Episode 208 - The moral evolution of a philosopher. (Peter Singer)

[@djetinjstvo_u_boji]

Hey Stephen, I believe these episodes where you take us through the narrative development of an idea or position are truly your best work. I’d love to see more in this style! Thank you so much.

[@Rhymes334]

This is some of your finest work. Both intricate and engaging - thank you!!

[@pedecadonstudios714]

Love your episodes man! Keep it up! The world needs more centered people.

[@donit.]

I do have a burning question actually: 38:03 When deriving "suffering is bad" it's always like "suffering is by definition an undesirable state, so suffering is bad". However, suffering is only an undesirable state for the being that's suffering! So the only thing you can derive from that is "suffering is bad for the being suffering". I don't see anything in there that would result in "we should promote well-being and reduce suffering" for any being other than ourselves. So my question is: How does that not just lead to egoism?

[@gike2755]

EXACTLY! There are so many assumptions still smuggled in there.

[@Tucanzz]

Suffering itself may be inherently undesirable but what people find undesirable is subjective. Likewise, pleasure is inherently subjective. So when we speak about minimizing suffering we still can't come to a general, objective stance on what that looks like. I agree with Hume on "reason being the slave to Passion" cuz I've always seen reason as merely "your justification for your belief" and here it seems like Singer's basically appealing to reason and the universal experience of pleasure and pain to defend his own subjective belief as objective.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Utilitarian ethics is often the source of tyranny.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Pleasure is not subjective.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Like, experience is subject to being an experiencer. But experience is an objective thing.

[@xXRAGINGBULLlphXx]

The ol appeal to reason, classic.

[@Pedro-z9f1b]

Bias.

[@Tazlmao]

I think you should do an episode covering antinatalism

[@HenriqueAgliardi]

It was really helpfull! I have a question for you to ask him. In the field of medicine there is a concept called "allostatic load", that describes how the maintenance of elevated adrenaline levels are destructive for the body; adrenaline is produced as a result of fear, anger or competitiveness, and in the case of seeing something as a chalenge that has an end the adrenaline elevates for a short period of time and as it goes down we have an adaptation to be more capable, but when it doesn't go down for a long time we produce damage in all our tissues and cells. The notion of be in a competition for everything all the time is something that sustain our adrenaline elevated, and the notion of be part of a harmonic colaboration makes the adversities challenges that allow us to get the adrenaline low after the task. Could you ask him about those concepts as being an axyom in morality? (as a physician I see those concepts as axyomatic in my way of thinking health and instruct my patients about that kind of thing)

[@keitarobritto]

❤

[@buglepong]

its always about the axioms. one can rationally (maybe even "objectively") derive from axioms, but its the axioms that are the battleground. even in mathematics, would 10+10=20 if your number series isnt base 10?

[@physics1518]

You should do Alasdair MacIntyre next.

[@wiulian]

Would apreciate a episode about Sam Harris views on moral truth. Love ur content ! Keep it up ! Love from Brazil ♥

[@Pedro-z9f1b]

Thank you!

[@angryherbalgerbil]

Morality isn't objectively true, it's subjectively applicable, but it *is* objectively necessary and coded into our being in some very fundamental ways; biologically, bio-chemically, psychologically. What we see with writers and philosophers is that they are better off writing for themselves alone for 40 to 50 years and *then* putting forwards their latest and most refind ideas. Anything else is just their devolpmental phase. Who shares wine when it's only just fermenting? And more importantly... Who drinks it?

[@eerohillo3832]

Hey, I would really like to ask peter singer this. Was peter singer religious or not before this change on moral ethics and has the change in positions changed his outlook on god or spirituality?

[@jlingo6371]

Look to the early life section at Wikipedia. It’s always the same people…

[@andrewbowen2837]

Have you ever considered doing an episode on Paul Ricoeur?

[@christinemartin63]

Anytime the needle moves more toward the rational (and away from "feelings"), I'm in. Nice commentary.

[@asafashar1]

Singer's "undesirable = suffering" is tautological. The universalizability of suffering is a proposition that requires underpinning, e.g. Kant's belief in universal rights. I hope you raise both in your meeting with him. Otherwise, a very nice episode! Suggestion: have a pdf version in addition to the podcast.

[@Mr.Buttermaker]

How about some David Smail?

[@emoney9449]

In regards to the Altruistic Drug Dealer: I would argue that from my experiences working with addicts, they would in fact not always ask for or believe that the drug was best for them. Addicts admit themselves into rehab all the time because they want to do better and don’t like being a slave to their addictions.

[@gethinfiltrator6700]

There is pleasure.... in life? Hmm.

