Animal Minds & Moral Truths: A Conversation with Peter Singer (Episode

[@radscorpion8]

We can and should have basic animal rights laws for farm animals. The idea that kicking or throwing a dog down a flight of stairs, for example, provokes so much rage in the minds of the public, while cows, chickens and pigs are subject to extremely painful conditions in their stalls, and extremely painful deaths, just makes no sense whatsoever. This is one of those issues where the public opinion is so irrational you wonder if something is seriouisly mentally wrong with us as a species.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

Dogs are domesticated pets that hold a direct and personal bond with the owner. Dogs have oxytocin firing in parts of the brain associated with love and understanding its owners mannerisms and voice, this is THE distinction. It would be MORE morally wrong to domesticate a type of species then kick them down the stairs or inhabit suffering compared to a cow or pig. We can argue that place of ethical moral hierarchies but you cant deny there objective place in reality. Would you argue CO2 Gas Procedures are contingent with your analysis of "extremely painful deaths" ?

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

“Giving farm animals more space, more natural environments, more companions does not right the fundamental wrong [treating them as resources], any more than giving lab animals more anaesthesia or bigger, cleaner cages would right the fundamental wrong in their case.” - Tom Regan, _The Case for Animal Rights_ “If you really care about animals, then stop trying to figure out how to exploit them ‘compassionately’. Just stop exploiting them.” - Gary Francione

[@domsnow6418]

The fact that the online public was ready to crucify West Ham Football Pro for kicking his Cat, probably while munching on a bucket of Chicken Wings, tells you everything you need to know about the cognitive dissonance people have towards this topic.

[@strathdee8825]

Insanity in individuals is rare, in groups it's the rule.

[@CanariasCanariass]

​@@nathanmitchell7961 There is no objective morality. Kicking a cow or a pig is just as bad as kicking a dog. There is no difference except our attachment to dogs for example.

[@veganmeathead8171]

Thank you for having this conversation. These are really important questions which get to the heart of our consciousness.

[@Jack458111]

Rational Sam Harris fans lose their god damn minds when someone points out how obviously fucked up human treatment of animals is.

[@nevis4567]

There's a lot of misinformation and values of human supremacy to undo... sadly it's gonna take some time, but I'm glad the podcast will help

[@paullampl1]

People love morality up until the point where their own lifestyle comes into question.

[@domsnow6418]

@@paullampl1we‘re ready to let the world burn for bacon it seems

[@phoenixfire8226]

@@nevis4567 It's objectively true that we are the supreme species on planet earth. To say otherwise is abject ignorance. That said, in my estimation, we should use our position of superiority to do good works for lesser species. Just because I can easily squish an ant, doesn't mean I should.

[@dystopiaeatsmoney]

So you agree that might doesn’t make right?

[@nadoelik]

Thank you for this interview , and shedding some light on the biggest crime ever committed by humanity against sentient beings.

[@LinkEX]

I know you are referring to the animal experiments. But depending on how you define the scope of a crime, you might as well change the tense to present continuous for our current animal agriculture.

[@nadoelik]

@@LinkEX I am referring to both

[@nevis4567]

Thank you for that wording. How wild is it that the biggest crime being committed on nonhuman animals is still treated as such a minority issue. It's hard to imagine decades from now we won't evoke parallels to slavery/civil rights/women's rights/children's rights/LGBTQ+ rights for not collectively eliminating this injustice with the moral force it requires.

[@nadoelik]

@@nevis4567 We have the perfect victims, those who can't speak.

[@krishnaveganathar]

@@nevis4567decades from now? We are doing it now. And we have been doing it for decades. From the animals’ perspective, humans are evil monsters.

[@antitheistvegan]

Rational skepticism is a natural route to Veganism. I just wish more of us would make the connection.

[@William1w1]

Or a route to deciding we really should be able to eat babies. That's the side I fall on. Babies in a vacuum, mind you. Wouldn't want the mother to get upset.

[@firvantavan2793]

Why is it more rational to be a vegan than eating a balanced diet?

[@Theactivepsychos]

Really? I don’t think so. I have to eat meat and other animal products. I’d have such a low quality of life if I didn’t that I’d definitely not carry on. I do find the highest welfare animal farms I can and I do speak to the companies regularly to find out any changes in their practises.

[@patodesudesu]

@@firvantavan2793 Because if you care about wellbeing you are probably making lots of animals suffer. I mean but if you don't care about suffering not really. Rationality doesn't give you things to value outside instrumental ones. Personally I'm happy to have learned a way I can reduce suffering in the world.

[@firvantavan2793]

@@patodesudesu I don't believe I make animals suffer, but I do eat a lot of meat. It is not factory farmed, though. Animals living in the wild suffer way more than the animals I consume.

[@patrowan7206]

I recently watched and listened in horror as a sparrow screamed in agony while being torn apart by a hawk. The sounds were indistinguishable from what a human with a bird's voice might make, and I can no longer dismiss the suffering as that of a lesser being.

[@stevenpham6734]

If you think they can suffer as much as us (which there is no good evidence to prove otherwise), then at what ground do you define them as lesser beings than us? Intelligence? Is there such a definition written in the laws of nature?

[@Janibobs]

Yes, although we differ from other species, in all the ways that matter we are equal. We experience love, fear, pain and terror and we all value our lives and fight to live when our lives are in danger. The question is, why would you fund the unecessary suffering of others when there is an option not to? Its a question that we each, as individuals have the responsibility to consider very carefully.

[@wvhollargirl7549]

I understand all too well the plight of animals in our current first world culture. The more those who are aware educate, the more we can change the culture. Peter Singer is an example of an animal rights hero.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

Why does he not have viceral reaction to insect being killed if most things are equal in terms of its suffering?

[@erikdahlstrom3561]

@@nathanmitchell7961 why would you think the suffering of an insect would be equal to a cow?

[@nathanmitchell7961]

Because the logic is "All lives are of equal value, its the suffering we should focus on"@@erikdahlstrom3561

[@Brandon-os3qr]

​@@nathanmitchell79616 months later, but in case you're curious as to the answer, it's the notion that "capacity for suffering" might be a spectrum as opposed to JUST a yes/no. So essentially: - is a particular being worthy of moral consideration = are they capable of suffering AND ALSO - HOW MUCH moral consideration should we give to a particular being = how MUCH suffering are they capable of And what's discussed in the parts you refer to is how there are still SOME question marks

[@nathanmitchell7961]

@@erikdahlstrom3561 Why is it not

[@evidencebased1]

I was most struck by Sam’s point that the success of the “suffering” experiments depends on how analogous the animal minds are to our own, and if that is the case then how can we say with confidence that we are not torturing them?

[@gabrielgaidos7015]

"suffering experiments" are not allowed. Only physiological experiments are allowed and if pain is involved, anesthesia is mandatory.

[@haaendaaz3619]

How can we, or anyone, say in confidence that we are hurting anyone? Everything we know is the result of chemicals and electrical impulses. We could be a brain in a jar for all we know, or super drugged up, or whatever. But we don’t. We don’t know that for sure. So we act in an ethical, respectful manner to all to prevent these “what if” hypotheticals. Think about the time in history people didn’t do that and horrors such as the Arab slave trade, chattel American slavery, genocidal wars, pillaging and raping, war time rapes, war as an entity, etc have been propagated in society.

