A moral philosopher and an evolutionary biologist in conversation | A Conversation with Peter Singer
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2023
- In this episode of The Poetry Of Reality, we sit in on an engrossing conversation between Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer on stage in Melbourne, Australia.
Peter Singer is a moral philosopher, known for his work in bioethics and being one of the intellectual founders of the modern animal rights movement.
He and Dawkins discuss everything from nature and evolution, to god and ethics, through the lens of their work as prolific authors and discoverers of truth. Tune in to listen to two great thinkers explore rich questions, around the survival of genes and human altruism, the suffering native to nature, reason and its application to morality, the role of design in the universe, and the meaning behind pain and consciousness.
________________________
Join Substack:
richarddawkins.substack.com/
Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel:
/ @poetryofreality
Follow:
Instagram: / the.poetry.of.reality
Twitter: / richarddawkins
Facebook: / richarddawkinsbooks
Reddit: / thepoetryofreality
#ThePoetryOfReality #PeterSinger #MoralPhilosophy #Religion #Science #TheSelfishGene - Věda a technologie
0:46: 📚 Peter Singer introduces himself and mentions his book 'Animal Liberation'.
7:48: 📚 The book 'The Selfish Gene' received criticism for its title being misleading.
14:59: 👥 The rule of thumb to be nice to everyone, even if they are not kin, still applies in big cities like Melbourne.
22:02: 📚 The speaker's belief in Christianity began to fade around the age of 15 when they discovered and understood Darwinism.
28:35: 🤔 The argument from evil is not applicable to suffering in nature, and blaming Adam for original sin is a flawed moral view.
35:23: 🗣 Richard Dawkins shares his experiences giving talks in the South and being asked about animals joining humans in heaven.
41:57: 😕 The speaker discusses the importance of treating artificial intelligence as conscious beings and the need for concern for their interests.
49:06: 🌱 The speaker believes animals are treated poorly in farms and slaughterhouses and has chosen to be vegetarian at home.
56:03: 🎙 The speaker requests that questions be asked instead of statements and points out the location of the microphone.
1:03:20: 🐙 The speaker discusses the possibility of conscious beings giving rise to primates and octopuses billions of years ago, and the difficulty in proving octopuses' consciousness.
1:10:29: 🔑 The speaker discusses the impact of contraception on evolution and the potential genetic component of contraception usage.
1:17:47: 🤝 There is tension between scientific reason and political ideologies, and it can be challenging to explain scientific concepts to people due to this tension.
1:24:40: 📢 The speaker wants to address the issue of factory farming and hopes to get a response from the audience. They also mention the censorship of religious texts on social media.
Recap by Tammy AI
Good bot
Appreciate it👍
I was at this! It was actually my 21st birthday that day. Was so glad to have taken the opportunity to go and listen to these two brilliant thinkers speak. I also happened to sit next to a really interesting guy who was the principal of a school. It was a really fantastic evening. It's well worth attending a talk by either of these guys!
Nothing more cringe than to listen two nihilists making up irrelevant value judgment from their self admitted pointless and arbitrary world view
It should've been me...
Not you.
Happy belated birthday sir (tips imaginary hat)
@@Gwilfawe thank you!
@@prototype0398 you’re probably right
These men are my heroes. Both of them have wonderful foundations and give so much back to humanity.
Richard Dawkins is among very few people I never get bored of listening to
Richard Dawkins is like that child who starts crying when he sees his mother leave the room. However, adults have knowledge that the mother will still be around when she leaves the room so they don’t cry. This is the problem with arrogance, you cannot see the truth in front of you.
@@bluesky45299You have the freedom to think whatever you want, he has no god to torture you! It doesnt change what he really is
Are you actually calling Richard Dawkins arrogant? How ironic. You're a wonderful example for the Dunning-Kruger-Effect.@@bluesky45299
@@bluesky45299his more the child who says santa's not real.
@@brooksdubya6479 How would you prove robot has consciousness using empirical data? How do you prove to blind man what color red is using empirical data? In theory, robot can be programmed to move its hand when it touches hot surface. How do I know its having the experience of hot using test tube(Deduction/induction)? The only thing i am certain of is that i have experience of hot. This experience(“Cogito Ergo Sum”) can only come from entity that can already experience infinite attributes of existence (Allah-one/indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient Perfection)
We already give cats and dogs some basic rights, the right not to be stabbed to death for example, now we just need to extend that to cows, chickens, pigs, sheep, ducks etc.
The difference is that we as humans designate some animals like dogs, cats, and a few others as pets which live with us and we develop relationships with. Cows, pigs, chickens, not so much.
@@Resmith18SR Theres plenty of animals I have no relationship with yet wouldn't want to be harmed for food or pleasure. We're brought up to think that cows/pigs/chickens are just food and dont desevre consideration, that's the problem.
@@Johnsmith-fz2dm As I said I personally don't want to hurt or harm an innocent animal , but like millions of others I don't feel bad about buying chicken, hamburger, steak, eggs, milk because I enjoy eating a variety of foods. If you or anyone is that dedicated to not eating any animal products then no one is stopping you but you're not going to change the millions of people all over the world who enjoy eating meat, dairy, cheese, eggs, bacon, ice cream, etc.