[@gike2755]

Hey Stephen, this was a particularly frustrating episode to listen to (in a good way, i think). I've seen similar comments so I'll try to add only what i haven't seen expressed, although these may have already been addressed in the wider discourse: 1) there is an implicit formulation that humans are individuals, separable and whole and that we can affect, either positively or negatively, one state independently of others. Using this perspective to formulate a description of humans is like having multivariable equation, where you reduce everything but the 'individualism coefficent' to 0. 2) it seems to me that if there is some objective morality, unless I have not understood the totality of this perspective, concerns and preferences are actually NOT equal. Surely the views and concerns of those who uphold, proliferate or promote that objective moral framework would be preferred. This is assuming that promoting the universal adoption of this moral framework is part of the goals of increasing morality, i.e. it stands to reason that within the Borg collective it is a moral good to assimilate everything. Understandable if I have misunderstood but this is so close to some thing I've been thinking about I couldn't just spectate. Edited: for clarity and to correct typos (hopefully)

[@lanceindependent]

At 6:21 you say “[...] One of the first questions you got to answer if you’re a moral antirealist [...] is if there no moral facts that our feelings about things are pointing towards then why does it seem to us to be so clear that there are moral positions that are just objectively better or worse than others” When you say “us”...who are you referring to? It doesn’t seem to me there are moral positions that are objectively better or worse than others. Whether it seems this way to anyone in particular is a question about that person's psychology. For some reason, philosophers often make claims about how things "seem" as though they seem the same way to everyone, and they often presume that in the case of morality, that it "seems" to people like moral realism is true. Both of these are empirical claims, and realists have presented very little reason to believe either of these claims is true.

[@surfism]

Peter Singer has never weighed in on the shark debate, which has raged in his home country for the past decade or more.

[@NemDzA97]

My brother, saying murder is bad or stealing is bad its because people dont want to live in the enviroment where things like that are common and excused. To say things like that are bad is saying no to the uncertainty. People want prosperity, in many different ways and meanings

[@guypanton8341]

What about the “suffering” that, say, an ultra-marathon runner indulges in? Do we not take that particular use of “suffering” seriously, or does it undermine Singer’s most recent position?

[@milhouse53]

So Simger is.objective utilitarian hedonist..but he did not explain how objective morality approaches the utilitarian principles of one entity over another. What is a moral beacon to all these principles? Do these principles exist outside of "sentient objects" and are they a priori analytical?

[@TennesseeJed]

👍 Does this type of objectivism apply to the Ayn Rand capitalism concept of the same name?

[@philosophizethispodcast]

They are not the same thing, but if your question is whether her normative ethical theory that she named "Objectivism" follows an Objectivist metaethics: then the answer is yes. lol.

[@TennesseeJed]

@@philosophizethispodcast Thank you Professor! Yes, that answers it exactly.

[@chrismorel2576]

Do his theories account for competition between rational entities? Not as an act of violence, but the nature of competition is to have a winner and a loser. His ideal of no suffering seems to be a zero-sum game that ignores competition as a prerequisite in a world with scarce resources.

[@tzakman8697]

I don't see how we are doing anything other than making value claims in moral talk. No it is not the same as saying logic is true, any type of moral claim is just rationalising on a base of subjective values. Those values are not true without us. there cannot be objective values.

[@RobRaptor49]

So what is your stance on the Nazis? I presume you believe they were acting in a moral way, as they would have seen it as a moral action to murder a Jew.

[@buglepong]

@@RobRaptor49 why stop at a bad person who was incidentally jewish, but not include communists who were incidentally slavic?

[@tzakman8697]

@@RobRaptor49 Let's say some Nazis thought what they were doing was moral, so what? what does it change to add objective moral facts to the matter? I disapprove of what they did and most people do the same because of some almost universal values we have.

[@myentertainment4431]

Oh s**t i m not the 1st comment!

[@cheesySamar]

Hello

[@TheDeepening718]

Humans will eventually learn to despise the idea of free will as they evolve.

[@paulbunion6233]

the only problem is, IT DOESN'T MATTER, none of it matters. We are basically animals. We have the luxury of being comfortable and not having to eat our weaker neighbor. When the push come to the shove, all the this virtuous mumbo jumbo goes out the window and we will do whatever we have to to be the last one standing. All these ethics and morals are the luxury of an affluent society and we have NO RIGHT to dictate to those with much less how to live. Morality is simply an easier way to live when all is good. Morality is a jumped up take on feeding the alligators hoping to be the last one eaten. Good and evil are an invention of the ones smart enough to control the ignorant masses without the use of force and the inherent risk of getting disposed of yourself. Look around you, it's all a delusional farce but it suits a purpose. There is no equality and there never will be. IF morality was real, there would be no versions of it.

[@illiakailli]

hey man, love your podcast! thanks for your work. But why you decided to use a dirty rhetorical trick by bringing together 'counting blades of grass', 'nazis' and 'mowing a lawn' in the context of rooting for intellectual honesty? some other questions: - why can't henry sedgewick's axiomatic principles be reduced to simply two: temporal neutrality and actor neutrality? - does he really think that life of his child should be of the same importance to him as a life of a stranger? (following actor neutrality principle) - does he really think that well-being of not-yet-existing people of the future is more important than well-being of your today's family, local community, country, etc.? What if people of the future are a bunch of cannibals lol? (following temporal neutrality) - desire to define axioms out of the blue seems suspicious at best. Why not just call them 'theorems' as a better analogy and focus on proofs instead? - claiming same ethical rules for humans, animals, aliens, artificial intelligence seems like a total nonsense. Especially considering that aliens and sentient ai do not exit yet, so we don't even know what those things are.