[@romulanwang]

@@gabrielgaidos7015 So we no longer use animals for any psychological experiments ? It depends entirely on how things are defined, many such experiments still take place.

[@Jack458111]

Quit messing around and get Alex O’Connor on the podcast.

[@arklowrockz]

The time of the KZbin Atheist is passed. Thank God. No need for Alex O'Connor.

[@ChrisJWinn]

My kids have been vegan for 6 years from age 3 and 6. My son starts high school this year in an accelerated learning class(top 20% of that class) and plays for 3 soccer teams. Don't believe the people who say it's child abuse to have vegan kids.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

I stopped eating meat, in the early 90s, too.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

Your kids didnt choose anything, stop forcing your lacking diet onto your own children who cant agree to it, youll be the first people look at when your kids suffer from nutrient deficiencies

[@ChrisJWinn]

​@@maximilliancunningham6091why'd you stop?

[@dystopiaeatsmoney]

⁠Take of your blinkers and try to engage with the conversation. Your wilful ignorance reflects poorly on you and humanity at large.

[@arambarsamian6312]

Feeding your children the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet - plants - is certainly not child abuse. Feeding them animal products is certainly - whether one realizes it or not - animal abuse.

[@KellyLCornell]

This is a topic I struggle with so much because it's so important to me but I can hardly even listen to animal welfare conversations because I get so emotional/ enraged.

[@Brandon-os3qr]

Enraged by what?

[@Soubhik12345.]

God bless Peter Singer 💙

[@hafman715]

Thank you for this. It’s the most neglected aspect of our inhumanity.

[@louisjones2653]

This was a great conversation, I studied some of Singer's work in college and was significantly influenced by it.

[@wade2bosh]

will sam speak out against kosher and halal? - animal torture

[@vasisimari92058]

Standard killing practices in the Western World are equally abhorrent. Killing should not happen. Full stop.

[@bryanutility9609]

He has before.

[@domsnow6418]

I cannot speak for vegans generally but what makes me angry / sad / disappointed is not that people don’t care, but that some come up with the same bad arguments over and over again.

[@lucioh1575]

Why aren't you vegan? Not trying to be confrontational. Trying to make you think.

[@domsnow6418]

@@lucioh1575 of course I am, I have been for years

[@vasisimari92058]

⁠@@domsnow6418Then you can speak for vegans. With one mention: ethics should be the main focus.

[@domsnow6418]

@@vasisimari92058 nah, i tend not no speak for other people just because they share one single value. I tend to avoid tribalism like the plague. But myself yes, i am a vegan for ethical reasons

[@vasisimari92058]

@@domsnow6418 every comment is a form of vegan activism and being an activist means you speak for the vegans. Activism has nothing to do with tribalism. You don't wanna fall into the pick-me-vegan trap, which is very convenient for anti-vegans.

[@migarsormrapophis2755]

"We can't be certain that insects feel pain" - Singer. Wow, really lost me right there. Bees, the specific example Sam gave, are capable of linguistic displacement (the ability to communicate abstract information about concepts that are distant in time or space). The idea that there's a reasonable doubt that they're 'advanced' enough to feel pain is crazy.

[@drybie]

Thank you. Great discussion.

[@andrewferrier3351]

Sam always coming through with the topics I’ve been looking at just when I want them

[@reedclippings8991]

If there's something that it's like to be you, then your interests deserve consideration. The only way to live consistently with this idea, in the real world, the current one, is to be vegan. However hard you think it is. It's like 40% that hard.

[@erikdahlstrom3561]

10% that hard, its not very hard if you are in a first world country and above the poverty line, especially if you are in/near a city.

[@ToweringToska]

@@erikdahlstrom3561 In my experience it's much easier to cook vegan and much easier to shop vegan, but I'm not sure how common my fortune is for having brands upon brands of vegan protein products in every grocer I visit.

[@roadrunner9622]

Growing up in the 1970's/80's, the idea "animals can't feel pain" was accepted by a significant part of the population.

[@davidwatson2399]

And it was wrong

[@romulanwang]

@@davidwatson2399 In fact even recently there was still a "debate" about animals having a "sense of self" with "serious" research claiming that "it has been established that elephants have a self of sense because they can recognise their reflection in water" etc. Which is absooutely ridiculous. Anyone with a pet dog, or a pet cat, can be under NO ILLUSION that their poet does NOT have a self of sense. My cat argues with me all the time, and most animals have forms of communication, and it would be INSANE that animals did not have a "sense of self". In fact, one needs to argue from how this stuff would have evolved - ie pain evolved a LOOONG time ago, so ALL animals decended fro those will have pain. Fear also, Suffering etc, All a long time ago, long before mamals. Ability to communicate by some form of language, that goes back a looong way to. So ALL of these things must be attributable to pretty much all animals, birds etc. The ONLY one that might not be attibutable to animals as far as I can tell, would be abstract thought. Perhaps animals can not think abstractly, although there is quite some evidence that whales can hypothesise and plan, and they have a complex language, so perhaps abstract thought comes with the complexity of language - if your language can not express abstract thoughts, maybe you can not think tham, but as soon as your language becomes rich enough to be able to express abstract thought, then you will have such thoughts. Really the assumption should ALWAYS be, that if WE have something, such as a moral code, then as this evolved because we live in communities, and pretty much all animals that live in communitties also have evolved, complex morailities, chimps, gorillas, wildebeast, lions. Morality is not unique to humans. And this I think is part of the issue - for years we have been following this religious nonsense that says that humans are "special" because we have "souls" and "morality" is given to us by god, and humans have "dominian" over the animals etc. And it's all bollox. We now know that we are just evolved apes, and that animals are no less able to suffer than humans, anijmals are intelligent, self aware, feel pain, fear, can suffer, have moraily, in many cases, grieve for a lover one etc, so the real, ratiopnal position is to assume that animals share almost everything with us, and in fact once would need to prove that one does not, rather than the other way round.

[@kaylawatson8540]

PETER SINGER IS AN ANGEL ON EARTH. ❤ I love him so much #veganforever

[@vasisimari92058]

Peter Singer is an utilitarian prick. Not vegan by the way.

[@blackbeard479]

Peter Singer: DON'T throw another shrimp on the barbie

[@Ethan265Stapley]

Shrimps are probably OK. The biggest meat eater conundrum is the difference between a very young baby vs a pig. Shrimps are good as gold, they don't care.

[@Brandon-os3qr]

​@@Ethan265Stapley so the shrimp welfare initiatives that exist are based on what? You're saying there's scientific evidence that they don't suffer?

[@strathdee8825]

This is a completely moral blind spot for almost every civilisation throughout history. There is just simply no reason that most of us should consume (almost) any animal product whatsoever.

[@domsnow6418]

Maybe the Inuit or sth, but certainly not people with access to supermarkets

[@lucioh1575]

You should go vegan.

[@strathdee8825]

@@lucioh1575 I am.

[@lucioh1575]

Awesome, same. @@strathdee8825

[@Woof45]

Meat tastes good, vegetables don't fill me.

[@billscannell93]

Examples like the completely braindead baby, while interesting to debate, are rather obscure. For the purpose of simplicity, we should just keep the goal in mind of minimizing suffering whenever possible. The main topic here is inhumanity towards developed, healthy creatures. While there are potentially odd little paradoxes in the argument, they don't have much to do with the main thrust of what Singer is saying. Anyway, Singer IS saying that all humans should be treated with the same respect. His point is that the humanness of a being does not, by itself, determine the extent to which the being should be treated humanely. That whole tangent about checking guns was basically a warning against slippery slopes, and I don't see a slippery slope here. No one is going to go from "we should treat other sentient beings better and think of animal lives differently" to "let's somehow flip that to bring back Nazi medicine."