@@Resmith18SRthat is the definition of a contradiction. I understand you enjoy these products, but in purchasing them you are necessarily causing harm to innocent beings. Even if you don’t give up these products, you should realize this. Maybe one week of the month buy soy milk instead of dairy. It won’t hurt you, it’s probably healthier, and after a year you’ve maybe saved one cow the experience of being raped and having their calf taken away? Isn’t that the moral thing to do?
@@joshyman221 It is the better thing to do but my choices in the grand scheme of things in regards to eating meat or drinking milk I don't think mean a hell of a lot unfortunately. I do think it's healthier to eat less meat so I myself and other people do attempt to do that for health reasons regardless of how animals are treated.
It's always such a pleasure to listen to you and stretch my knowledge. Here you have another ex-Muslim Iranian. Thank you for being you and bringing so much rationality in this world of flooded by delusional religions.
Shout out also to the fellow Iranian guy who asked you an intelligent question.
I enjoy some talks of Jordan Peterson, but when he gets to religion I can't stand it.
Two of my favourite thinkers. I have learnt immensely from both of them.
Thank you Richard for revisiting this topic. An important scientific and ethical discussion for the 21st century.❤
Animals are sentient. Eating animal corpse or secretions is completly unessential and even potentialy toxic.
Problem solved. unessential nutriment, unessential suffering
key words are Sentience and Essentiality
The Miracle of the Atom
The Laws of physics that exist are due to the activity within the atom, which is finely tuned in order for us to exist and as we know atoms are required for life. The main energy level occupied by an electron during orbit is dictated by its fixed distance from the nucleus of the atom. This is relative to electron and proton attraction. There are constants within the atom, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the protons relative to each other. All orbitals that have the same value “N” being the main energy level relates to the quantum number and are said to share the same shell level. Protons are subatomic particles which are charged in relation to the nucleus, electrons are attracted towards them because they have opposite electrical charges; this fine tuning keeps them in orbit around the nucleus making the development of life possible as we know it. The atom is a miracle of design not an accident waiting to happen. Everything is made up of atoms which are finely tuned for the building blocks of life and also they create the environment necessary for the existence of life. The conditions on our own earth in particular are finely tuned being described as biophilic in which life as we know it can flourish.
If any of the fundamental constants like the speed of light or the strength of gravity were to change just a little, then life as we know it would cease to exist. This realization has led some physicists to argue that our universe is intelligently designed, made especially for us, no accident waiting to happen. We live in a finely tuned universe perfectly primed in order to support life.
There is irreducible complexity within the atom never mine the cell as atoms make up cells and are responsible for life as we know it. Atoms are unique and their atomic number dictates what substance or chemical property they have. Carbon for instance has an atomic number of 6 positively charged protons in the nucleus. Atoms are essential building blocks of life, for example the body contains fat which is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon atoms because of their unique make-up also bond strongly to other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen because they have branches or rings of various sizes that contain thousands of atoms, carbon is quite accommodating with other substances. These have unique atomic numbers that make life possible. Atoms suffer from irreducible complexity because all the electrons, protons and neutrons must be present at the same time in a particular number and order, for the atom to function as a designated substance. This knowledge dispenses with the idea of mutations and natural selection relating to chemical interactions. Life on the earth is based on carbon chemistry. Carbon is used in organic matter such as our bodies for instance in order to maintain life. They silently carry out important chemical reactions within our bodies and they are essential to life on the earth. Carbon atoms make up the sun, stars, comets and the atmosphere of most planets. Carbon is found in coal, oil, diamonds and natural gas deposits. The atom is clearly designed and many physicists now recognise this, but they won’t use the word God or Creator, they would sooner believe aliens were responsible, but the question is then begged who made the aliens?
The term atom really means invisible unit or uncuttable, and for a long time it was thought that the atom could not be split, but when they did, it produced the atomic bomb. An infinite intelligence made the various atoms which are so small and are measured as being one tenth of a billionth of a metre across. They are so small that they cannot be seen under a powerful microscope. We are led to believe that all our sophisticated atoms are derived from an invented primordial complex soup of chemicals which then produced the first living cells. Remember each atom is unique due to its composition and arrangement of subatomic particles relative to the number of protons in the nucleus. This is no accident waiting to happen! A primordial soup is purely fictitious and based on fantasy and imagination because men do not want to retain God in their knowledge.
Jesus did not lie to us concerning him being the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. He said that men shall give an account for every idle word spoken, except they repent of their sins!
I have red many of your books Rechard.as a Muslim I encourage you.
Thanks for encouraging sanity,Icould saylots more;::~~~~~~❤
Great conversation, and it was thoroughly enjoyable to listen to. Separately, I have to say I love the graphic on this video and how it highlights the current speaker in the beam of light. Very subtle.
Sooooo glad Richard is putting out content.
Great discussion! Thanks to you both- much respect ❤
It is interesting how it is possible for someone who is sleepwalking to carry out very complicated tasks whilst being completely unconscious or even self aware. To an observer they may appear completely conscious. This makes the definition of what consciousness actually is even more elusive.
agree, some highly concious people can be and act unconcious, some semi concious animal-human can be more concious than drunk coma dazed dreaming "video game tunel vision" watchign movie.. unconcious
👍👍Thanks, this was great. The accumulated knowledge of generations is separable from being consciously present. The dentist skillfully pulls a tooth, and the patient lives the discomfort of the act. 🤷♂🤷♂ " We evolved to walk around naked " is a perfect response to the claim of Natural vs. Nurture or received empathy.👍👍
Another great talk. Thank you 🌹🌹🌹
Oh wow! I had wondered what had happened to Peter Singer. I attended a few of his lectures in Melbourne and people were always furious with him. I have many of his books. Many things i disagree with, but always found his reasonings and explanations created growth in my own way of thinking and allowed me to reconsider how i could do things differently, albeit not as he suggested. Great convo.
Love you Richard from Pakistan! ❤️🇵🇰⚛️
One of the most enlightening talks that I have heard in a while. Thank you very much to both of you. 🙏
Is there a version of this that shows the conversation in person? Or do we only have access to the audio version?
I was at this session and can confirm it wasn't filmed.
Great subject to talk about 👍 Very interesting.
These two together were great!
I love you Sir Richard❤
Another excellent episode,thank you :)
Of course animals have rights they are living beings same as us. Love Colin 💓
ეს დისკუსია ძალიან სასარგებლო იყო ჩემთვის. დიდი მადლობა თექვენ ორივეს და ყველას ვინ ჩართული იყო ამ საქმეში.
ඇත්ත.
If I saw this text on a UFO I would've thought aliens are trying to communicate with me
Simply out of curiosity, why wouldn't an event like this be recorded in video format? I don't mind audio format, just curious.
Rights are an invention, but, for a worthwhile society, it's a good concept.
Right is not an invention, it's a discovery. A house is an invention i.e. something crafted out of wood and stones. Right has legal foundation that Dawnkings will never be able to understand.
Sure they are an invention and I agree they are useful.
Do you think to be morally consistent we should afford negative rights to sentient non human animals?
Is a no brainer!! They do! They should!!
So prey animals have rights not to be eaten by predator animals then. Who plays policeman in nature enforcing these rights is the problem.
🤔🤔 no they never suggested controlling or altering animals behaviour towards each. Only humans altering our own behaviour, attitudes to animals …. It’s very poor to suggest …. Animals eat each other , 🤔 and eat us if some get the opportunity, therefore we should keep eating animals until they agree to stop eating* each other and us .. 🙄🤷♂️
No they shouldn't
@@carlodefalco7930 If humans have the capability to stop animals from being killed and has decided that it is morally correct to do so, then we have a moral responsibility to police the actions of other animals, otherwise we are just as culpable as the man walking by a woman being raped in an alleyway and doing nothing about it. If the question is purely a moral question; Do animals have the same 'rights' that we do? And we recognize that we are the only beings on the planet capable of both recognizing those rights and doing anything with them, then we have a moral imperative to do what no other being on the planet is capable of by becoming the arbiters of those rights.
Suffering is one very important factor when making moral decisions. However, morality is much more than optimizing for any single variable. Morality deals with the trade-offs inherent in a multiplicity of values. Focusing on suffering at the exclusion of all other values, say like ecological functions, is why you get such outlandish suggestions as the intervening into wilderness to reduce suffering.
Genius comment. I’m definitely going to use this in one of the books I’m writing. Brilliant insight.
Personally I think suffering is the only important factor and these other factors all draw upon the question as to how much suffering the involve. I think the idea of intervening in nature to reduce animal suffering is so outlandish because it's obvious that meddling with the ecosphere like this would certainly go wrong and in turn cause suffering.
Im Christian but I respect Dawkins so much because he has balls to think different.
Because of his opinion on transgender people primarily/solely?
What do you mean 'think different'?
Be thinks in one specific way, which is the correct one - backed by reason and science.
It's everyone else that 'thinks differently'
@@davidstaffell Dude, I know for Jesus, ih had a "born again" exeperiance. Its like best feel I've ever had. So its not just belief. I saw light going trough my eyes. I swear, im not lying. I was atheist for very long time, then agnistic and now Im Christian. Reason I respect Dawkins is because we had same opinion about religion. I've used to think its just manipulation to hold people under control but its not. Biblical God is only real God. Trust me.
@@televizija5646 lmao
@@davidstaffell Spiritual world is actually real. Our world is created. I will pray for you. I was tricked by demons just like you.
Listening to this discussion made me so hungry. After listing I immediately ate flank steaks with bacon and chicken wings. Delicious
Excellent conversation, thank you for bringing this important moral obligation we ought to act on.
I was there for this conversation in person ❤❤
I find this very informative, interesting and funny!
All living creatures have the right to live. To not be tortured. To not suffer. That being said, we do have to eat. But there is no reason we can't give our food a good life before we consume it. The only reason not to is corporate profits. Which is a shitty reason to make animals suffer.
Does that include plants as well ?- they are living beings as well after all - and taking up Richard Dawkins speculation that less sentient beings may need to feel more pain in order to survive then that raises the possibility that plants may feel pain even more intensely than animals! That would throw a cat among the pigeons for the vegans and vegetarians ! Just imagine a lettuce screaming in agony as we munch into it - a bean shrieking as we boil it!
@@kaloarepo288 sure it does, but we already treat plants we eat far better than the animals we eat...
Rights are a fiction. They arnt real
"All living creatures have the right to live" Based on what ?
@@infini6768 Well if they don't, what's stopping the rest of us from killing you?
Hey professor. Thanks.
Listening to two people that agree. Huuum ! One may as well go to Church on Sunday where all agree to one extent or other. I prefer arguments.
Why isn't this episode available on Apple Podcasts?
52:27 profound, never thought about that possibility before.
Really good, even most of the questions were passable.
Animals should have rights and protection.
We are all individuals in a global creatures world, I am not better than a mouse or a crow, we All have the right to a cruelty free world
As conscious human beings with a developed brain with language, culture, and ethical principles should protect animals and avoid cruel and exploitative behavior towards them. After all we are animals ourselves, albeit a unique species.
I disagree. Fuck animals.
@@midknight1968Should animals have rights amongst themselves?
We will have to build some new prisons to incarcerate all the convicted tigers, owls, sharks and spiders.
From a theological perspective, a distinction may be made between lust and desire. Lust connotes selfish desire, whereas desire denotes want or need, which may be either unselfish or selfish. One may also speak of unselfish or selfish lust. The term "lust for life," for example, appears to be connotatively positive...
Compassion is not a weakness
Yes oh yes! All life matter and deserves respect and gratitude.
They are truly sacred to the planet and humanity.....just a pity that humanity has lost respect for life in general.
Concern for the species as a whole and for the planet Earth may turn out to be a true survival characteristic.
Wonderful👋 Thank you.
No one had ‘rights’. They don’t exist. I’ve never seen one. But kind and moral action exists.. in my opinion.. and it should be obvious not to harm animals.
Two of my intellectual heroes
To the idea that animals might need to feel pain even stronger, I would really be interested to hear their thoughts to this idea: If humans hurt themselves, even badly like breaking a bone or having big flesh wounds, they are still very likely to survive because they have lived in groups. They could just rest for a long time before re-entering the activities that are needed for the group to survive because the group could take care of them long enough to recover. Animals usually don't have that kind of support. Also many animal bodies are much smaller. This means that when animals injure themselves, especially if its a really bad injury, they will most likely die. Either because their bodies wont be able to recover from the injury, or because the wound will be infected or because simply they are limping, making them unable to run from predators. An animal that has an injured leg, but feels less pain than a human would, still will be able to run from that predator, but it hurts enough to use it less, giving it rest to help heal it. So with this it would actually make more sense for animals to feel less pain than humans do. Pain does kill when you cant just rest for a few days without something trying to eat you.
When was this conversation?
I think the answer to whether or not animals have rights is up to us as humans. We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very everage star. But we have brains and hearts to understand things and have feelings. That makes us something very special. Yes, i believe that we should give animals the same right to life as it is given to all of us.
I would like to ask Peter Singer two questions:
A right normally comes with a responsibility, noblesse oblige, so which responsibility does the cockroach or polar bear cub fulfill that balances whichever rights you would like to afford them?
If it is ethical for an animal carcass to be eaten by meat eating animals, fungi, bacteria, and so on, why is it less ethical for humans to eat it? Does it serve anyone or anything better if nourishment passes through as few species as possible, or is it possible that a human consuming part of that carcass can influence their environment at least as much as meat eating bacteria?
The question is ‘does anything deserve rights and protection?
