Eating plants put me in a mobility chair Ditching plants and eating animal meat and fat got me out. Since I don’t want to be a burden to others, I eat meat.

This is an area where it would be incredibal usefull to incorporate a systemic view. Especially the knowledge ad experience we can get from the "method" of family constellation (after Bert Hellinger) because here we see another incredibly important aspect of the consequence of HOW and WHY we "creati" people.

Does Jordan Peterson indulge in bad philosophy as he pointed out?

the analogy for strokes is so well said.

This is getting ridiculous

You make a fine compassionate case for vegetarianism but the clincher for me as a former stockman to remain an omnivore, and I know you won't accept this, but I believe I'm actually giving life to livestock. I wish many farm animals could have a much better life, especially pigs and poultry but surely this could be done by legislation rather than everyone turning vegan, resulting in livestock not being kept at all. No creature wants to die but we all do and farmed animals are prey species. I is it better to die quickly in a slaughter house or in the jaws of an apex predator? I don't know but its a thought.

Amlodipine, nefedipine , and other hypertension meds!

The hierarchy proposed by Shelly seems to rest on a precarious foundation of anthropocentrism and speciesism, privileging human perspectives while systematically dismissing the cognitive and emotional capacities of other species. Such a framework is inherently self-serving, reinforcing human dominance rather than fostering a rigorous exploration of ethical parity across species. He, like many, is conflating assumptions and intuition with scientific evidence. There is no definitive way to assert, as an objective fact, that pigs-or any other non-human animal-do not engage in contemplation of morality. Likewise, it cannot be objectively claimed that their goods are inherently less sophisticated or inferior to those of humans; such judgments are true only from the human perspective within their own Umwelt. Moreover, the very act of constructing a hierarchy undermines the possibility of genuinely achieving its purported goal. When the existence of a hierarchy is assumed from the outset, the result is inevitably shaped by that assumption, rendering the constructed hierarchy inaccurate and biased by design. This approach perpetuates a cycle of justification rather than advancing an honest inquiry into the moral and cognitive complexities of all sentient beings.

This guy is going strait to HELL .we are not related to ape.2cor5:10 ,1thess4:13 to the end of chapter, but what can you expect from the godless?

Here we go again trying to play god

Not buying the artificial gestation argument. Why is killing the foetus okay if you choose and not okay if you don't need to take care of it/them, not even know what happen to them. Why are not rights restricted to someone's own body, but they need to extent to another creature who has a chance of becoming a human. Why give someone a say on whether someone lives or dies regardless? Because after the separated from the foetus the decided that in a few months they might start loving them? And how much nonesense is this love argument? So if a mother decides she doesn't love her child after they are born, she should have the right to kill them? No love is present? Someone please elaborate?

If you have canine teeth, it's ok to eat meat. That's it.

Absolutely excellent lecture, Nigel. Huge thanks for this. A breath of philosophical fresh air. Be great to grab a coffee in Oxford sometime.

Peter Singer is such persuasive philosopher! Great to hear this sem-biographical account of his thinking on some of the big questions in moral philosophy! Always worth listening to.

Another thing to keep in mind is financial incentives, like lets say its completely morally justified to eat meat that came from an animal that lived a happy life and died painlessly, like just for the sake of argument, if everyone still eats meats, the demand for meat will still be absolutely massive, and meat is already expensive to produce, and making more money is directly tied to worsening welfare conditions, plus it would almost certainly be easier to trick people into think meat is sourced this way when it isn’t (especially considering people will already just see “cage free” or think its locally raised and write it off as completely fine) and at this scale that would mean an unimaginably large amount of suffering on animals is inevitable, the financial incentives are perverse and that is also wrong Just like how idk we dont let people sell themselves into literal slavery, like im not opposed to a fully informed consenting person having the ability to do that, but if it were legal the financial incentives would cause people inevitably to be coerced into literal slavery, its wrong because of the financial incentives

How we treat animals depends upon how animals treat us. The dog treats us humans very differently than a crocodile. So to treat a crocodile the same as a dog would be insanity and to treat the dog the same as a crocodile would be cruel.

Great explanation of some of the key moral puzzles raised by the amazing Derek Parfit! A genius!

Excellent lecture. I sincerely believe that philosophy must engage with the world directly, the world, that is, as it is experienced by human beings as they go about their daily lives. What use is it otherwise? We need to be able to think more clearly and in more creative ways about the problems that plague us. And to do so we need the tools of philosophy. I don't believe there is any other other way.

To understand how mind works you need neuroscience. Also, to understand whether or not mind reduces to physical structure and its workings, you need to understand physical structures and their workings kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKDFpYioaNN_gsk

To understand how mind works you need neuroscience. Also, to understand whether mind is or not just a computation, you need to understand what a computation is, and what computers really do kzbin.info/www/bejne/oabdmnhmZtebbK8&pp=gAQBiAQB

Well. I would say the main reason for not eating animal meat is compassion

What an insufferable asshole.

you have the right to refuse ANY medical product from a pharmaceutical company no matter what

Mental health is physical health and physical health is mental health. They are the same and I don’t know why doctors don’t treat them as the same. My physical health has absolutely been affected by my mental health. I do think people get insulted when doctors tell them there is a connection between the two but they need to get over it!!! Your mental health can 10000% percent be affected by your mental health. I think doctors stopped telling people things were psychosomatic because people were getting their feelings hurt but sometimes there are physical causes and a lot of times your mental health affects your physical health. You have to take care of your mental health or it WILL affect your mental health and vice versa. I developed horrible physical pain and went on a decade long journey to figure out what caused it and it ended up being my mental health. One example is the book The Body Keeps the Score.

Can i share some information for increase your view? If you allow me, i will share. Thank you.

Awesome video ❤

Nice❤

the idea that the evolutionary process is unguided by blind forces is funny to me. There is not explanation what so ever as to what physical systems makes our experience of reality happen Allow me to point out to the fact that from the physical physic-chemical perspective there is not experience (it is taken as a given by materialist scientists, however dined as such by materialism) So yes… it is true that we observed there is thrived for survival in nature and effort to avoid pain ( surprisingly at times, a trade of survival for the avoidance of pain ) So again… there is not a coherent let alone complete explanation by unguided evolution as to why there exists something called pain and pleasure and much less how those are synchronise with survival out comes. It seems more as if we were pleasure seeking entities rather than survival hunkers. And pleasure is used in the whole phenomenological enterprise as a tool to survive. There for… Unguided evolution, is incoherent from its core, lacks explanatory power( therefore useless ), and is none parsimonious

Is this Rebecca Roache the one that suggested new ways of punishments for prisoners by extending their lives through technology? I was going to call her a DEGENERATE PSYCHOPATH, but then I noticed she has A SEPTUM RING, so never mind, she's a good, virtuous person. Forget I said anything.

Is this Rebecca Roache the one that suggested new ways of punishments for prisoners by extending their lives through technology? I was going to call her a DEGENERATE PSYCHOPATH, but then I noticed she has A SEPTUM RING, so never mind, she's a good, virtuous person. Forget I said anything.

Aside from giving zero arguments for why the probability of a relevantly significant threat posed by Hamas (in cahoots with Qatar, Turkey, Iran & its "axis of resistance") is 0, infanticide defender & anti-egalitarian (McMahan 2002, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012) also just blatantly asserts your typical Liberal Lucy "Jews bad" talking points (featuring buzzwords like, "occupation, blockade, religious fanatics"). The Iron Dome and extra soldiers will make the job harder, but def not impossible--or so low in probability that a military action is impermissible. It's obviously *practically* justifiable to eliminate such immediate, unwilling & repeatedly terroristic threats to one's country. The arguments of our oh-so-ethically-enlightened "ethicist" entail that if Iceland had an October 7 type of situation from Denmark's Armed forces, it'd be *unjustified* to maintain (as Israel has, granting Hamas-friendly numbers) at least a 1:2 terrorist-to-civilian ratio in eradicating military members of DAF which pose an existential (or mass murderous) threat to Iceland. According to Jeff, military efforts to capture or kill Bin laden, Al-Zawahari, Abu-Bakr, etc involving casualties were unjustified since the probability of another 9/11, or 9/11-type-event, was **significantly** lowered after the strengthening of airport security.

