A moral philosopher and an evolutionary biologist in conversation | A Conversation with Peter Singer 

Good bot

Appreciate it👍

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

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)

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.

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!

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

I was at this session and can confirm it wasn't filmed.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

ඇත්ත.

If I saw this text on a UFO I would've thought aliens are trying to communicate with me

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?

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?

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!

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.

Or something else we've not thought of yet?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .