Peter Singer: Animal Equality 

The goal shouldn't be equality of treatment, but equality of moral consideration.

This guys animal rights ideas or ideas of equality are so logical it's almost undeniable.

I learned about animal right yesterday and this video just explained it way better.

thank you Peter

I also don't think people should be allowed to screw animals, but I don't remember him ever saying that. I'll need to look that up. But there's no way for animals to meet the human burden of proving consent even if it did, in fact, consent to sex. Thus, it beastality should always be outlawed.

Admirable

no way to dissagree with this guy....nobody should slaughter and eat animals!!

Brilliant singer !

All Creatures deserve respect, to live free, free from being cruelly treated, abused, exploited and killed for food and any of their byproducts for Human use and consumption !!! ♥ 🎵🎶☮☯🎼🎧🎤🎼🎹🥁🎷🎺🎸🎻🌈♥❤💚💖👑👍🤘🤞 🧐🌱🐬🐞🦋🍀

If all animals are equal, then what do we do about animals that have to eat other animals and cause them suffering?

Now, I do believe he's argued elsewhere that infants whom he considers not "rationally-aware" should be given a "painless death" to keep consistent with his philosophy. My initial problem is that it's hard to confirm whether such a thing is possible in creatures that can feel pain. How does one confirm this for certain? I also have to go back to questioning how infants aren't "rationally-aware", because I think that seems wrong prima facie.

tyyyyyyou SIR !

very smart and admirable man.

Peter singer mükemmel birisi düşünceleri harika etkilendiğimi itiraf etmeliyim 🥹

I find it incredibly hard to disagree with Peter Singer. All efforts are futile...

He is mostly consistent but for one fundamental question that I do not yet understand. True, a painless death is needed. True that if a baby is not aware it does not hold status above an animal. But the main thing with the permissible baby-killing is 1. Is rational-awareness a provable concept, and 2. It is emotionally repulsive to euthanise live babies, and 3. This implies that a culture of killing will become prevalent.

Disappointing to hear Singer use the phrase "Humans AND Animals" - which, of course, is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "Humans AND Animals". "Humans and non-Humans" is the correct language to use when talking about our species in comparison to other species.

In an alternate timeline a pack of lions are debating whether its ethical to rip a zebra to shreds and eat it for sustenance.

@VoiceofReason2112 Actually "voice of reason" he does a knowledge that a human infant is a human being. He denies that it is a person. It may be euthanized under certain circumstances. Stop misinterpreting his ideas. And, yes, I think he is one of the most admirable people on earth.

Singer is quite aware that babies can feel pain, which is why he thinks that a baby's interests deserve consideration. He objects to the view that a being's interests deserve more consideration just because it is rationally aware.

Immense patience from Ed.

tune in next week where a panel of cows will chew the cud over gas emission

Now, If most of you believe this, I trust your presence will be found at the next BLM protest??

I love this man. The mass murder and consumption of nonhuman animals will be looked back on as worse than slavery. Keep up the fight for our nonhuman sisters and brothers in captivity!

Peter Singer has told us that on any fair comparison of morally relevant characteristics, like rationality, self- consciousness, awareness, autonomy, pleasure, pain, etc. the calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Any of those animals deserve more rights than an unborn child. 9.2 billion human animals by 2050? NOW at this time! much of the living world is sick. It's time for vasectomies on every continent. Friend says ha good luck with that

Good thing Singer didn't encourage sex with animals here lol. His entire approach to this issue is based on unproven, anthropomorphic assumptions. Non-human animals clearly experience pain and suffer physically, but it's not clear that they suffer emotionally as a result. This means that human suffering, by comparison, is deeper. Nor is it clear how "a similar amount of pain" is supposed to be measured or assessed in a wide variety of non-human animals. There are animals that get eaten alive by carnivores and show no signs of physical pain, leaving human spectators to wonder whether the hippopotamus or impala being devoured even knows what's happening or rapidly goes into shock. Conversely, there are animals who seem like they' could be in a similar amount of physical pain as a human being, even though nothing painful is being done to them. I've got a nervous cat who hates going to the vet. The poor thing almost always defecates on the way there, and when the people at the clinic attempt to wipe him clean, he lets out the most awful, chilling scream, worse than the scream he makes if his tail or paw is accidentally stepped on. Further, it is bizarre to talk about non-human animals as though they have interests. They act purely on evolutionary instinct; humans, in contrast, act on evolutionary instincts, but also on significant freedom of the will, a crucial part of rational, moral agency, which is in turn directed toward certain interests. When a male dolphin forcibly copulates with a female dolphin, it simply does what evolution has programmed into him. He is not raping her. When a nomadic male lion kills all of the cubs of the ousted pride male(s), he is simply doing what evolution has programmed into lion sociality, and the infanticide serves an important evolutionary purpose. He is not murdering the cubs. When an eagle snatches a fish from the talons of another eagle, she is not stealing the fish. And so forth ... There is no moral accountability for animals precisely because, as far as we can tell, they have zero control over the range of possible behaviours their species exhibit. Human beings are clearly not limited in this way.

Excellent point. Very insightful. *keeps chewing on burger and drinking milk*

Very true. VoiceofReason fails his namesake by making such a blunder, here. But this is an issue where I think Prof. Singer loses some consistency with the reasoning of his ethical worldview. He has concluded that an infant is not yet a person because it isn't "rationally-aware" - which is questionable to say for sure - yet as he says in this video, if a living creature can experience pain like us, we have reasons to consider their suffering equally as we do our own. Well, babies CAN feel pain.

How do we know if other animals can suffer or enjoy their lives the way humans can?

im just trynna eat some chicken every once in a while

This young chap is quite entitled, I think.

JESUS didn't die for animals. cheers

Would you eat meat after eating a salad.

why is this man still a thing?

Dog vs. GOD. He wins.

Is this man Jewish?

Hope you don't step on a ant so called philthopher

animal predators do not consider the rights of other animals before eating them so why should we?