This was a very interesting discussion. About intervening in animals' habitats, I think that if humanity ever reaches a stage where it no longer requires an ecosystem to survive (which is probably possible, since the computational hypothesis is probably correct, and if so, then humanity can become a mega-brain of digital minds) the only merciful course of action is to exterminate nearly all non-intelligent sentient life on Earth at that stage; after all, it is immensely worse to suffer excruciating, non-stop long lasting agony than to be deprived of any benefit that the sentient being doesn't need for it to have decent of even somewhat less than decent quality of life. Imagine the suffering experienced by elephants when they starve to death after having lost all of their teeth (something which happens to all elephants that die of old age). I am an anti-hedonist, meaning that I think that all intelligent states of mind and understanding and knowledge of intelligent topics is intrinsically valuable, and I think all base pleasures and pleasure itself lack any intrinsic value. In fact, I also think that intelligent states of mind and understanding and knowledge of intelligent topics are far more intrinsically valuable than the pleasure of any of those things (although I have my own personal preferences for certain topics), although I think higher pleasures are also intrinsically valuable. You can't rationally prove that any base pleasures, or pleasure itself, or any other kinds of experiences are intrinsically or extrinsically valuable, worthless, or bad. The statements that you should or shouldn't value anything or try to achieve any ultimate objective, or that it is correct or incorrect to do so, or that it is rational or irrational to do so are all objectively meaningless. Therefore, no such statements can be universalizable. All factual claims in moral statements are merely descriptions of how things are in reality; none of them make any additional claims. None of them tell you to do anything or not to do anything, or that it is logical, illogical, correct or incorrect to do or value anything. About Peter Singer's argument that there are objective moral facts because you can supposedly make moral arguments, just because you have reasons for doing something, doesn't mean that doing it is rational. For example, if, hypothetically, a ruthless megalomaniac wanted to create a worldwide dictatorship of a particularly extremist kind, they have reasons for wanting to do it, and they may have thought about those reasons deeply. That doesn't mean that this objective is 'rational'. You can argue about means to ends, but never ultimate objectives. Peter Singer was confusing "moral arguments" with advertising of moral views. You can't argue that you know intuitively that it's self evident that there are certain objective moral facts, because the words "moral facts", just like the names of all abstract moral entities and all moral statements are objectively meaningless. And besides, no one can observe any abstract moral entities with any of their senses or by feeling emotion, or detect any evidence of any abstract moral entities or moral facts with any of their senses or by feeling emotion. No abstract moral entity has any definition that means anything. The assertion that you can know intuitively that it is self evident that there are objective moral facts is just that - an assertion; it needs to be qualified and it can't be. Peter Singer should think of a better argument against non-cognitivism than that, one that uses logic ,not intuition. Although intuition is required to understand some arguments, you can't demonstrate that any proposition is true or false using intuition, or partly by using intuition; an argument is either logically sound or logically unsound. Anyway, this was a great talk. I despise Peter Singer's hedonism and some of his other views, but he had interesting things to say, and I always love hearing and reading Richard Dawkins (the God Delusion is one of my favourite books.
Yes
In my mind they will always have rights, as powerful as human rights in regard to treatment.
Two of my favourite people talking about my favourite topics. Loved it ❤
The Miracle of the Atom
The Laws of physics that exist are due to the activity within the atom, which is finely tuned in order for us to exist and as we know atoms are required for life. The main energy level occupied by an electron during orbit is dictated by its fixed distance from the nucleus of the atom. This is relative to electron and proton attraction. There are constants within the atom, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the protons relative to each other. All orbitals that have the same value “N” being the main energy level relates to the quantum number and are said to share the same shell level. Protons are subatomic particles which are charged in relation to the nucleus, electrons are attracted towards them because they have opposite electrical charges; this fine tuning keeps them in orbit around the nucleus making the development of life possible as we know it. The atom is a miracle of design not an accident waiting to happen. Everything is made up of atoms which are finely tuned for the building blocks of life and also they create the environment necessary for the existence of life. The conditions on our own earth in particular are finely tuned being described as biophilic in which life as we know it can flourish.
If any of the fundamental constants like the speed of light or the strength of gravity were to change just a little, then life as we know it would cease to exist. This realization has led some physicists to argue that our universe is intelligently designed, made especially for us, no accident waiting to happen. We live in a finely tuned universe perfectly primed in order to support life.
There is irreducible complexity within the atom never mine the cell as atoms make up cells and are responsible for life as we know it. Atoms are unique and their atomic number dictates what substance or chemical property they have. Carbon for instance has an atomic number of 6 positively charged protons in the nucleus. Atoms are essential building blocks of life, for example the body contains fat which is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon atoms because of their unique make-up also bond strongly to other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen because they have branches or rings of various sizes that contain thousands of atoms, carbon is quite accommodating with other substances. These have unique atomic numbers that make life possible. Atoms suffer from irreducible complexity because all the electrons, protons and neutrons must be present at the same time in a particular number and order, for the atom to function as a designated substance. This knowledge dispenses with the idea of mutations and natural selection relating to chemical interactions. Life on the earth is based on carbon chemistry. Carbon is used in organic matter such as our bodies for instance in order to maintain life. They silently carry out important chemical reactions within our bodies and they are essential to life on the earth. Carbon atoms make up the sun, stars, comets and the atmosphere of most planets. Carbon is found in coal, oil, diamonds and natural gas deposits. The atom is clearly designed and many physicists now recognise this, but they won’t use the word God or Creator, they would sooner believe aliens were responsible, but the question is then begged who made the aliens?
The term atom really means invisible unit or uncuttable, and for a long time it was thought that the atom could not be split, but when they did, it produced the atomic bomb. An infinite intelligence made the various atoms which are so small and are measured as being one tenth of a billionth of a metre across. They are so small that they cannot be seen under a powerful microscope. We are led to believe that all our sophisticated atoms are derived from an invented primordial complex soup of chemicals which then produced the first living cells. Remember each atom is unique due to its composition and arrangement of subatomic particles relative to the number of protons in the nucleus. This is no accident waiting to happen! A primordial soup is purely fictitious and based on fantasy and imagination because men do not want to retain God in their knowledge.