[@romulanwang]

Yes, this is the point, it is because the mindset of the person making the slippery slope argument is that it is ok to treat animals badly, so if you say we should consider animal and human suffering equally, then you must be saying that it is ok to treat humans badly, which is a failure of understanding,

[@missshroom5512]

I’m with Sam…where in the world are they getting interns or anyone for that matter to perform these experiments

[@nirvonna]

I wish that it was restated where one could find the conversation between Peter Singer and the female Buddhist monastic from Thailand at the end of that discussion. I became interested as I listened and hoped that information would be offered at the end of that bit. I’m having a hard time finding it. Can anyone help?

[@rimburemus7587]

it's an upcoming book soon to be published: the buddhist and the ethicist

[@TrackinDaMeta]

The points regarding the torture of animals were spot on. Terrible stuff

[@mimetype]

I've seen what the Chinese routinely do to dogs, gives me nightmares.

[@vasisimari92058]

Fuck welfarism, vegans are abolitionists. We have the non-vegans to take care of welfarism n squabble amongst each other.

[@vasisimari92058]

@@mimetypewhat's the moral difference between a dog and a pig ? Or a cow? A lamb? A chicken?

[@mimetype]

@@vasisimari92058 Pigs, Cows, Lambs and Chicken aren't routinely thrown alive into boiling oil, to emerge still alive screaming in agony.

[@vasisimari92058]

@@mimetype you don't know shit about standard practices in the Animal Industry. Obviously youtube is on your side, 'cause they delete my comment every time I try to describe it.

[@sunnyinvladivostok]

When we have a cost-effective option for lab-grown meat, itll be hard to justify any kind of animal farming / consumption

[@rasputozen]

I've got great news! You don't need to eat meat for protein or any nutrient. You can get all of the nutrition found in meat (and more) from beans, legumes, mushrooms, grains, nuts, seeds, veggies and fruit.

[@ChrisJWinn]

I argue it's hard to justify now. Most people just seem 100% determined to eat murdered animals for taste pleasure. Seems extremely shallow imho.

[@domsnow6418]

There will probably still be some underground rings of people who prefer to eat the „real deal“

[@domsnow6418]

@@feklar3470 let‘s hope so 👏🏻

[@sunnyinvladivostok]

@@rasputozen you don't need to convince me of that, you need to convince 8 billion others on the planet. Lab meat is more viable

[@Kar0n]

I know this episode is about animals but since it touches a lot on effective altruism I'm curios how you reconcile your views on effective altruism and utilitarianism while considering the number of "collateral" civilians killed the latest conflict.

[@Andrea-zm1nl]

Thank you for having this discussion. This is important for people to hear. I would like to say that agriculture is conducted in an unethical way no matter whether it is plants or animals being grown and harvested. Yes animals are treated horribly and this should be stopped. But we also need to address the number of plants and animals that are extincted or put in danger of extinction each year by the human practice of cleaning entire ecosystems off of a piece of land for the purpose of growing one crop there. Or how about the fact that each animal and plant we eat daily is actually a species that humans have enslaved and or genetically modified to suit our own purposes. We need to face the fact that the only ethical way to eat three meals a day is to have your own garden and keep your own animals.

[@bryanutility9609]

The healthiest & most balanced way to get food is that which rejuvenates the ecosystem. Regenerative farming & pastured animals are way better than every home having animals. But your general instinct is a good one.

[@Andrea-zm1nl]

@@bryanutility9609 I almost agree. The healthiest way for you and the environment is to hunt and trap and fish for only enough meat for your family and grow your own veggies and fruits in your own backyard. That way you actually have to get up and exercise and work for your food like you evolved to do. This is also a sustainable way for the environment, and because so many people are not capable of doing it it would result in a drastic reduction of the numbers of our super destructive species. (Not that I think this will happen of course)

[@sirmaumur4056]

A very good discussion… the one major thing to add is the pain of those who are left behind when some one is dead. It is not only the pain nor the death of the individual. That is why the example of the cephalic baby feels shocking. Some animals feel the pain when a loved animal dies, baboons, whales, dogs…. But it is not true for many. I believe this adds to the hierarchy of species significantly…

[@Ritch98777]

This is a brilliant conversation - measured arguments and healthy debate

[@VimDoozy]

It always makes me grin a little when the outro music starts to play as the volume of the guest's voice gradually fades. It's like when an award recipient is taking to long to wrap up their acceptance speech. It's like, "You've had your moment, Peter. Be on your own way."

[@drudiogenes8544]

But really it's non-subscribers being told to be on our own way.. 🤣

[@onlyguitar1001]

Go vegan Sam. You're smart enough to figure out how to do it properly and you know it's the right thing to do. The hope that you seem to have of happy animals being bred for consumption is not one we will find in the real world. There is simply not enough land and water. How many trees would need to be cut down and wildlife destroyed to make this a reality for mass consumption? Not to mention that we live in a capitalist society so farmers will produce livestock as cheaply as possibly to beat their competitors, meaning less consideration given to the animals. Veganism is the only way.

[@yuumbaalam]

I can't understand how he can still laugh at having steak while having a conversation with Peter SInger about animal right, it's unfathomable to me....

[@peteMickeal33]

deep down sam knows animal rights are bullshit.

[@JohnPritzlaff]

Man I love this podcast. Cleaning my truck under extreme duress and this is just *chef's kiss* *muah* perfect 😅

[@XeLYoutube]

thx for talking about this

[@dawn8542]

I was a big Sam Harris fan. I watched him Debate William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame about religion. I was reading and watching everything I could by him and the 4 horsemen. And was traveling to see many scientists talk against religion and the idea of a god. It was, to me about right vs wrong. And science. I feel the exact same way about veganism. I have several activities that I listen to. And to hear Sam's opinion on the welfare of animals has made me lose all respect for the man. Once again, we are talking about the social issues of the times. And Sam is on the wrong side of history. Same with Neil Degrasse Tyson. What a fucking shame.

[@niche657]

The actual shame is people like you failing to understand his reasoning. As, if you’d understood it, this comment wouldn’t have been written

[@du.schneider]

​@@niche657it is really easy to understand his reasoning. Basically all vegans had this reasoning before turning vegan. Easy to understand, but difficult to agree. It is morally blind

[@smartbart80]

”The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

[@olivermaier-landshut3047]

I really like this philosophy.

[@erniehudson1]

Very important subject!

[@Eric-ot7en]

This talk really struck me. Animals feel pain like we do. I’m 20 min in. I’m out too much to handle

[@bryanutility9609]

So what if animals feel pain? What in life justifies pain is what you should ask? Life requires death. It’s just physics. Embrace it. Don’t let some nerd charlatan emotionally manipulate you with abstractions. Say yes to life!

[@ToweringToska]

@@bryanutility9609 Death is different from pain though, death is not suffering. Suffering is horrible, if it weren't then you wouldn't try to avoid suffering. Whenever suffering can be avoided or alleviated we should try our bests to avoid or alleviate it.

[@bryanutility9609]

@@ToweringToska The risk of suffering is the only thing that gives you the ability to do good deeds, by definition. Every time I go to the dentist I refuse to use anesthetic because embracing the pain makes me a stronger person. Not sure how you separate pain and suffering other than it’s a mindset and that can be overcome through attitude. The only place there is zero pain & suffering while dead. If that is your goal then you are pro-death.

[@ToweringToska]

@@bryanutility9609 You're a wild one, metal as fuck! : > Not everyone likes suffering though. Another thing is there are scales, the suffering of not eating for a few days for instance is I think a fine experience, the suffering of a mentally disabled person living 30 years in a household with a monstrously abusive parent however, not so helpful in the grand scheme of things! Scale again, pain is helpful to staying alive and that's why we all got it, sure. But its whole purpose is to be avoided, to show us what we SHOULDN'T let happen to ourselves. Pain isn't just there for you to enjoy BDSM, it's there to tell us when there's a problem. XD And people put animals through lots of horribly problematic circumstances, causing them extreme pain. That answer your "So what?" question sufficiently? Hope so.

[@bryanutility9609]

@@ToweringToska Most people are not living lives of balance. They will avoid exercise because it’s hard but endure obesity which is suffering. It’s a matter of balance, of sacrifice let’s say. And it’s people who want a world without sacrifice who are “other worldly”. I don’t respect that. You can call it scale sure. As far as scale goes you could say “unnecessary suffering”.

[@theflyingdutchman_01]

just imagine if humans had never existed, or would perish all of a sudden… nature would be so much in balance… all living things would have been, or would be, so much better off without us… the 100 or so billion of us that have existed up to now have inflicted so much pain and suffering on other living things… shame on us for eternity…

[@ToweringToska]

I imagine that a lot, I dream of circumstances like that. I appreciate your compassionate words and empathize, living in this forlorn world, driven to love and protect all the fragile beautiful things that we can hardly ever save and can never hold onto for long. You are nice though, you deserve to feel good about that at least. Thanks for trying. ^ ^

[@erowan1389]

Every sperm is not sacred. Livestock not being born does not cause suffering to the phantom animal.

[@herbivorizepredators1074]

If a being has a good life do they not then have an interest and desire to continue to live that we have no right to thwart and in fact have a positive duty to protect?

[@theflyingdutchman_01]

when you speak about what the N@z!s did to the Jews, you might want to also look into “Unit 731” in Russia, or human vivisection camps in Japan (and more importantly, how the Americans dealt with this issue after the war)… just to make a point as to what kind of cruelties humans are capable of inflicting on other living creatures, NOT only on animals… and it wasNOT only the N@z!s !!!

[@traviswadezinn]

Important topic - good episode

[@Finite8614]

The notion that certain groups are treated or act "like animals" often carries an underlying assumption of human superiority. This brings up an important question: does this presumed superiority extend to our morals and ethics?

[@bryanutility9609]

100% these nerds aren’t moral they’re justifying their petty weakness and desire for pathetic comfort. They are rabbits amongst lions.

[@SebyVarghese-v1y]

There can be a way to break bias in social media and reduce the power of people with large followers to influence opinion on social media platforms. Similar to comments section, we can add a views (viewpoints or connections or context) section - Where anyone can add any view related to the post and people can like and react to the view just like the post. Context 1/ #keyword combo : specific context to the post in limited words like in twitter Context 2 : Most important part of the context section could be checking the balance b/w different context as a percentage or in a pie chart. This distribution could tell if the discussion is biased or balanced, majorititarian view or nuanced. Multiple inferences could be drawn from the distribution of context, views, sides or connections.

[@krunkle5136]

Singer is a telescopic philanthropist. As beautiful as effective altruism is, it advocates unwitting stakeless aid, and a theory that humans are interchangeable.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

17:10 Bugs have vastly less neurons than we have and may not suffer at all or may have a diferent kind of suffering" So the human brain provides an estimate of 85 billion neurons for a human brain, the largest of any animal, does this now mean humans have more potential for maximised suffering?

[@domsnow6418]

Humans can probably suffer in some ways most animals can’t, at least psychologically.

[@MindVersusMisery]

@@domsnow6418 Psychologically maybe. But animals (human and non-human alike) feel via sensation. And some animals have evolved to have certain senses sharper than humans. So it may be the case that certain animals feel pain at a higher intensity than humans. And thinking about this make the horror of animal exploitation even tougher to face.

[@domsnow6418]

@@MindVersusMisery true. Just think of a pig, with it’s impressive sense of smell, being forced into a slaughterhouse where it reeks of dead pigs. 😥🐷

[@MindVersusMisery]

@@domsnow6418 Yeah, pigs are a great example because they seem to be very finely tuned sensation wise. My friend used to have a pig as a pet, and she was very emotional, loved belly rubs and to lay for hours in the warmth of the sun, and she was also very affectionate. I breaks my heart to know how badly mistreated animals are, given that they - if given the chance - can be loving family members.

[@domsnow6418]

@@MindVersusMisery this drives me nuts when people say „bUt CaTs ArE pEtS tHo So YoU cAnT cOmPaRe“ - dude like anything can be a pet. Glad your friend was able to give at least one pig a decent life ❤️

[@OhManTFE]

Please comment on Ayaan Hirsi Ali now identifying as some type of christian???

[@erowan1389]

Glad to see tgia conversation, but I was only able to hear the short version. I am not in agreement that torturing an animal is ever juatified to save a human. Knowing all vertebrates, many invertebrates, and possibly all animals feel pain equates to unethical and immoral action when one knowingly and intentionally causes another pain. I heard no rationale for ranking the pain of a human as being more important than the pain of a mouse or an ant. Arguing that humans can consider their mortality does not apply to a human child, and is irrelevant to the experience of pain. There is no justifiable reason for humans to cause pain in one innocent animal to relieve pain in another, even themselves or their kids. Self-defense against an opponent is the only exception, but even that does not mean torture or slavery should ever be allowed. Turturing mice to prevent cancer or other afflictions in humans is an abomination and needs to stop.

[@ToweringToska]

I just wanna say that you are as right as you possibly could be about this and your rational properly empathetic take did a great job of reminding me that people aren't all unfixably horrible. ^__^ *veggytarian who's rescued bugs and dogs since he was single digits old and aches inside for animals all over the world enough to greatly impact his health*

[@mattpierce5009]

"There is no justifiable reason for humans to cause pain in one innocent animal to relieve pain in another, even themselves or their kids" You're a monster.

[@romulanwang]

One thing that has always annoyed me intensely, is that humans are given more rights than animals under ALL circumstances, even dead humans have more rights than living animals, and this is wrong. It is understandable that individuals who have lost a loved one, will have strong feelings towards their loved ones, so that in some sense, the rights for the dead are rights for the grieving, but where there are no relatives, or the person has left their body to "medical science" they still have more rights than animals, and I feel that this is wrong.

[@sockinvaders]

It seems to me the natural world cares little about suffering. Its an immensely cruel world where most beings are trying to eat other beings, mostly while alive. We have come along and spread a desire to not cause pain. And for the most part we've improved on nature. But where we fail terribly is in factory farming where creatured are born into a most dystopian reality. Born to imprisoned mothers, kept permanently in the control of their captors. I think most of us would agree that a quick death is preferable to being imprisoned and forced to give birth to children who will be taken away and eaten by our captors. Whenever we come across something like this in the news, where someone has been held for decades in a basement, these are the most shocking stories. I dont disagree with eating meat. But i think we owe it to every creature to have a full life. To be in nature, to compete and have a normal life. And becoming our food only at the end of a full life.