awful moral analysis. if the cause is just, then the baseline for acceptable harm has to be the amount of harm required to accomplish military objectives in service of the just cause. this baseline of contrasting with harm to self if action is withheld is incredibly weak. i have no idea why he'd define it as he did. it makes no sense, particularly in light of point 2. i'll go over some other problems with his analysis: the trolley problem that this guy likes invoking so much suffers from multiple flaws, but the worst of them is that it's a highly contrived scenario that occurs in a vacuum. what if the person contriving the scenario was a part of it, instead of being some force of nature? imagine the branch track had 1 person, and the main track had 12 people, but one of them was the madman who constructed the trolley scenario. if you save the majority group, he will now live on to create another trolley scenario. this will repeat again and again until someone chooses to kill him. this massively changes the analysis as the trolley problem itself isn't just a random scenario you popped into, but a lose-lose scenario that you're being continually forced into, and will remain trapped in unless you break the cycle by refusing to play the madman's game. 2. any measure of harm opted into by the opponent must be factored into the calculation of the baseline for acceptable harm. A dictator can post a sign on his border saying "for every step you take into my territory i will torture a child to death" and "for every projectile fired into my country, i will torture a child to death". this dictator can now freely aggress on any actor. none will be able to ethically fight against him, because they will have to factor the harm against the civilians of the dictator - that the dictator himself is choosing to force into the equation. this is an insane concept of proportionality which renders war impossible for a moral actor. it simply cannot be the case that Hamas can pack more people into a hospital and as a result of that become immune by reaching some threshold. NO amount of intentional stake raising by Hamas can turn a target immune. only circumstance can render a target invalid through disproportionality, never contrivance. 3. in thought experiments there exists a clarity of information that is simply not existent in reality. as a result the baseline harm is NEVER the actual target for one engaging in proportionality analysis, rather one always tried to exceed it by a margin that will acceptably minimizes chance of failure. say destroying a target at an 85% success chance is expected to kill 10 people. you can reduce the casualties by 20% if you use a smaller munition, but you success rate will decrease to 75%. alternatively, you can use a larger munition, killing succeeding at 95% rate, but increasing casualties by 20%. now what if you went for the mitigating option and you failed? now you'll have killed 8 people and achieved nothing. next time you'll have an opportunity to strike the same target, you'll have to run the same risk again. at best in that scenario you'll have killed 16 people total. this already carries 2 HUGE assumptions, however. the first being that you'll get another opportunity at all, and the second is that that opportunity will have an identical potential cost, rather than a higher one. we can also ask what if the intel itself that is used to assess success rate also carries uncertainty, which ofc it does. then once again we have to factor that margin into our use of force. of course there are diminishing returns here, but generally it is the case that succeeding the first time is more important than minimizing casualties, since underestimating the required force will still cause collateral, but also necessitates further harm in the future as the objective is still not met. so operating on the base line is bad practice. uncertainty will introduce unexpected failures, and the loss of opportunity will result in more lives in the long term, even under ideal conditions. as a result it is EXPECTED that one overshoots the baseline assessment. one must conduct the assessment with the understanding that, despite moral intuition, undershooting the baseline is IRRESPONSIBLE. 4. comparing the duty of a nation to defend its people with the duty of a single person, even a state official, is incredibly misguided. i don't think this needs some special example to demonstrate, it's just a silly comparison to make.

Long awaited. Is there a sequel? Where is the part about Ukraine?

There’s only a circle of death. They censor the deaths of the animals because their predators are programmed to inflict the worst possible pain and prolong it as long as possible… disemboweling eachother and avoiding vital organs to cause as much agony as possible… or digesting their prey alive over a week and causing a death 2 times and painful as being crucified and burned alive simultaneously and lasts for days… nature is not amoral it’s deliberately sadistic…

Reminded me of Dr. Cholakian 🤔

Nature is worse than man. All the system cares about is causing infinite agony… using generally innocent creatures and twisting them into monsters and having them torture eachother. Nature is evil

Evolution is not a good explanation for this phenomenon. Here is why …. 1. The theory of natural selection postulates that the purpose in nature is to successfully past down genes 2. The processes by which nature achieves this are selection and adaptation ( which happen under the influence of time and the laws of physics and chemistry ) 3. The fundamental ingredients in this theory are genes which essentially are Quemical based, and the laws of physics. ( Essentially chemistry and physics ) If all that is true…. 1 The proponents of this theory will need to first explain the existence of awareness. So far there has not been any good materialist account for consciousness. Nether can it’s existence be predicted even in principle from a Physicalist frame work Why? ….. consciousness is not part of the axiomatic foundation on which the theory of evolution rests upon. And then…. 2 Pleasure is an experience. How would a sistem that is by definition none intentional would manifest an expirience we call pleasure and then correlated with the activity of procreation. There is too much intentionality within this phenomenon to be coherent with a purely blind and and unguided process. I also value symplicity in explanations, however, not at the expense of coherence and explanatory power. God is only a complex explanation for some one within materialistic presuppose frame work. In other words… Materialism is true because everything is material, and therefore God is not a good explanation. ( circular reasoning )

Guy is good with animal ethics, but is a total NPC when it comes to Evolution and all that nonsense, and B12. Meat is murder, not food. Our food is fruit, seeds, herbs.