Jesus did not lie to us concerning him being the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. He said that men shall give an account for every idle word spoken, except they repent of their sins!
People eat animals because they get away with it. The cost of eating animals is too low and there are no immediate repercussions for doing so. Kind of the same as with making war, as explained in Why we Fight, by Christopher Blattman
.26:00 I have to say... I agree with A.J Ayer's hoorai/booh theory. I think its a matter of order, we first have the emotional response and then we develop an argument which best suits our point. At least I recognize this is my own pattern of behavior. For example, I'm pro-abortion because I have a negative emotional response to the idea of being pregnant... therefore I tend to empathize the value of the arguments made by pro-choice philosophers. In the end... I don't mind admitting I end up carefully choosing my reasons after listening to my emotions, but both paths of argumentation have very strong points.
I believe the emotional response of the crowd at 1:06 when Dawkins says he is against considering hunting a sport is probe of Ayer's relevance. I'm not a philosopher and I'm not a biologist. But I know about psychology and there's a certain sense of moral superiority in the way some thinkers chose to express their concerns... one may say they are choosing words to get the big "hoorai" booster they get from people when sustaining popular opinions. Because this certainly is the popular and well liked opinion in academic contexts.
So Happy Ole Richie boy is on youtube! Great bookshelf also!!!!
I recommend Damasio or Panksepp on this as well . Rats are ticklish ❤
Where I live there's a "Right to live" for animals.. If you find a hurt animal, a vet HAS TO treat it.
I wouldn't want my tax money spent any other way. Free healthcare for everyone and anything.
Yes they do.
If our decision making is influenced by an endless chain of causality, then determinism is true and we don't have free will. But if the opposite is true-indeterminism then our actions must be random - still not free will.
Or something else we've not thought of yet?
When did this happen?
Now this question really pisses me off, they have more rights than any human.
Listening at 14:00 + and would like to offer that global altruism is no different that village altruism since we live in a global community now. If one helps people on the other side of the world, those people will thrive, better, where they are and not migrate to consume where the giver lives ... is only one small example. Helping others survive keeps social balance, peace, etc., and thus is helpful to my survival. As long as I have surplus to give, there is no downside to sharing. The only time that sharing threatens my genes from being passed on is when that which I give directly threatens my survival or the survival of my offspring. This is not the case in most forms of altruism. It rarely hurts the giver to give and when it does even that specific case must be looked at to see why. For example, I might decide that it's more important for another human to survive, than myself, because they have something greater to give back to the survival of the community. The individual genes are important but so is the overall species, since it carries more than just the genes of that individual.
The fact that altruism has its limits doesn't mean it is essentially self-serving.
I have not checked the definition and my conception is probably not part of it, but to me altruism is when a gesture sucks for you, but you still make the effort because, when you balance things out the effort it will take from you won't be tolerable for you while being highly benefic for the person. No matter whether you see that person again or not. I don't know..
I see generosity that way anyway. True generosity is about sacrificing something for a greater good for me. And it is indeed intriguing. Same with integrity.
What you describe is a mix of generosity and altruism. Altruism is a character trait. Generosity can be, but now always. I believe.
We describe and conversation of suffering and death is normal for other beings but never for the humans because we don't care all we care is about ourselves justifying suffering as normal by ignoring humanity.
Would you consider having a conversation with Simon Conway Morris . Cheers from 🇨🇦
Great discussion! I wonder why consciousness seems so mysterious. To me, it is fairly simple. We live immersed in a sensory pool, visual, auditory, sensory and olfactory. This sensory pool is being processed through the lense of time, which is measured intrinsically by the heartbeat. So, the brain's neurons are simultaneously sensing, filtering focusing and storing information in a living timeline which is mainly centered on the subjective individual's body. We have our areas of the brain which are dedicated to responding and taking action to our environment through movement or communication. There is an aspect which I feel is missing in this discussion which is that DNA research has shown that all the species evolved from one organism. So, this organism, Life, never actually dies. It forms a self-sustaining web. It multiplied and regenerated into countless interactive species. Just as the bacteria in our gut aren't aware they are part of us, we're not aware that we're a part of the Life Web. In nature, nothing is wasted, the parts are subsumed either through predation and or direct consumption by macro and micro species back into another part of Life. Life tends toward balance - overgrowth of a species usually results in a challenge or mitigating species developing. So, the apparent cruelty is really all part of Life. It seems that the instinct toward altruism is present in some humans but lacking in others. If we do not choose to self-regulate we will find that we overconsume the available resources and end up with a population collapse. However Life would certainly go on without us.