[@jeremytan739]

Have we improved on nature when climate change and habitat destruction is killing more animals than every non-human predators ever could?

[@d0lvl0]

Why become food at all? Why can't we just eat a fully healthy diet made up of non-sentient life instead?

[@sockinvaders]

we've improved on the survival of the fittest, cruelty that has existed for millenia and would exist more if not for us. We've managed to create societies where most of us wont be eaten unexpectedly, we wont be murdered randomly on the street, we can live long, happy lives and die at old age. and we've applied these principles to dogs, cats and other creatures that thrive in our world. If you study human societies over the last few thousands years, you can see clear progress. Unfortunately technology has created nightmare dystopias for many of our farm animals. @@jeremytan739

[@sockinvaders]

why would we? Meat tastes amazing. And for good reason. My dogs eat meat. My family pet cats ate meat. Lions eat meat. Sharks eat meat. Orcas eat meat. dolphins eat meat. I see no moral reason why we shouldnt eat meat. But given what we know, there's a moral incentive to minimise pain and suffering to those things we eat. I won't eat lamb for example or fois gras out of principle, or halal which sounds truly horrendous. @@d0lvl0

[@nevis4567]

Seems to me like "we owe it to every creature to have a full life" and purchasing meat or hunting are contradictory statements. I think we haven't fully grasped that as a species.

[@hmmmahroof3602]

Few ideas to help animals. 1. Help the developing nations to sterilize stray dogs and cats. 2.stop shipping animals for killing. 3.introduce anaesthesia in animal slaughter. 4.introduce anaesthesia before killing of harmful animals. eg rats 5.ban animal fighting compaigns 6.ban cooking alive any animal

[@ericb2017]

fuck I can barely finish this. it’s infuriating. do I really have what it takes to become an animal activist? I mean if there’s one thing in life that pisses me off it’s animal cruelty, but what do I really do about it, ever?

[@rasputozen]

Stop eating them and their secretions for a start.

[@domsnow6418]

It hurts, that much is true. Just do what you can mate, no one is ever gonna be perfect.

[@lucioh1575]

Hey Eric, I can definitely recommend different ways through which you can help animals, including street outreach. Reply if you're interested. :)

[@arambarsamian6312]

@@domsnow6418it’s not about perfection. But simple choices we make several times a day have a profound affect on individual animals. If we eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, chicken for lunch, and steak for dinner, that’s ordering the killing of a pig, a chicken and the male chicks that are a causality of the egg industry, and a cow. Or one can eat plants and thus abstain from ordering the killing of those individuals, thus decreasing the demand that other animals take their place.

[@rob.simbulis]

Snowball effect, plant a seed, use whatever metaphor you want.. but if you live a good vegan life, the people will around you will see, you can speak up about it.. The longer I'm vegan the more I feel the sense of urgency to speak up for the animals and let people know we can live a healthier longer life eating a whole foods plant based diet, and logically, for the planet.. we feed 80 billion land animals food and fresh water.. yet there's still getting on for a billion starving people on earth.. we could free up 75% if the world switched to a plant based diet.. we could rewild many parts of the world, grow tons of food and still have enough room for the ever expanding humankind. If we can, we should.

[@IsitReallyrealreally]

‘Absolute Necessities’ are not the world most live in. And, really, for many, it is.

[@ansarikashif7]

What I wonder about Sam is he is discussing suffering of Animals and has not said a word of unimaginable human suffering currently being inflicted upon Gazans. Being an Achiest he has favored one religion over other and that raises a lot of questions on his philosophy.

[@dawn8542]

Considering Peter isn't an abolitionist, he isn't really helping animals at all and is actually counterproductive. Listen to Gary Francione's speech on that.

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

Sam, I have a rndm suggestion, pls have on George Will.

[@romulanwang]

The "slippery slope" argument fails, because it is predicated on the pricinciple that "the slope is towards treating humans in the way that we currently treat animals", but this is to misunderstand the argument, which is that we should be *elevating* animals to the same status as humans, so there IS no slipery slope, because the threashold is moved DOWNWARDS to include animals, not UPWARDS to exclude certain humans. | have many friends who have rescue battery chickens who they keep as pets, and so they still lay eggs, so it is ethical to eat those eggs. HOWEVER, this is ONLY the case because they are pets, if they stop laying eggs they should still be kept as pets. In THAT sense, eating eggs would be no different from eating hairballs from your cat. Keeping carniverous pets is the only thing that presents an ethical dilemma to me - eating animals, and farming animals is just almost exclusively wrong. Keeping an carniverous pet however, is a difficult one.

[@ruzg]

Awesome

[@nathanmitchell7961]

So if we had a burning building with your disabled child inside and your pet chicken, which one are you going to grab?

[@domsnow6418]

The child of course, even I am that much of s speciecist. Also you‘ll go to jail for letting the child burn.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

Great, so we view human to have higher moral agency then animals.@@domsnow6418

[@nathanmitchell7961]

I dont see how this is related to my analogy. Too be more specific, in my analogy you are limited on time and restricted to making the moral choice or choosing who to save. A good majority of people, i assume, would save their baby because the baby holds higher moral value than your chicken.@@tomz5700

[@lucioh1575]

@@nathanmitchell7961 Okay, and? It doesn't justify paying for animal abuse when you get a burger.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

@@lucioh1575 My point is exactly why my analogy is so extreme because its easy to consider vigilant morality when you arent forced or in a pressured complicated moral situation. WE place the value on humans over animals because its the only experience we can relate too.

[@Cusnpbzn]

I always thought that to have rights you also had to have equal responsibilities. Since animals don't have the latter they can't have the former. Any attempt to give animals rights is like Israel assuming that Hamas will play by their same rules. Since Hamas does not play by the same rules of combat as Israel, any advantage the rules might give them need not be extended to them. The concept of rights was created inside the world view of Western Civilization. I support this world view but I am very skeptical that it can be applied to animals. If you assume it's a crime to kill an animal, you are also assuming that your point of view is universally applicable. You are forcing your view on animals. Is it true? No one knows. There's plenty of evidence that a plant based diet is better. There's little evidence that it's unethical to kill animals.

[@retromograph3893]

Problem: organic farms with free-roaming animals are the absolute worst for CO2 emissions, in terms of emissions per each kilo of meat produced..... so although these farms will tick the animal welfare box, they are a disaster for the environment if they become widespread. To be clear, I'm against all meat eating.

[@retromograph3893]

you forgot to quote (or failed to understand?) the rest of my sentence: " in terms of emissions per each kilo of meat produced" .... so the punchline is that not only is it impossible to meet the world's meat demand through organic methods, it would be a disaster for the planet if you did! The takeaway? Don't eat any meat!@@tamhiker1

[@slyjokerg]

Only about 17:30 in... Singer is talking about of both sides of his ass. In one sentence, he is doubling down on "pain is pain." In the next, he is categorizing and ranking pain. Either pain is pain OR it is subject to distinctions. Right out of the gate, essentially, he is trying to have it both ways.

[@ataraxia7439]

I think that’s a little too reductive of what’s he’s saying. My understanding was he was saying that all pain is pain but also some pain is more bad than other forms. It would be similar to saying all forms of racism are unacceptable “racism is racism” but also some forms of it are more serious and harmful than others “it’s useful to think of racism as coming in different forms”.

