Peter Singer: How to live a good life 

Enjoyed this guest. A succint expression of his points. Practical thinker. Disappointed in comment section. More naysaying than debate. Still interview was a gratifying listen. Thank you, Eddie, Peter.

Unheard means seeing/hearing outside an echo chamber of ideas. This seems to achieve that objective.

I'm genuinely interested to hear what those who dislike Singer (to put it mildly for some!) think about his philanthropy and his influence on effective altruism. He has dedicated much of his career - and his income - to helping those who really are at the bottom. For those unaware or unfamiliar, a few minutes on The Life You Can Save will show some of the great work being done. Whilst I too don't agree with everything he says, that's completely overshadowed by the goodness and kindness he believes in and shares.

Behold, the pontifex maximus of the death cult.

I do not like Peter Singer but kudos for having him on the show.

"How to live a good life" Step 1 Ignore Peter Singer

Ask him if having sex with animals is part of living the good life.

I thought that Freddie was particularly patronising in this episode and that Peter Singer was rational, articulate and dignified in the face of the host’s approach.

We need to restore the word 'philosopher' as the name for someone who loves wisdom. That isn't Peter Singer.

I think it’s a stretch to refer to Mr. Singer as a “moral” philosopher.

Lol I would love to see Mary Harrington on this

Hard to get a proper sense of Peters thinking from this interview. I have never read his philosophy, so can’t say much about how he reaches his conclusions. But based purely on his conclusions, I am not sold on moral philosophy as a credible approach to morality.

I found this interview one of the most unsatisfying podcasts UnHerd has posted . I found Peter nit to live up to his introduction in any shape or form quite a disappointment

I'd like to see Bertrand Russell conduct this interview, it takes a philosopher to really interrogate a philosophy...And I think the late Russell would have really gone to town on this guy.

This guy couldn't be more wrong about Covid and the unnecessary vaccine. Monstrous opinions tbh.

Regarding studying race and iq differences, surely truth and reality matter most? If it is the case that different racial groups have different averages in intelligence (which it appears so), then that's probably something we should want to to know and maybe even act on as a society. Simply avoiding the question because it makes people uncomfortable isn't right in my view. You might as well just start pretending that men can be women in that case, if feelings matter to you more than facts.

Wow, he's SO wrong on the mRNA effectiveness and statistics. How can people be so uniformed still?

Love him. In a post-theistic world, beyond idealist fantasies, utilitarianism is the philosophy that makes sense and should be applied to all issues.

Really appreciating this interview and q&r format. Great questions, guests, and lovely room, too.

Whats going on here w/comments?

I appreciate this discussion, gave me the chance to realise I hate every single one of his opinions

Clear thinking and common sensed man. Shame he is disapproved of by so many. However, I read somewhere that Hitler was a vegeterian, so not sure about the effect of veganism on less war...

51:02 wish you had've asked him about the non-resuscitation orders given to doctors and nurses in Scotland. how he feels morally about that?

I love it when really intelligent people host podcasts. These are the ones the general public will learn something. Thank you Freddie.

An Immoral philosopher!

With all respect, several of the rightfully esteemed interviewee's responses sounded like word salad. It was difficult to understand what he was actually saying or intending to say.

He seems incredibly naive. This is the problem with philosophy. Too much thinking, not enough observing.

54:40 to 54:52 Human testing. Singer is in favour of coercive vaccine mandates but cites the importance of informed consent on experimental trials for new medical treatments. This is especially galling since the CV vaccines hurt exactly the 'young, healthy and not at risk' type of people that he proposes for these trials. Is Singer genuine in his statements? I humbly submit that he is not.

When the chat replay is unavailable, that's a genocide of internet trolls. (Let me know if my sense of humor is too dark).

I am shocked. Australians are against illegal immigration and too generous an acceptance of refugee claims; on such ground the Conservative party has gained the elections four times.Finally, the Labour party understood the message and changed their positions. This is what Singer says. However, the reason why he applauds Labour is because, in that way, they can win and advance other points on their agenda (relevant to Singer, we do not know if relevant to the electorate). No, the only reason why he should applaud is because Labour listened to the electorate, that is for the reason of democracy, not the reasons of opportunism (which he seems to confound with utilitarianism). Self-decreed moral superiority of the minority against the will of the majority, this is what it is. Appalling.

This is your brain on pure utilitarianism.

What comes to my mind often these days is, “Birds of a feather, flock together” and is it not true of we human apes also?

If this man is the greatest moral philosopher of our time, we are in great trouble, which we are since the climate disaster and AI will destroy us. It must feel great to be so satisfied with oneself.

Start at 9 minutes!

Money should not change hands in the surrogacy process.

Peter Singer lied multiple times in this podcast - it's amazing that anyone listens to someone who manipulates so much and happy to push out lies if he can to make his lefties points.

I think that the key problem is that he seems to be extremely removed from emotions and he sees the entire world with that lense. He doesn’t acknowledge that we have irrationality, emotions, cultural impact, etc in our decisions and we don’t live in a sanitized, pure environment. He also doesn;t care about unintended consequences and the ‘tail ends’ of the statistical results. Ergo: he can have his thoughts and ideas, but he should never be in a position of making decisions about others.