I am appalled by factory farms and if I could regulate them out of business tomorrow I would do that. Needless animal experimentation that does not advance medicine like for the cosmetic industry…gone as well…deforestation of old growth stands of forest…stopped immediately. Pesticides in agriculture…strictly regulated in favor of organic practices. My questions or ethical considerations are as follows…
Why do vegans often ignore mycelial networks allowing trees to recognize and feed their own seedlings even in darkened forests and the distress chemical communication of plants when deciding what to consume? Why are the hierarchal placements of living things based on their closest relation to us the most deserving and valued on the list? Plants are alien life forms when compared to human beings and we have only just very recently discovered chimpanzee tool use, group hunting of monkeys etc. In other words, why is animal suffering more important then whatever a giant redwood experiences when it is cut down? Just because animals experience suffering the way we do? I have always been oddly uncomfortable with these discrepancies.
The title is already wrong.
If we develop computers having consciousness, is it okay to disassemble them for our convenience?
I’m kind of curious what Richard said about people who hunt and fish for sport. I hope he’s talking about people who only do it to kill the animals They are targeting. I am a fisherman, but I release pretty much everything that I catch. Obviously you can’t do that while hunting.
54:00 More rational less senstitve, more sensitive less rational. Well said by professor Dawkins.
I hope animals have rights, we are animals
We can all quickly agree that laws contain protections for animals. The related rights to be enforced actually belong to the government. In that sense, the idea of animal “rights” is fairly garden-variety. There are even laws protecting minerals and liquids, like prohibitions to graffiti the Grand Canyon or pollute the Danube river. However, if we are questioning whether animals, rocks or liquids should have rights that they own for themselves, then clearly we are then contemplating a rather heavy re-engineering of legal systems ! A more realistic question is whether animals exercise rights between themselves - do primates have systems of ownership that they enforce between themselves? I wonder.
I'm not sure if animals have rights but humans have obligations!
What a question! Is there any doubt that animals cannot have rights? I have just started so I will have mor to say when I have completed watching it. When I was in Nairobi, when I was a teen of 12, I loved watching all the wild animals on safaris at close range.
DO prey animals have rights not to be eaten by carnivorous animals? And if so who plays policeman in nature and how are predators going to be fed. Singer in his book addresses these questions with nonsensical proposal, ie feeding predators with bacteri derived protein.
There's more big cats in captivity than living in the wild. Humans have taken their rights away with the excuse of conservation and preservation, but it's really just exploiting them for money. Should we imprison near extinct animals in zoos taking away their rights in order to keep them alive?
I'd pay to see Chomsky debate Singer on animal rights.
I enjoyed this talk. It would have been appropriate to bring in the fact that the science and technology of lab-grown meat is now racing into the market in some places. This innovation is going to make a difference and the ethical concerns are going to be met through the hard work and genius of people working through high tech to create real meat in laboratories. Not overnight! But bit by bit, a change is going to happen. The suffering of animals is going to be reduced in volume.
I'm excited about this development but an ethical argument could be made against. Would for example raising a grass fed cow with a good life and then killing it humanely be preferable to it not having a life at all? Lab grown meat is certainly preferable to some farming practices, and it may provide greater opportunity for a change in balance between domesticated and wild animals, but I don't know if it's the most ethical solution.
It's not much of an argument though. Killing an animal or not killing an animal. Fairly clear. Given that we humans already control the reproduction of animals for meat is there really an ethical problem with not propagating more animals when we don't need them for meat supply?@@carlduffy1148
@@carlduffy1148Would society be justified in bringing humans into existence to raise them in a nice setting and "humanely" kill them for products?
@@carlduffy1148"humane slaughter" is an oxymoron. There is no argument to be made.
@@Asthamedos How incredibly arrogant to say there's no argument to be made. Lab grown meat will inevitably prevent some animals from ever existing, in some instances this may certainly be preferable, however there may be other instances where it's better to have had a life which ends with a relatively painless death.
🥺 Video, 😩😢 Puhleeeasse 😭
🙏 Yep 👍 I still love ❤️ Richard Dawkins 😘🥰🤗 25 minutes away, might’ve heard him said these hundreds times - but I’m still not bored 🥳🎉🎊👏 . Thanks for not getting tired of talking 🤗🥰
Animals have a level of intelligent, memories, emotion and senses. My goats are my friends and if I will call my goats, they will respond to shout and they will come to me and I will touch them. My dogs are my friends.n
Rights are an idea. They can be applied to animals the same as they can humans, but it would be humans applying it. It may be that some animals might even have a sense of `rights` in a certain context, but ultimately it's a human idea. Let's say animals did have rights in some objective sense independent of humans. What difference would it make if humans are the only ones to recognize it and choose whether to apply it or not? Still, as a human, I believe rights should be applied to some animal species. Especially mammals. I'm not sure I would apply the same right to the common housefly though.
Why the distinction? Where does the line get drawn and for what reason?
@@Ichthyodactyl Where we decide and because we decide it. I know that's a horrible answer, but it's reality.
@@somersetcace1 It is reality but it's also an admission that it's subjective. Unless we can collectively agree where that line should be drawn, I don't see that line of thought going anywhere productive. Even if we all agreed that ALL animals should have the same 'rights', that is still an artificial and subjective distinction between animals and other forms of life. I don't really find it convincing.
*Animals should be afforded basic rights and protection against exploitation and unjustified harm.........I've never come across a sensible reason they shouldn't*
Do prey animals get these rights and gain protection from predators? Are we being serious!