[@WesCrozier]

Not quite. He says pain is pain in reference to species. And then goes on to say there are vary degrees of pain and degrees of pain experience. That is, if a human experiences "100 pain units", that is equivalent to any other species experiencing 100 pain units. However, a bug getting splatted on a windshield is 1 pain units but for a human it's 100 pain units because a human getting slammed to death into a windshield has likely a lot more suffering for the individual and also much more cascading effects (their family grieves etc). A pedantic example but hope it gets the point across.

[@slyjokerg]

​@@ataraxia7439 ---> POSTED: **I think that’s a little too reductive of what’s he’s saying.** Calling it reductive doesn't even make sense on its face. It is exactly what he said and represented. I am not reducing anything. HE offered it. I didn't make anything up. I am referring to what he actually said. Saying "Pain is pain" is a phrasing that directly indicates that there is no distinction to be made. It is just like when people say "Love is love" when referring to equal rights for gay couples. They are specifically arguing that there is no distinction to be made. That is the very point of "Love is love," or "Pain is pain." He used "Pain is pain" as part of his case that animals should be treated with the same attitudes as people are, since, in his view, any other animal feels pain just like we feel pain. That was the very point of him saying "Pain is pain." It was THE point. He then went on to speak about different kinds/levels of pain, which directly contradicted the "Pain is pain" line. **My understanding was he was saying that all pain is pain but also some pain is more bad than other forms.** That isn't what "Pain is pain" means/represents. It would be very silly to say "Pain is pain" if you were arguing that pain is subjective/relative. The very point of "Pain is pain," or "Love is love," or "Rape is rape" is to put forth the notion that there are no lines to be drawn. **It would be similar to saying all forms of racism are unacceptable “racism is racism” but also some forms of it are more serious and harmful than others “it’s useful to think of racism as coming in different forms”.** The fact that racism may come in different forms doesn't alter the intention of "Racism is racism" meaning that there are no practical, substantive distinctions to be made. If you mean something other than that, then you shouldn't be saying "Racism is racism" to make your point. Singer knows better, or should, ffs.

[@slyjokerg]

​@@WesCrozier ---> POSTED: **Not quite. He says pain is pain in reference to species. And then goes on to say there are vary degrees of pain and degrees of pain experience.** Obviously, there are different levels of pain. Getting stuck with a needle isn't the same as having your femur snapped in half. The very point of his "Pain is pain" line was to imply that an animal experiencing pain shouldn't be considered any different than a person experiencing pain, and that is a/the foundational element of his justification for treating other animals as if they were human. That is precisely what "Pain is pain" meant. **That is, if a human experiences "100 pain units", that is equivalent to any other species experiencing 100 pain units.** 1. That doesn't make sense on its face, since they aren't equivalent by the very fact that our brains are different and don't process things the same. 2. Even if that is accepted, it doesn't make sense for him to use that line as foundational for his "treat other animals the same" position, and THEN almost immediately go into the very fact that other animals and humans do NOT experience pain in the same way. He is talking out of both sides of his ass. **However, a bug getting splatted on a windshield is 1 pain units but for a human it's 100 pain units because a human getting slammed to death into a windshield has likely a lot more suffering for the individual and also much more cascading effects (their family grieves etc). A pedantic example but hope it gets the point across.** Nope. That's a fail. If "Pain is pain," then there is no distinction to be made between the 1 unit and the 100 units. Again, it makes no sense for his "Pain is pain" line to be taken as a useless tautology. That would serve no purpose in his argument/position.

[@QuixoticIgnotism]

Love you Sam

[@RomanticZero]

Surprised Peter didn't take you up on the point about the president; when we're discussing the value of two comparative lives (in this case, both human, sentient, etc.), we're talking about their moral value. Holding the office of US president doesn't make your life more morally valuable than any other. Functional value is something else entirely, but even if this was the yardstick, the office of president is elected and welcomes a wide range of people regardless of skill level -- this is not a function that only the person is capable of. To say we can't 'factually' (whatever that means) defend the notion that all human lives are equal by calling up an analogy from everyday life in which people are treated differently is not relevant to the question of moral value.

[@SkyGlitchGalaxy]

Morals are a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. So yes, of course you can morally value someones live more than another person. We do it everyday. I value my daughters live more than any other on earth. Then my wife. If you want to have a society of 300 Million people, it is absolutely moral for the state to value the life of the president more than any other person. He wouldn't be around lomg, if we didn't.

[@RomanticZero]

@@SkyGlitchGalaxy You're interchanging at least two different definitions of 'moral' here, and neither in the same sense as Peter Singer, so your point is redundant. Always focus on the question and points at hand, not your own (in this instance, especially confused) interpretation of terms.

[@SkyGlitchGalaxy]

​@@RomanticZero No, I am sticking with the definition of Morals, and explaining the reason its good to have them. The point of having human morals, is to allow us to live and prosper together, not virtue signal on the internet.

[@RomanticZero]

@@SkyGlitchGalaxy I can't overemphasise how badly you have misinterpreted the original point and the concept of moral value/worth here. An individual having moral value/worth is not to do with whether their actions correspond with normative morality.

[@unsilencedderp9411]

26:20 people actually do have OCD when it comes to pointing guns at things.

[@starczarar]

"Members of our species have a higher moral standing." We should save a human over a chicken, right?

[@SuperAwesomedude20]

Yes Peter has always made that a point

[@flyingfig12]

Why not both?

[@andyl8055]

Why quote him out of context on such an important topic? His point in that sentence had nothing to do with saving humans instead of chickens.

[@charlesjohnson364]

Debate V E G A N G A I N S

[@CaptainFuzzbottom]

I would subscribe for that.

[@migarsormrapophis2755]

lol

[@wetyuu]

😂

[@JaromEubanks]

There are better vegan debaters out there.

[@Genghis_Sean_]

Dr Avi or Nutrivore would fucking decimate Sam

[@jasonbraun127]

Too many people see the discussion of animal rights as a simple question of “Is it okay to eat meat“ and they‘re completely missing the point. We should all be able to agree that torturing and killing animals in the billions just because we like the taste of it is morally indefensible. Once we get to the point where nearly all meat you could get came from an animal that had a healthy and normal life up to the moment of slaughter then we can start having a discussion about the morality of actually eating it but that point is so far away in the future that we might es well be discussing space travel.

[@VitaSineLibertatenih]

To be fair, we either have specific rights for specific species or no animal rights at all (my position). The system we have now is a total schizophrenia when some animals in some circumstances almost human-like rights and some have no rights at all.

[@rasputozen]

Surprising you come on the side of no animal rights, given you're not the one who suffers for it.

[@VitaSineLibertatenih]

Humans are animals too btw, we are apes. Worms are animals too. Now, tell me a reason and a line you want to draw when some animal species in some circumstances should have some rights and others shouldn't. Then we add a second person who supports animal rights and watch you debate. Then a 3rd and so on. You will argue for millennia(because rights itself is a game, they don't exist). While I just make a cut on species basis : humans have rights, animals don't. Case closed.

[@aaronpannell6401]

No rights at all? Could people could torture dogs if we wanted to?

[@joshh5353]

What are talking about? In what world do animals have more rights than humans? What metric or mechanism are using to determine species-specific rights ?

