Peter Singer & John Hare - Moral Mammals: Why Do We Matter? - The Veritas Forum 

Both speakers did a great job! A great discussion indeed.

"No one could tell me where my soul might be - I sought for God, but he eluded me. I sought my brother out and found all three - my soul, my God and all of humanity. (E. Gordon) (Miracle on the River Kwai)

It is easy for the Atheists to criticize human fascination/obedience toward God, simply because this fascination/obedience is centuries old, established, thought about, struggled with, examined, cross examined, written and talked about etc... whereas Atheists have never had to defend Atheism as the widespread way of life. Only several hundreds of years from now... when we untangle the larger effects of Atheists on society will we have examples from which to have an *equal debate. The weak nag the strong. Be careful what you wish for Atheists. What would a world without God be like? Do they suggest an experiment whereby this should be the way? Can you see the hypocritical irony in Evangelizing others toward your own way? I think this a really great talk. Every Catholic should see it and not only see it but study it. Taking the moral standard upon ones self. Because you can not save anyone else unless you are also happy in doing so. The problem of morality WITHOUT God is the easy tendency to believe that if someone else is struggling that is "simply their lot in life." For every religious zealot who has given God a bad name it is so easy to see how these zealots hardly if ever even understand the religions they allegedly crusade for.

so touching for an excellent video

I thought Peter just did not have answer for moral failure. How would he address the problem of guilt?

good can exist without evil, but evil can't exist without good.

If there wasn't evil then there would be no reason for morality or even no reason for good. Evil exists so we can experience joy, without hardship we could not grasp things that are good!

what does your comment have to do with the question I paraphrased by Singer? unless you're suggesting that a cruel god might exist, in which case Singer does not deny this possibility (however minuscule it is)?

I'm still watching but I fail to see how Hare's argument is substantially different from the Kantian argument from morality.

Nice shoes Peter!

"we're not gonna solve it based on two anecdotes.." Then why bring you yours? [Hare]

I really appreciated that this clip skipped the into. No disrespect to moderators or emcees, but the average viewer on the internet wants to cut to the debate proper!

i guess so, so why don't you explain it to me?

Curious, 12:30 he say scripture says "go sell all your possisions, and help the poor." It actually says sell all and "follow me." Now the only thing Christians and Atheists agree with is science and reason. It just doesn't seem reasonable to sell everything, give a lump sum to the poor, and then live the rest of your life as a poper. It's not reasonable that such an extreme act would do any good. It seems to me that from his position he is criticizing Christians for the wrong reasons.

Peter Singer is a pretty famous bioethicist, actually. And you simply didn't understand what he said. He never claimed that belief in god(s) would make everything permissible.

why does a benevolent all-powerful god allow for the suffering of non-human animals, animals who will receive no celestial justice in a heaven made only for humans? once again singer argues brilliantly.

1:04:30 "they (mammals) don't take this impartial point of view... the point of view of the universe... And I think that's true, they're not capable of it because they don't have high enough cognitive abilities... when we get those cognitive abilities [via evolution] we can understand that... And we can see that... that is kind of a larger perspective... now... and so we become capable of taking that perspective..." Peter Singer in his belief of mammals versus humans cognitive abilities. Please listen to this statement intently. Here Peter Singer reveals his humanocentric view of the cosmos. How does he know that no other animals are capable of seeing the Universe as we do? And if they see it differently, why is this immediately seen as inferior? Why? Because the Atheist is subjective. He is the subject and has a scientific humanocentric reason for everything. There are animals who live here now before the time of the dinosaurs and very well may live beyond the time of humans. How do you define their "cognitive abilities?" I happen to believe that animals may very well be SMARTER than people. And very much more representive of their place in the Universe and therefore must, by their essence, hold a more accurate sense of the Universe as a whole and mortality. I totally disagree with this man. I do not believe he even knows what he is talking about. Mortality is not even touched in this discussion unfortunately.

The kangaroo example is kind of wrong, Humans have higher understanding and can preserve life and protect it animals do no not. Now if their waterholes dry up and a human is aware what compels one human to help kangaroos and another to not help them? We are bound in a continuous butterfly effect so if for some reason these waterholes dried up because of human infrastructure then their suffering is not random although in some cases it might be. If we know a wrong is being committed we can right that wrong animals cannot. If you get hit by lighting that does not mean God doesn't exist because lighting striking a person is random suffering. It's not random, we just can't perceive causality to it's fullest so we call it random.

I think Singer was brilliant, while Hare used arguments that seem too weak. But it's a nice debate overall.

One can live a great life without having much money... the reason Jesus says to sell all is because we tend to get stuck to physical stuff, whilst that is quite stupid because it is certain, to theists and atheists alike, that we are all going to lose it no matter what.

Non-religion isn't a belief that inspires people to do things. Stalin did what he did because of the strange Stalinist ideology he espoused. Atheism was a part of that, but it was incidental, and simply a method of putting no power above the state. Mao and these other people had their own ideas. So, sure, we'd hold Stalinist-types in suspicion because we know that that belief system can inspire tremendous evil. So, too, can theistic belief systems, and thus so too must we be wary of religion.

Complete straw man and it would be surprising if Singer as a well known philosophy professor at Princeton made such as silly goof.

I think animals without souls suffer because of original sin. man's sin has separated us from God and affected the natural. TheBible says all of nature moans for the return of Christ. however I think there will be animals in heaven. if we had a favorite I don't see why that would not be with us.

Be surprised, it's what he says. Watch it again, listening carefully.

hare = embarrassing.

Within the first two minutes this noob articulates a clear fallacy. He begins by asking whether the non EXISTENCE of God would make everything permissible, and then asks why anyone should think that BELIEF in God would make everything permissible. I can't bear to watch the rest....