regulation when it comes to what we as individuals are responsible for, it just slides that scale all the way to as far as it can go before literally killing us. Is a moral system that ensures the misery of everyone abiding by it a good moral system? One that stagnates human progress and would almost certainly lead to the extinction of mankind? If a moral system leads to the extinction of all beings which are capable of even perceiving it then maybe what you have created isn't something 'good' or something that values 'life', but a world-eating virus predicated on weaponized empathy and no consideration for the 'evil' already present in this world without humans having any involvement. You can call it a moral system if you wish, but I not only find it impractical on the highest level but also evil to go down this road when we know that where it leads is straight off a cliff. I don't think the good intentions this road is paved with are relevant once you become aware of the absolutely unacceptable consequences it leads to.
i wonder if "gods chosen" are ordinary people or not.
Kevin Macdonald pointed out that that host cultures got tired of their misanthropic attitude towards the gentiles.
@@SurfbyShootin109
I'm very curious to know how he would feel about the opposite phenomenon nowadays, where people like Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson have stopped eating all plant products for health reasons. I don't imagine he would afford them the same good will he was given
Are the health benefits of that sort of a diet proven without a doubt? That seems highly unlikely to me.
It’s willful blindness
Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind
Which is a myth.
@@Sauronthedeciever_ how
@@Sauronthedeciever_ prove it
I saw 2 movies based on that
Deff of evil is diff to everyone.. Its open to interpretation... Is every himan capable of evil ?... Go hungry... Would you kill for food ?... Yes you would... So if killing is evil.. Then yes we are all capable of being evil... So basically if you life depends on it.. You will commit evil deeds... That doesnt surprise or amaze me.. What i find interesting is how quikly we can become capable of comiting evil... Read lord of the flies... Civilization and morality is a very fragile thing and can come crumbling down very quickly
The simple act of just washing your hands kills hundreds of thousands to millions of germs. But no one would consider that evil. Basically just choosing to be alive and continue to exist is "evil", if we wanna get down to it. The fact that we are alive means that lots of other living things are going to die that we come into contact with, whether it's direct or indirect contact.
Another issue of our times is the persecution of Julian Assange. Why is not everybody standing up for him?
He lost me at mention of Greta Thunburg. If that's the best example he can give for someone taking a brave stand he needs to get out more. If she is brave she can talk about the biggest culprits, China and India. I also get the feeling this guy just feels so superior compared to us evil meat consumers
Yeah man it's a very low ball thing to speak against something in the U.S where there's basically nearly no threat of being killed for your beliefs
Well not eating meat is the moral thing to do though. Greta Thunberg has done a lot for climate change in terms of exposure even though it has not made any real significance in the real world yet. Not doing so is an appeal to futility fallacy and is exactly what makes us “evil” in Singer’s papers. The thought matters as much as the action because without thought there can be no motivation for action. And when there is a big enough motivation for that action that’s when change can happen.
It all starts with your thought, your action and your motivation. Not doing so is evil.
Also to add you could use this excuse for anything. Do you feel morally superior than the Chinese government who enslave Uyghur muslims? Do you feel morally superior for speaking up against corruption? Do you feel morally superior for condemning racism? The answer should be yes.
@@pepperpig649 virtue signaling and fake arrests are fighting evil?
Ofc he would praise her because both him and greta don't have a job 💀💀💀💀
He is *Kosher* dont give him a hard time
cool story.
define evil
Culture is our biggest problem imo, mainly the way our children are raised. When kids have loving, healthy parents and are surrounded by other good kids, they usually wind up to be kind and loving adults. But part of good parenting is seeing your kids as equals. Authority should never be abused and parents tend to abuse their authority most the time, especially the ones who pride themselves on being strict. They screw up their kids who then grow up to follow the "Might is right" way of thinking.
How individualistic you are would presumably boost your immunity. The more tribal among us, those who BIRG and such, would have the most challenging time breaking the pattern.
You try to hard. Your comment makes you look like a fool.
People are inherently evil it's called Original Sin gentleman I don't mean to be sarcastic or glib but it truly we are creatures nothing more until the grace of Christ or whatever you wish to call him is bestowed upon us
Leave religion out of it. This is a philosophy discussion, not a Bible class.
Tribe detected,opinion rejected
no. 99% of people are evil ... talking from real life expereinces. iam a survivor beacuse of them, because what they ve done to me, they have been doing to me, since i did not have a family to protect me as a child, and then, it just goes from one thing to another, and on and on, until you relaize ... 99% of people are evil, yes they are. if i was to become like them, i d be a demon surplus. but like i said, 99% of them are evil, i choose not to be, intentionally, but i think its inherited deep within me ... the sense of good and evil, and me, not becoming an evil demonic human, but quite the qontrary ... i am angelic and i am aware of it on many many levels. i think evil humanity needs more people like you, to listen to, becuase i do not belive them in this "forgive them they know not what htey do" ... i know, they know very very well what they are doing, they just choose to be evil. therefore, yashuas teachings do not apply to them, anylonger. it is their conscious choice, it is their will, it is their consequence, it is their sin. 99% of humans re evil.
I'm extremely sorry to hear that. The LORD is with you.
@@SerendipitousProvidencethank you for your kind words, Blessings to you
@@Spiritueli I really appreciate how God has worked in your heart. Because it wouldn't be odd if all your experiences destroyed your capacity to trust and forgive others. Blessing really
There is no such thing as evil. We got morality wrong.
@@slackhackman9115have you read the book “free will” by Sam Harris?
@@slackhackman9115 One of the great demotions is the religious framing of good and evil. Free Will is the nail in the coffin.
@@slackhackman9115 I used to very much. But he’s not the Sam he used to be.
@@MrJesseBell Sam Harris? Get out of here with lightweight pop psychology/new age capitalist spiritualism nonsense.
@NewAgain I felt the same way, anytime I hear Sam Harris's name brought up for arguments sake? I immediately just stop listening. He is an elitist, holier than thou goober. I think it's time we put people like the plumber I apprenticed under on that platform. Give people a real respectable man to idolize with real world insight.
Repent Sinners, the worst of it is we need to exalt some silly philosopher to tell us what has been revealed