[@freeMinder]

Thank you

[@whatsdoin2392]

When you can not say that we should value human life over animal life then your moral compass is set to hell.

[@carlosveraandrada4181]

It is good to avoid unnecesary animal pain, but let s not confuse some basic concepts: Singer said that a chimp rapes a female chimp. That term is absolutely absurd when speaking about non human animals.

[@remyleo]

I don't know how it happened, but i came here thinking this was an Animals fighting back video by Ozzy Man. Like drinking OJ when you thought it was milk.

[@erowan1389]

Who said an animal is "happy" living in captivity on a hobby farm? Animals have instincts and urges to roam, breed and interact within their own species groups. I would rather be a wild animal and face the hardships among my kin than in a zoo and stuck with cellmates I may hate.

[@jafco9]

Speaking of being objective about effective altruism, are you able to make an objective argument that altruism is a valid moral principle?

[@Brandon-os3qr]

Singer literally has an entire book on his answer to this question. But for Harris, it's also not difficult to combine his positions on moral objectivity to get an answer. He states that well-being is the foundation of objective morality, with the whole "the most objective definition of bad is a world where the least desired outcome happens to all of the beings." This very quickly turns into some form of utilitarianism where increasing overall well-being is a "good" outcome, and then clearly supports altruism as an objective moral principle at least IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES where there is a net increase in well-being. Which is to say that chopping your arm off to feed someone who could have eaten oatmeal might technically be altruistic, but not morally "good" within that objective framework. This also speaks to the moral component of being effective with said altruism

[@jafco9]

​@Brandon-os3qr You're making a glaringly big assumption that altruism can lead to a net increase in overall well-being.

[@Brandon-os3qr]

@@jafco9 I literally said "in the circumstances where it would." You could argue it's something other than altruism if it doesn't, or you could argue it's this combined sentiment that is the moral good by whatever name you give it.

[@jafco9]

​@Brandon-os3qr, are you arguing that there are circumstances where altruism can be objectively good?

[@Brandon-os3qr]

@@jafco9 those are literally the words I used, yes. Again, whether you tie those circumstances into the definition of altruism, or otherwise for the purpose of universal application claim that the combination of altruism and the circumstances is the objective moral good (by whatever name). And above all, I'm saying that this is what Harris' model of moral objectivity (and its foundation of well-being) would imply

[@mattersmatter342]

28:21 Sam, any other standard would leave us empty because human usefulness is judged subjectively and utility of the moment,. Can't imagine how useful one finds an English professor on a sinking ship compared to the mute carpenter 🤔 Or the Scientists who can't swim to someone drowning? You made great counter arguments during this discussion. On a side note, bugs play too important a role in our ecosystem to make them a preferred food, so meat may be the better option 😢

[@rasputozen]

Are you aware eating plants is about 10x more efficient from an energy and land/resource usage perspective? What's the nutrient in meat you can't get from plants?

[@mattersmatter342]

@@rasputozen Maybe for some; however, I have a family member who was advised not to eat meat, so he's a vegetarian now. The contrast in his appearance and energy levels are stark: He's listless.

[@rasputozen]

Do you really know all of the things he's going through? He might not be getting good sleep. His health condition might be messing with him or some other great stress you don't know about. Maybe his vegetarian diet really isn't well planned and balanced. Or it could be a combination of multiple of these things. Have you inquired about any of this with him, or are you just doing a lot of assuming? But to focus on the greater point, why are you looking at one anecdote to draw a conclusion on ALL plant-based diets? Have you never seen a healthy vegan, in your own life or online? Really? If not maybe you should venture out of your existing circle before you draw such sweeping conclusions.@@mattersmatter342

[@ToweringToska]

​@@mattersmatter342 It takes practice and research to eat healthy, there's a learning what to shop for and prepare period, it doesn't take meat though. Also bugs are farmed and bred when they're eaten too, they're not scavenged out of natural ecosystems until there aren't any left. It's substantially easier to breed and farm bugs than large animals, they need way less resources. Sticking with just plants beats bugs in every way of course, but bugs still easily beat farming big animals.

[@mattersmatter342]

@@ToweringToska You're right, farming bugs has to be easier. I'm just happy my ancestors didn't take the easy way out 😁. Those who want to eat bugs should, and those who prefer meat should continue to have that option. Mother Nature made it so each man is born individually, with some exceptions, so each individual should be able to decide what is best for them. God bless and take care.

[@Time_to_Stop_Animal_Cruelty]

Thank u for discussing about this... I'm a coward so can't listen to this - 말 못하는 동물들이 너무 불쌍해. True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which is deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it. - Milan Kundera

[@realcommonsense23]

Thanks, Making sense is Common sense!

[@RyuBateson218]

Thanks!

[@gnubbiersh647]

im not sure i can forgive chickens for being speciesist against worms.

[@wimsickle6173]

You're a chicken

[@ToweringToska]

But chickens aren't, they're opportunistic by necessity, that's all they've got. : (

[@gnubbiersh647]

@@ToweringToska same as humans

[@ToweringToska]

@@gnubbiersh647 ...No? Please pay attention. We have grocery stores, we have plenty of options all the time. If we choose to hurt others when we don't need to, which we don't, then we're subjugating others and telling ourselves it's okay because they're different. Humans ignoring other animals' feelings so they can kill them is what we call specism, it's a thing we can have, or much preferably choose not to have. Chickens meanwhile live in a much tinier world with so much fewer options that they've basically got none. A chicken is not prejudice for eating worms, shut that up, it's embarrassing to try to justify stupidity by saying other exponentially less intelligent and privileged animals do it too. Even if you're just miming another dumb comment you heard and feel detached and impersonal from it, the truth is it's you, you are everything you say, we are nothing but what we put out there. Try to be compassionate whenever you're walking into an argument you don't care about, because you don't know how much this matters.

[@ToweringToska]

@@gnubbiersh647 Daw that was really mean, tahah, sorry, if you're a kid that beating probably sucked. Definitely try to be accountable though, stand up for what's right and respect everyone else who does too.

[@ckq]

My thoughts Thoughts on animals rights: - the issue with "animal rights" is that they're inherently hypocritical. - a society thats "cares" about animal rights and also kills them for food or if they're inconvenient to us (deer for example) does not value animal welfare since murder is the worst crime a human do to another human, so if murdering animals is ok it means they don't have anywhere near the same rights as humans. - evolutionarily, this makes sense since animals are different species than us, so we should only have laws pertaining to the well being of humans. - additionally what is the logic between picking and choosing which animals are valuable to us? Dogs, Cats, American Eagles, Rats, Horses, Cows, Pigs, Ants, Bears, Deer, Fish, Moles, Rabbits, Ostriches, Beetles, even Plants? - for the above reasons, I don't believe there is any logic behind protecting animals for the sake of their inherent rights since we as a society don't value non-human life. - therefore, the only rational logic behind laws that ban animal cruelty is because we as a society believe the human behavior behind it is evil, not the results of the action. - I personally don't eat animals for health/cleanliness/personal morals (i.e. for selfish reasons, not selfless reasons). The argument that humans shouldn't eat animals because animals deserve rights never landed with me and the general public (why PETA always gets dunked on).