[@pas.]

Situations still matter. The relation between the actor and others matter. That is, if the actor is considering saving from a painful death they might pick their own kids. What does not matter is that when you look at this situation when you judge it you has to think about all the details. What if the actor hates their kids? What if you hate your kids? What if you feel that you are unable to accurately judge this situation because you simply don't know enough? And so on. These all matter. (You need to put yourself into the shoes of others, and you need to find the exact shoes. The shoes matter, not you [ie. it's objective], not the actor.) And similarly the time does not matter. It does not matter when you try on the shoe, but it has to be the same shoe. Axioms by definition are out of the blue. If they were theorems they would need proofs. It's important to notice that Singer is claiming for meta-rules. These are proposed axioms for how good rules ought to look like, but they are not the specific rules themselves.

[@illiakailli]

@@pas. lol, people definitely should matter more than shoes, unless you’re some perverted fetishist. But jokes aside, peter singer and co. try to come up with another categorical imperative, while calling it ‘axiom’. Actor neutrality simply contradicts natural human tendencies and wisdom of billions years life was evolving on earth. Proximity matters: spatial, emotional, cultural … you name it. If the actor hates their kids they likely love their friends more than a random stranger. Saying that we should relate to every person equally is imposing a double-standard or at best is delusional.

[@pas.]

@@illiakailli yes that sounds delusional, and ... no one says that. (maybe nihilists/Buddhists do, who knows) ... but Singer does not say that. it's perfectly okay and moral to relate differently to different people. (because you have different knowledge about each people and that knowledge shapes your judgement of them) and what actor neutrality means is that an ideal ethical actor comes to the same judgement when given the same knowledge.

[@illiakailli]

@@pas. I see, thank you for clarification. So it says essentially nothing, as knowledge about different people is different by constraints that real world imposes.

[@pas.]

@@illiakailli Well, it's has philosophical implications ... :) And much welcome! The problem is that it's very hard to go from ethics to actual practical recommendations, because, as you mention, we are constrained in the real world by lack of knowledge. Rawls recommended in his A Theory of Justice a particular "algorithm" for "walking in others' shoes" called reflective equilibrium, but as far as I know there's no proof that it converges (even in theory). That said modern legal systems already build on this. Everyone is equal before the law. This is the same principle. The latest "hands on" application of ethics is probably the Effective Altruist movement, where the members try to really think about how can they extend this from criminal justice to welfare justice. (And of course certain variations of it are far from a new concept, as the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" slogan which got popularized by Marx is from a hundred years before, from a French utopist.... but even before that it can be found in the Guilford Covenant from 1639, written during an Atlantic crossing to New England. .... but even before that we can see half of it in the New Testament.)

[@J31]

I think I've had my fill of Singer. He basically keeps trying to sell his specific view of the world and package it as moral evolution. It's just a grift.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Relativism never arrives at any moral absolutes.

[@RobRaptor49]

lol b/c Josh Harris isn't a grift? There is philosophy that aims at understanding and there is philosophy that aims at shoring up preconceptions. It's good to ask ourselves which goal we have in mind.

[@FossilizedSoul]

Why do philosophers seem to think evolutionary biology has nothing to say about these matters? Isn't morality objective only in the sense that it may be partially encoded in our DNA and if that weren't true then we wouldn't be here to talk about it?

[@illiakailli]

because you can't change DNA of people just by giving them this podcast to listen to, but you can try changing their cultural programming. Claiming that moral philosophy is somehow separate from propaganda is a sleight of hand, even if this propaganda was crafted with good intentions.

[@alykathryn]

Dr. Michael Levin (and Levin Labs at Tufts University) is doing some Super interesting work at the intersection of Biology, Consciousness, Computation, Artificial Intelligence, and Phylosophy, among other related feilds and in my humble opinion transdisiplinary work like this is going to hold the key to an actual path forward from just talking in circles. 🤷‍♀️

[@illiakailli]

@@alykathryn there is nothing wrong about talking and if you spotted circular reasoning you should definitely consider bringing it up. BTW, despite Michael Levin's work being important, it has lots of speculative assumptions too. Take his bioelectricity mumbo-jumbo: it clearly violates central dogma of molecular biology, but he never mentions that in his interviews.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

Because philosophy is allergic to empiricism, and science is allergic to philosophy. Because science is a tool for others using ideology. And philosophy is for people, mostly, to do cherry picking and confirmation bias, and go on enlightening journeys of red herrings that reinforce institutions they would otherwise want to criticize etc.

[@illiakailli]

@@mimszanadunstedt441 nothing wrong with cherry-picking and confirmation bias if it serves the right purpose. It often helps us to focus and come up with coherent system of ideas, while still being open to constructive criticism.

[@robertwilson-lq1lr]

Wonder what Darwin and Freud would think of Singer. Maybe that this guy is living in the clouds...