What happens if a doctor refused to assist? Can we make them?

the moral philosopher of someone's time, maybe

Shill. More or less the same line that you would expect from most ruling party left perspectives. The only interesting question here is whether they adopted him or he influenced them.

Here's a ChatGPT summary: - Peter Singer has been a leading figure in ethical debates for over five decades. - Singer believes the world has moved closer to his views on life and death issues, such as voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying, which are now legal in many countries. - He notes that abortion as a woman's choice has also become more widely accepted. - Singer disagrees with the notion that the acceptance of assisted dying has led to significant backlash, particularly in Canada. - He emphasizes the importance of understanding the conditions of those seeking assisted dying, particularly in cases of terminal illness or incurable conditions. - Singer discusses the ethical complexities of surrogacy, noting concerns about exploitation in international surrogacy arrangements. - He supports genetic screening to prevent significant disabilities, arguing it is not inherently eugenicist. - Singer criticizes pro-natalism policies like those in Hungary, advocating instead for accepting immigrants to address population issues. - He acknowledges a shift away from globalism and universalism, which he attributes to rising nationalism and protectionism. - Singer emphasizes the importance of free speech and has co-founded the Journal of Controversial Ideas to promote open academic discourse. - He discusses the ethical implications of gender identity, particularly in contexts like prisons and sports, advocating for more nuanced discussions. - Singer reflects on the challenges of balancing ethical principles with pragmatic political decisions, particularly in the context of immigration and asylum policies. - He defends the utilitarian approach to COVID-19 policies, including mandatory vaccination for public activities, while acknowledging some policy errors. - Singer highlights the importance of having a purpose beyond oneself for a life well-lived. - He discusses the ethical considerations of assisted dying for dementia patients, suggesting the need for a judicial review process. - Singer expresses concerns about the rise of totalitarianism and the misuse of technology for surveillance. - He believes that greater knowledge and understanding of other cultures can motivate a shift from a tribal to a global mindset. - Main message: Peter Singer advocates for a utilitarian approach to ethical issues, emphasizing the importance of open discourse, global responsibility, and pragmatic decision-making to improve overall well-being. Holy moly, this guy is a complete lunatic.

29:50 if you e changed your gender, what exactly have you changed?

Great interview as always Freddie.

"rayschism"

Utilitarianism sounds good to Western ears because it secularises Christian moral prejudices. Most utilitariana assume or lean towards universality (all beings having equal moral value), but since morality only makes sense in light of biological and cultural evolution, this needs demonstrating. Are cultures that behave according to naively calculated utilities more robust in the long term? Debatable. Christian cultural success in recent centuries is the best argument, but most utilitarians won't admit it because they buy the myth that the Enlightenment was a schism from Christianity and not a second Reformation. In the end, utilitarianism is unconvincing unless we bastardise the notions of utility most utilitarians use.

Dr Death, promoting wrongthink.

22:22 Sums up this conversation nicely.

Good interview. Well done Freddie

Alex O'Connor last week and now Peter Singer? I need to subscribe lol

Outside the Anglosphere, Alain Badiou has a lot of influence.

Its easy to criticize in general, try backing it up with a specific point and which doesnt rely on stating your professional background.

thanks

Didn't learn much from this. 'World-famous' is always the death knell of any truly innovative discussion. Radical in the 1970's and Liberal Conservative in the 2020's much like so many of the rebels of that era. Kind of sad to see. Try to get someone under 40 who truly has ideas that will make us uncomfortable today, rather than someone who made our parents uncomfortable.

My wife works in a busy furniture shop in Dublin city, she has noticed a lot of gay male couples coming in with babies, the practice is definitely becoming more widespread.

After 17 min I had to turn this off. (After 30 years of being a clinical psychologist) Watching a person who sounds like a psychopath is something I can take very little of

Forgive me, but I just have little to no time for consequentialists, even the supposedly principled ones like utilitarians. It is an untenable position.

That's how we start discussing "good life"

the poor lady with 'depression' was abused for twenty years by the biomedical model and had caused her massive harm with drugs and ECT. - we should allow assisted dying for psychiatry its total quackery.

This is always the foil of maximizing utilitarianists. They end up limiting freedom and supporting totalitarianism.

Oh my... How disingenuous Peter is and sits on the fence. I find his stance on important topics... Just ... Sorry but so flakey. In the bin please. ( Not Peter, but such a flakey stance) We need to be strong and truthful.

This man is utterly misinformed about surrogacy in Romania and Bulgaria (and probably other topics too, but I stopped watching:)

Peer reviewer’s have their own biases.

Evil incarnate.

Boring philosopher who wants to please most people, especially the power that be

Typical boomer attitude to lockdown. Slight concern about kids education after he's got his education in full. Selfishness under the guise of pragmatism.

Horrible

State surrogacy boards! 😂😂😂😂 except it's not funny at all.

An interview with a monster......

Philosopher? Really?

Morality is subjective

Peter, go find some co3, fvu!

Peter is brilliant

Limey tv🤮🤪👻✌️