Happiness and Ultimate Good with Peter Singer

(Visit: www.uctv.tv) There is widespread agreement that happiness is good, but is it the sole ultimate good? Princeton University Professor Peter Singer explores arguments for and against such a conclusion. He considers the implications for public policy that take happiness as one of the most important goods that individuals can achieve. Singer specializes in applied ethics, approaching ethics from a secular preference utilitarian perspective Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" [11/2012] [Humanities] [Show ID: 24344]

[@lkcuupa]

Everyone should be happy, deserve it. I use energy to find mine

[@GWWCFTW]

This guy makes so much damn sense, love it :-)

[@AaronDut]

Sam Welter There's a huge difference between downgrading the life of a human being or upgrading the life of other animals, which is what Singer does. He doesn't want ANY animal to be killed.

[@rmeddy]

nice I think he's coming to Trinidad

[@dexterwaweru8687]

Interesting

[@vanderbilt4918]

Thanks, I always dig some Singer.

[@pamelabibby7170]

SINGERS SICK DESERVES TO BE HANGED

[@LukaszStafiniak]

Peter Singer's co-author: Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek

[@hammyjojo23]

Fayetteville

[@karinaandersen2618]

Wonderful man love listening to him, don't always agree with Peter, but I love the way he thinks, I am an anti theist,

[@pamelabibby7170]

I HATE THE WAY THE SICKOTHINKS U MUST BE SICK TO SOD THE BAD PAST SINGER DESERVES TO DIE

[@erichawthorne2519]

No. Happiness is not a suitable general moral metric. The reason is that people, and probably other animals with some cognitive capability, have, or should have, a neutral happiness default setpoint. This allows happiness to perform its function in life, which is to react (change level) either positively or negatively to new stimuli or situations that the organism encounters, and thereby guide thought and action to steer the organism toward more beneficial outcomes. Positive happiness is, and functionally should be, a transient state. So it is not a moral end in itself.

[@stephenblackman2003a]

what's the name of singer's co-author?

[@godlessheathen100]

Vacuous, pretentious nonsense. Singer always makes me chuckle.

[@stewartmoore5158]

Yeah, how awful for a person to care about the suffering of conscious beings. What's a dunce!

[@hammyjojo23]

Figer

[@samwelter6083]

WHAT!?!? THAT SUIT HAS CHILDREN'S LIVES SEWN IN IT! YOU'RE KILLING BABIES! AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!

[@asdffdsa165]

Just found out he gives 20% of his $200,000 a year salary to charity. I think that's a bit weak coming from him, personally.

[@michellestorm9278]

+magget16 i think its more then you give...

[@asdffdsa165]

+Michelle Storm I am not working at the moment, when I did I gave 30% of $25k a year

[@mmetc041]

Sources?

[@asdffdsa165]

search guardian peter singer 20% in google first link

[@Mplay213]

+magget16 It says he donates 20% to oxfam and unicef. I doubt this is true because if you go to his website (thelifeyoucansave) they aren't even in his top recommended charities.

[@pamelabibby180]

IT WORKS OUT IN THE END HAPPINESS THAT WOULD BE IF EVIL SINGER DIED SOD WHAT HORRIBLE PEOPLE SAY AND REMEMBER SINGER IS AA PIDO

[@114100116]

Boring af

[@jeannettewilke205]

He does not look one inch happy himself. Bitter, twisted misanthrope vomiting up crap.ò