@@nikitaskypridemos8378
Prey? What are you even talking about?
@@nikitaskypridemos8378That is a rather ridiculous gotcha question. To say that animals should be granted rights of protection _within human society_ is very different from saying that prey should be granted rights of protection from predators _in the wilderness_ . Of course not, atleast not right now anyway, as we have no way of protecting prey from predators on a mass scale without in turn harming the predators.
@@LouisGedoI think he is saying that we wouldn't grant rights of protection to prey being killed by predators in the wilderness, therefore we also shouldn't grant rights of protection to animals who find themselves within the places of human society.
@@irish_deconstruction Thank you for clarifying his apparent position.
Yes, animals have rights to exist. Do not abuse the animals. They are just like human - they are part of nature and connected to human.
They have as much rights as we arbitrarily accept to bestow regarding human-animal interactions. Alternatively see animal-animal interactions for reference, where the human concept of rights don’t exist.
"“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.” - Henry Beston
Jesus this is the best podcast/conversation I’ve listened to in a while. Thanks, docs!
If sympathy is largely to do with expected reciprocity , why do I feel more sympathetic towards animals than humans in many cases ? Certainly they won’t come by and hand me some woolly socks or biscuits at some point later ?
Is this a rhetorical question or an actual one, with or without listening to the discusssion?
The answer was given by Dawkins from an evolutional point of view, AND by Singer from a philosophical point of view.
From Dawkins: Essentially a happen-stance of the actual drive of reciprocity being the de-facto regard due to historical reasons - evolution works slowly, so has not compensated. My own addenum to this, I think the moth and the flame analogy works here: the moth uses light as a reference to fly straight; usually the only light in the past would have been from the celestial bodies far away which means the angle is essentially constant; fire would be rare in the past, so is not taken into account - leads to a spiral of death in the modern era due to fire not being rare anymore and not being so far away.
From Singer: Our ability to reason leads to empathy, which leads to altruism.
Unsatisfactorily touched upon , and not the more sympathy but just the at all sympathy .
Animals torture each other. Mice. Cats, dogs, lions and hyenas, sometimes in worse ways than any human can inflict on them.
Children torture each other. sometimes in worse ways than any adult can inflict on them.
So uhh its ok for adults to kill children
They should.
Now this is quality discourse.
While natural selection may be coupled with pain, per the Darwinian explanation, we do agree that evolution is a fact. If so, then humans have evolved to use reason to be altruistic. I have not read " Animal liberation," but if animals feel more pain, as rational humans of reason, all the more reason why we cannot be cruel to animals, slaughtering them for food. They have moral rights and should be translated to legal rights. As humans with reason, not to liberate them as creatures with intrinsic rights that coexist with us, is unethical.
If animals have rights not to bear human caused pain, should they not also have the right not to suffer animal caused pain? So who plays cop in nature, separting predator from prey?
Facts are apparent. Not absolute. Facts are observations from a particular point of view. So, a grain of salt must be taken with anything thought to be known. Can you agree that from one point of view the Earth was in fact flat? It was obvious that you’d fall off otherwise. What kind of idiot could have argued otherwise?
@@nikitaskypridemos8378 If you read my comment, I said humans have evolved with reason, they can think. Predatory animals arre just that, predatory, not human. They have to eat to survive, humans have options for food.
@@shirley919 What if the bullet I shoot grants as it most likely does a significantly less painful death for the animal than what natural causes eventually would.
@@shirley919Not all animals that eat meat are obligate carnivores, let alone predators, and one of the main reasons that humans have options for food is because we've become technological advanced enough to source our nutrition in ways that could, in theory, satiate even obligate carnivores if we cared to do so. But I think you missed the point he's made. What you are essentially saying is that our moral obligation to protect animals, for the expressed purpose of minimizing experienced pain, extends only to our own actions. So there is SOME amount of pain and suffering experienced by animals, that we have the ability to heavily mitigate (if not entirely stop), but we have no moral obligation to do so and therefor shouldn't try? I find that to be an incomplete moral principal if it tolerates the willful negligence of the apparently reasonable and capable bystander who watches their cousins murdered and does nothing to stop it.
Animals have more rights than us or our children. Perhaps we can learn why that is so.
Clash of the titans
If we could talk with the animals, walk with the animals and have a morality debate with the animals, if we could ask them if they should have rights not to be harmed, might they have any problem with that? After all we are classed as mammals to which some other animals are also classed and we know we wouldn't want to be harmed, if we have any understanding on this matter, then we don't do much about it and even if and when we do, we Doolittle!
Given that humans have rights and humans are part of the animal kingdom. I'd say, "yes- of course animals have rights." Probably mean, do non-human animals have rights?
Humans invented rights to serve our own purposes, whether we confer rights to animals or not is up to us
AS HUMAN BEINGS OWN THIS PLANETS SO DO THE ANIMALS.
IF THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DOES EXIST; SO DOES THE CONCEPT OF ANIMAL RIGHTS!!!!