[@ckq]

Wrote all this before listening btw

[@evanwilliamson8338]

If you believe nonhuman animals are worthy of moral consideration, then it is rational to create and uphold laws that give them rights. I believe many nonhuman animals are worthy of moral consideration to varying degrees, and I believe this as a result of being exposed to evidence in the form of neuroscience, ethology, and evolutionary biology. Happy to recommend sources if you’re interested.

[@jmal0982]

For the first time in my life , I felt a cow was looking right trough my soul.

[@ToweringToska]

Have you met cows up close? They're generally very smart, deep, patient and friendly. Dogs cats and cows are the animals I'm the least nervous about reaching out and touching when they're strangers, dogs and cats because they're easy to read, and cows because I trust them.

[@fahidcharkaoui612]

hi

[@endoalley680]

Does this line of reasoning lead us to say that advocating the removal of Arab Muslims from Gaza who lead quite miserable lives. And replacing them with Israeli Jews who will lead much happier and more fulfilling lives, is a morally positive position to take?

[@SkyGlitchGalaxy]

Grew up on a farm. Give me the life of a farm animal over a wild animal any day of the week. How would you like being a wild european rabbit. Covered in fleas, ticks and invested with worms. Constantly on the look out and in a panic for the day u get ripped to peices and eaten. And there is no social welfare for wild animals, when you get jacked, you children die starvation. 3 out of 4 wild rabbits are dead witin the first year of life. Whats Peter Singer solution to improve the lot of wild rabbits? But no... people are eating chicken, so focus on that. Can you imagine the dystopian societies these ethics professors dream of.

[@domsnow6418]

Except one is completely unnecessary

[@WhiteRussianBC]

Wild animal suffering is a big topic in the vegan movement. Peter Singer wrote about it in Animal Liberation Now (the updated version of Animal Liberation). Peter argues that it's much easier to reduce the suffering of farm animals (through legislation), but he acknowledges that wild animal suffering is also a problem.

[@ToweringToska]

Yeah... what domsnow6418 said. We'd love to improve the lives of wild animals, of course, but we can't really do that. Every farmed animal does not equal one less wild animal, because we're creating the farm animals. The only thing that would equal one less wild suffering animal is removing a wild animal, abducting them and making them live with us, and they really really don't want us to, they care about stuff out there. You don't have to farm animals.

[@ckq]

I don't think pain is a valid standard, pain is temporary. Life ends on the other hand.

[@bjhcvuaerpigfy]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying; are you saying that pain doesn't matter but that life ending does matter? Personally I feel it's the other way around. It matters how an animal dies: is there pain or not. That it dies is of no concern, everything dies eventually anyway.

[@olajankowska1408]

just go vegan

[@olajankowska1408]

Plants just like bacteria or viruses do not feel pain or suffering. Animals do just like we do.

[@sircharlesnot]

13:42 so this guy should be anti abortion If he is pro abortion he is morally inconsistent

[@rasputozen]

I guarantee you, no matter what his belief is on abortion, he's not aborted a single fetus/baby or encouraged anyone to do so in his entire life. And yet you're paying for animals to be tortured 2-3 times a day, every single day.

[@sircharlesnot]

@rasputozen that's a terrible argument! It is like saying I never actually slaughtered any animals so I can eat animals?!?!

[@lucioh1575]

@@sircharlesnot You're paying for them to be slaughtered, aren't you? In any case, respect for bodily autonomy is an easy concept to understand. Your body belongs to you. You have no duty to use it to save others if you don't want to. No one should be forced to donate blood or organs even if it saves lives, same goes with using a uterus. If we apply the same to animals, we shouldn't slaughter them against their consent. If anything, you could say spaying cats could be inconsistent in that regard.

[@sircharlesnot]

@lucioh1575 your argument is again inconsistent. In the same way, you can never ask the animals you can't ask the fetus if it wants to get chopped up?!?!

[@bigfish1138]

Why does no one consider intent and an individuals potential for change (whether influenced by internal or external recommendation) when attempting to determine right from wrong. I love these conversations that Sam has because he is so consistent with his "grey area" logic. The truth is always somewhere inbetween the extremes in the vast majority of topics. If suffering is the basis for the argument against ever consuming or utilizing animals, then you have to accept that there are ways to give creatures an amazing life that would otherwise not have existed and terminate there life in a stress free process. A beef cow raised in the mountains of Montana is not equivalent to the horrors of large corporations raising pigs and chickens using unthinkable meathods. A bug that dies immediately after being hit by a car has no suffering and can't be compared to factory farming. Cruelty and profit driven ideals is the problem. Being kind and considerate and using rationality and common sense is the solution.

[@erowan1389]

No one said there isnn't a spectrum. Yeah, some are much worse than others but it is never ok to intentionally cause pain in an animal.

[@bigfish1138]

Absolutely. It just seemed there are times when apples and oranges are compared with zero desire to compromise that there is no universal right and wrong.

[@TrackinDaMeta]

Human consciousness is the loaded gun sam speaks of. We don't kill human beings even if it seems they are dead because they may be loaded with consciousness. This is why we don't kill the baby.

[@nathanmitchell7961]

Good point, he mentioned being born with Anencephaly and what the that would look like but all babies born with this condition die at birth or within a few days.

[@rasputozen]

What would make you think a fetus may be "loaded with consciousness" but an animal wouldn't?

[@skepticusmaximus184]

Speak for yourself. I didn't kill the baby because it had red hair and I strongly suspected it'd taste yucky. 😂

[@nathanmitchell7961]

An animal does not and will not ever have the capacity to be able to contain human consciousness.@@rasputozen

[@dystopiaeatsmoney]

Does a non human animal have the capacity to feel pain and the desire to avoid suffering?

[@lhurst9550]

11:25 Are you really that ignorant on the world history of slavery? I believe you are.

[@ronalddepesa6221]

What was wrong? Not factual?

[@lhurst9550]

@@ronalddepesa6221 Europeans did not go to Africa and "catch" then sell humans into slavery. It was the slave 'trade'; they bought slaves from the tribes of Africa and re-sold them to the buyers. Slavery has been a part of human existance since before civilization. It took white europeans to stop it, or at least stop the practice as common place. Fact is there are more slaves today than any time humans have existed. All the speaker did was repeat the lie of Roots the TV miniseries.

[@jordanmasuccio]

Singers argument doesn’t take into account the psychological human suffering that would occurs if we killed an unintelligent human rather than killing a chimp. This emotional reaction people have is a type of pain, though we can agree suffering matters, so in a vacuum, singer is right, without a society like ours it doesn’t even work by utilitarian logic, because humans suffer in his worldview by proxy.

[@pichajooli1816]

#govegan

[@ericb2017]

I probably understand 70% of what you say as a Native American English speaker. how do I understand more of your vernacular? do I need to study vocabulary??

[@paullampl1]

I've been speaking english my whole life and I still have to google about 3 words every time I listen to a Sam Harris podcast.

[@ToweringToska]

Oh hey it's you again! For appearing before my eyes twice I'll tell you about some of my staple vegetarian food. Morning Star Farms is my favorite protein brand, they make all different kinds of patties and stuff that you can cook however you choose, or even not at all! Bird's Eye Veggie Pasta is an excellent easy microwave food, and bags of dried lentils and splitpeas are filling fiber stuffings for noodles or anything you boil.

[@ericb2017]

@@ToweringToska lol dude you are funny man! time for bed I’ll check it out tomorrow thanks 🙏

[@ToweringToska]

@@ericb2017 : D 🐕