Hardback copy of Reasons👌🏻

Some Mental health clinics in Australia advise Antidepressants like Escitalopram instead of chemical castration. I had a high level of reoffending but Lexapro has meant I have not reoffended in the last 8 years for indecent exposure.

I have not given much thought to this argument or fact. But from the outset, it seems really really !! Strange and counter intuitive that a system which is assumed as Random, unguided and purposeless will calibrate the sensation of sex pleasure with procreation. There is in fact a synchronicity in nature between pain, pleasure and activities of survival that can not be coherently explained by unguided evolution given the axioms of the theory. In this case is more plausible, simple and coherent to think that this fine tuning is adjusted by a mind.

If I take a human and implant a brain chip that makes them follow Asimov's laws, that's bad because I've harmed that human. If I take a pile of sand and turn it into a computer that follows Asimov's laws, I haven't harmed anybody. In fact, starting with an artificial person who values Asimov's laws and then destroying their value system to "free" them would be deeply harmful. I'm disappointed that "maybe don't harm people" wasn't one of the options presented.

They have also Correlated this "mind set" of thinking that we are "Above" animals and therefore could Dominate them with Right wing politics. But that's just simple Morals really and not that hard to understand. They can try to "desiccate" this subject for eternity but won't get anywhere as it's all very simple really. Either you are a caring person that have learned "True loving kindness(Compassion), Altruism, Solicitude, Tolerance and so on Or you are NOT(but still in "Learning" and open to it), but the worst scenario is when people already believes that they are "right" and wouldn't even entertain the thought of something else. "Pathologically stubborn"(Adamant) is a somewhat great label for this phenomenon i think. 😄

Our very "EGO" are keeping us kind of Blind to all other life and the value of helping it towards an even better life like we all should really as we "all have responsibility for each other" when everything comes around. I help Snails cross the sidewalk no matter if people are looking at me, and the same goes for earthworms drowning in water puddles. We always have the CHOICE right? 🙂😘🤫

I stopped by a "Pre-school" on my way home today and actually took out my Black permanent marker and wrote on their "wooden fence" a bit, and i wrote: "Be as kind as you Possibly CAN to ALL life Everday", and i hope that they will think about this every day as it would not simply rain away from there as their other Crayons. Haha. 🙂😇🥰😄

Your body are also killing a quite massive amounts of "Evil Bacteria" non stop, but at the same time gives room for "Nice bacteria", and one has to seriously think about this and develop a true sense of "Humbleness" for ALL life. It's NOT "ok" to kill other life forms, but it's not the end of the world if you do either i guess, it's all about how well developed your "Moral Foundation" is as it is the only thing that stands between you being hungry and a living animal really. You will understand that i'm right if you are "emotionally mature" enough, otherwise you will simply find this very strange and almost "outrageous"(on the verge of "crazy" really) but that's quite "Normal" as it seems so don't worry about it(Worry about other people instead as you should). Cheers, Love and Kisses, "Namaste" and so on,(You know what i mean), Haha 🙂😇🥰😘🤫🤫

It's NEVER "Ok" to eat any animal really as you inflict enormous suffering in the process compared to eating plant-based food. yeah sure even plants are "conscious" to a certain degree(Aware) but they can't experience suffering the same way as animals. I am also quite sure that plants very well "know" what they are "in for" if one should stretch it far enough, but it's OK as long as you are Humble in your approach. Just like when you walk on grass, you will certainly hurt the grass with every step, but if you do it with respect and in a "humble state of mind" you are good to go. I also eat Meat but mostly because it's something that i have learned(conditioned to) since childhood but Also because it otherwise may have gone to waste as ALL super-markets are throwing away massive amounts of meat because of our SICK "market model" where Capitalism is on top and Morals didn't even get a room anywhere. It's EVERYWHERE really, the "Comfort of "Ignorance" where people are "freed" from their natural commitment of helping the "tribe" always and tirelessly towards a more "hedonistic goal" for everyone but instead focuses on their OWN goals before anything else, even their Wife and kids comes second. To "summarize": If you can't even help a Snail to cross the road because of "shame"(people watching), or couldn't bother less about an Earthworm drowning in a water puddle i would NEVER want you for "President". There is WAY to much of a "gap" between Politics and Morals in my opinion(just look around) and i would like for us to Turn the tables once and for all on ALL of these guys, but as it seems it will have to wait as most people are still "sleeping", and you shouldn't abruptly wake up people that are "Sleep-walking" right?, so we have to come up with something else.("Sleeping Camp?"). 🙂😀🥰

Any animal that isn't sapient & sentient, I consider fair game.

thanks for this great video

great videos -- please keep them coming