Peter Singer & Lawrence Krauss

[knot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8co-mbyJzQ

Interesting talk about veganism, science and morality

Singer seemed to be on thin ice a couple of times, but I think they both had some goofy moments

[brimstoneSalad]

When did you think he was on thin ice?

[miniboes]

Thanks for sharing, that was great.

[knot]

When did you think he was on thin ice?

Singer said something about science still not being able to answer certain moral questions, and that philosophy still has a place because you need a rational discussion about those things.

So I'm assuming he's talking about the premises of morality.. but if someone is happy being a complete nihilist I still dont see any rational argument you can really make against that person. I mean once you agree on the premise that consciousness/pain/sentiene/whatever actually matters, then the rest follows easily, but if someone really doesnt agree with that, then you're just stuck


He also said something about hunting not being too bad, because the animals had already lived a good life... or something like that (not sure if that's just my mind playing tricks on me)

[brimstoneSalad]

So I'm assuming he's talking about the premises of morality.. but if someone is happy being a complete nihilist I still dont see any rational argument you can really make against that person. I mean once you agree on the premise that consciousness/pain/sentiene/whatever actually matters, then the rest follows easily, but if someone really doesnt agree with that, then you're just stuck

You can show that they matter to morality, and that the nihilist is an amoral or even immoral person. But you can't necessarily convince somebody to decide to be a good person, even knowing what that means.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

However, convince the 99% of people who do care about morality and being good people, and the nihilists can either go along with it, or be locked up away from others.

He also said something about hunting not being too bad, because the animals had already lived a good life... or something like that (not sure if that's just my mind playing tricks on me)

It's not as bad as factory farming.

But what he was saying was that he could agree with the hunters that go on safari and pay money to the government, which goes to conservation efforts: That overall, the bad may not outweigh the relative good (may be the best of bad options) if there is no other source of funding to protect animals from poaching, etc.

[inator]

So I'm assuming he's talking about the premises of morality.. but if someone is happy being a complete nihilist I still dont see any rational argument you can really make against that person. I mean once you agree on the premise that consciousness/pain/sentiene/whatever actually matters, then the rest follows easily, but if someone really doesnt agree with that, then you're just stuck.

I agree, it's very difficult to make a rational argument for taking the impartial 'universal' point of view in moral decisions, as opposed to the individualistic 'egoistic' one.

I think at some point Singer made the case that the former is more objective because egoism is more likely to be the product of evolution by natural selection, rather than because it is correct, whereas taking an impartial standpoint and equally considering the interests of all sentient beings is in conflict with what we would expect from natural selection, meaning that it is more likely that impartiality in ethics is the correct stance to pursue.