Scintillating and wide ranging podcast. Love the coverage of utilitarianism, consequentialism and objectivism. Blown away by the convincing argument for animal rights and vegetarianism. So important that Peter provides a platform for controversial views to be aired. In our increasingly “policing of thought” society, this platform is essential. Peter, through his various charitable initiatives seems to be a force for good. As always, Robinson delivers the goods and is not fearful of broaching controversial topics. Well done, my man. Hi Pins 🐈
I don’t understand why the trolly problem (i.e., bridge vs. switch) should be confusing. The switch variation is very concrete. It’s easy to understand why the one death is necessary. That’s not the case with the bridge variation. Why should pushing one person to their death make any difference? I’d bet that clarifying the bridge scenario, making it more concrete and intuitively relatable, would resolve the observed inconsistency.
Giving up meat might seem hard, but in my experience, it was so much easier than I thought. As someone who ate meat with almost every meal, I was resistant to changing something that was a big part of my life and culture. I decided to try a bit of self deception and purposely not commit to going vegan. Instead, I just tried a new vegan recipe every single day, so I could start developing a taste for it. I also educated myself on where my food came from - so I watched videos investigating misconducts in slaughterhouses, and I read Jonathan Safran Foers book 'Eating Animals'. Eventually, the thought of eating dead animals that had gone through torture, made me feel disgusting and like a hypocrite. So I just stopped. Enjoying vegan food was a huge part of it, so I didn't feel like I was missing out in any way. 11 years on still going strong. We could certainly do with more outspoken advocates for animal welfare, so I would encourage you to give it a go. You can do it! You mentioned Venison being the only meat you eat inside the house. I interpreted that as you still eat meat outside of the house. To me, that makes no sense. If you're eating meat in restaurants, you have no knowledge of where it's come from, what kind of life that animal had. And you're choosing to support restaurants that are complicit in the abuse of animals, rather than those that aren't. There are so many wonderful vegan restaurants nowadays. It's a hell of a lot better than it was 10 years ago, trust me!
I can tell you why the majority of people won't push someone to save five but will when flipping a switch.. because the pushing someone to stop a trolley sounds risky, and they're not accustom to the game... lol that intro was a wild choice
Yep, that's a major factor. Usually when you examine someone who objects to a utilitarian decision in a thought experiment, you'll find that they accept decisions with the same moral topology whe those decisions are the actual status quo.
Should every idea thrown against the wall be debunked/supported by analysis, or is there room for just simply being thrown out as ridiculous? Or obviously right or wrong. Probably a better way to couch this.
35 minutes in you state, no philosopher has solved the problem. I’m no philosopher I made OTR truck driver and here is your answer. The reason it’s OK or could be said OK to throw the switch but not push someone in front of the trolley is because if there’s no one there. Will you throw yourself in front of the trolley to save those five or 10 people? Of course you would not, and no one would expect you to. So if you would not throw yourself in front of the trolley, and you would not, then you cannot morally justify pushing someone else No philosopher has been able to answer that question but a OTR truck driver with a eighth grade education did I come up with that in two seconds you’re welcome
If no one else was there, would you throw a switch to make the trolley change tracks and hit you instead? Sounds like you wouldn’t. So how do you justify throwing the switch to kill one other person?
My mind drifts towards the controversial questions, it's natural as curious beings. Beastiality is wrong the same way incest is wrong to me, it's just gross.
How is that a justification for banning it? People do all kinds of gross stuff in private - you don't have to watch them. That said, I think the former is wrong because animals can't consent to sex (but much less wrong than supporting factory farming and slaughterhouses by eating meat and other animal products). The latter is fine between consenting adults, certainly if contraception is used.
Jonathan Haidt (in his The Righteous Mind book) had an argument about buying a whole dead chicken on the supermarket and having sex with it. (I don't mean that he did it, although who knows :)) In the context of moral confabulation, and how people stick to their gut feelings and simply confabulate weak arguments in an attempt to justify the feeling. Incest was also there, and equally harmless - if two siblings decide to spend a weekend in a cabin in the woods and have perfectly safe and consensual sex, what is actually wrong with it? In general, both situations probably have good reasons for being disgusting, and I have no particular inclination to either, but that doesn't make them wrong. Meanwhile, animal farming and mass fishing isn't particularly disgusting and most people are effectively in favor (even if they claim otherwise if asked). So is exploitation for cheap labor. Feelings that served you in the savannah may no longer make sense. I mean, feeling of disgust should be taken as a good indication that you're doing something wrong, but it should be an impetus for examination rather than the source of a conclusion.
Spellbound by this episode. Really enjoy Peter Singer. Excellent coverage of consequentialism, objectivism . Utilitarianism. Discussion of ethics and animal rights was exceptionally convincing. Like it that he provides a platform for “fringe ideas”. Judgemental attitudes aside it’s good that he provides a platform for “ socially defined unacceptable behaviour/ideas”. This forum is desperately needed in our Society increasingly controlled by thought police. Robison, as always, a rewarding and scintillating experience . Thank you! Pins 🐈
Whilst I agree strongly with you and share the same intuition, at the same time, many conservatives find homosexuality disgusting in precisely the same way. So how can that be the foundation? I simply admit I’m against it for no reason at this stage.
The fact that you're unable to see the difference between discussion of controversial ideas and the support of controversial ideas tells me everything about you.
I think his account of Kant is a strawman. Kant would agree that the insidious farming practices are bad. Kant was saying for example that if an elephant kills a person then you cannot put it on trial or reason with the animals. Because you cannot give them obligations, they also cannot have positive rights.
