Peter Singer: I disagree with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[@Danyel615]

These titles are very unprofessional. Something as simple as: "Peter Singer on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would have been more than enough." This has happened on multiple times now, so I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

[@ludwigwittgenduck3282]

The channel must grow Danyel otherwise they'll be forced to start interviewing the likes of you

[@Danyel615]

@@ludwigwittgenduck3282 actually, they probably will get to such a low standard as having to interview me if they continue doing this.

[@mbuffym]

Fully agree with you, Danyel.

[@ludwigwittgenduck3282]

@@Danyel615 What would your main topics of discussion be? Go on, think of something really out there

[@Danyel615]

@@ludwigwittgenduck3282 As I said I don't think I'd be a good candidate, hence my previous comment.

[@davidsimpson7229]

This channel really should be above click-bait titles.

[@Dr-Sardonicus]

You should really be more honest with your titles, it's not putting your channel in a good light, which is a shame since the content is generally great.

[@JB-pu4zq]

The title seems accurate. Singer agrees that if it is taken as a declaration of "general principle" (0:36-0:58) it's fine, and may in fact do some good. However, he clearly states he disagrees with it if viewed from a philosophical standpoint. See, 0:37-2:40.

[@francisguevara1688]

@@JB-pu4zq The title is intentionally misleading it suggests he disagrees with the declaration in its entirety and also that he is antagonistic to it which is not the case at all he agrees with it as a conventional necessity but not as a perfect philosophical account

[@JohnThomas]

Beautifully explained by Singer, as usual. He's spot on! Singer's willingness to be nuanced in his discussion of questions like this rather than give easy pat answers helps explain the prevalence of silly headlines that create a caricature of his position. Many people would read a headline like "Singer disagrees with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and think "Shocking!" But once they hear the words Singer used to explain his stance, they're more likely to say "Of course! That makes sense!"

[@danhanna8610]

IMO: The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" focuses on 2 viewpoints: 1. the Rights of human beings, and 2. the Duties of human beings towards other humans. With a viewpoint focusing on "animal rights," should there be a "Universal Declaration of Human Duties Towards Non-Human Animals?"

[@neoepicurean3772]

That's such a pre-covid table

[@deistwhiplash8699]

I'm surprised nobody has used this as the basis for an objection to covid lockdowns... though to be honest, Article 30 is a catch-all for anyone who would try it.

[@how-to-live-right]

The singer is saying the trough which is to be realized later

[@serrendiptiy]

Nah.... lacks any content depth Previously, I never read the declaration. Now, after reading it, I do wonder why it is considered so important. It is so full of holes as to make a lot of it worthless.

[@mbuffym]

The title is wrong, again.

[@JB-pu4zq]

The title seems accurate. Singer agrees that if it is taken as a declaration of "general principle" (0:36-0:58) it's fine, and may in fact do some good. However, he clearly states he disagrees with it if viewed from a philosophical standpoint. See, 0:37-2:40.

[@mbuffym]

Still wrong. He never said " I disagree with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[@mbuffym]

No, it's wrong

[@silviasilvia6513]

Rancak bana their analysis👍

[@Krontok]

This is the third video in a row from this channel where I have listened to someone rationalize killing by suspending the humanity of the disabled or defective. Seriously, what the actual fuck?

[@michaeldodd3563]

That's not the strongest argument for disagreeing.

[@cetvies-author-writer]

sometimes a shame, the wolf felt they had a moral duty to let humanity alive.

[@davidpeppers551]

Sorry to say the click bait worked on me.

[@mackdmara]

The funny thing is, if this man was a good Christian, he would already give animals rights as part of human rights. In the first part of Genesis, man is given the responsibility to be a good steward of the natural world. Taking care of nature is something God commanded first. Later, you have the Law given by God. Why is having sex with an animal wrong (beyond it being offensive to people)? You are abusing your authority over the animal. That animal has rights. The point being is, animals naturally eat animals. If you accept a humanistic naturalism as your beliefs (since there is no God), then you are an omnivore. You do not eat meat because you want to not eat meat. You treat animals kindly, because you want to. That is the base of this mans belief system. Yet he affirms animals should hold these rights as we do. If we are the dominant species, how does a lesser one garner equal treatment? Does that fit with nature? Is a lion murdering a gazelle? Did the gazelle murder the plant? After all, if we are from the same pool of DNA, why do animals have more rights than plants? At base, he is giving these things rights arbitrarily. If we all came from the same stuff, it all has equal rights. So every time he eats, he is a murder. I applaud anyone who has the conscience to care. Over all, I do not disagree strongly with him. I just feel that philosophically he is on shaky ground. If there is no warrant for the action, how do you justify it? Something to think about.

[@cetvies-author-writer]

That the wold, wolf wand o and other wildlife, made this choice. hope outside its box.

[@pamelabibby180]

I AM TALKING IN BLOCK CAPS MY EX USED TO SHOUT WHY WAS IT OK FOR MY HANDICAPPED EX TO SHOUT AND BE RACIST WHY IS IT OK TO ABUSE AND RAPE WOMEN BUT I CANT SHOUT

[@cetvies-author-writer]

duty bearer, rights holder. what s wrong with him, anthropocentrism?

[@Racools]

so really the only existance for peter having these kind of arguments is to interject on how all of the thinkings on humans is incorrect because we dont see other animals the same way....what a pointless discussion

[@jessicastrat9376]

Predictable click bait at the cost of the atheist as usual

[@JackVox]

Singer may disagree but these are universal human rights, it depends on nothing that he says it is an agreed universal declaration of Human Rights. This is now set in stone unless universally declared otherwise, therefore these rights are protected the world over and are built on the cornerstone of natural law and every politician and judge worldwide must adhere to these Rights in all decision making or face the consequences.

[@justus4684]

What's the argument for the existence of those objective rights?

[@gregorsamsa1364]

What consequences? The US government does what it wants, kills innocent civilians at will, and faces no significant consequences

[@merlepatterson]

If Peter Singer doesn't believe that there are universal human rights, then he shouldn't be concerned if the public were to strip him naked and put him in a public cage for all to gawk at while he's forced to feed off of the floor with his bare hands. If dignity and universal human rights are to be based upon physical ability or intellectual capacity to engage in what is considered good, then who's to say whether what is being done with those capacities is of true moral virtue? Is the scrambled mess of hurried Wall St traders a true human virtue or natural in course? Is the widely admired sport of extreme fighting? Or a remote drone pilot in an air conditioned room in the Nevada desert pressing the fire button on Hellfire missiles from 5,000 miles away? Are esteemed philosophers who claim certain human beings are not deserving of dignity or human rights, to be considered moral and virtuous within the expectation of public acceptance to their own philosophical standing?

[@robertd9965]

Excellent argument! Singer's sophistry is quite remarkable.

[@merlepatterson]

@@robertd9965 I had forgotten I made this argument. There have been so many. Thank you for your feedback.

[@emmanuel8310]

Bad argument, he's the one who would do that to others not others to him. If those people believe in human rights truly, they wouldn't do that. And by the way, human rights is a theological position....you can't prove it outside of that. And yes, there are a number of people in the world who doesn't believe it.

[@robertd9965]

@@emmanuel8310 I don't think anything Merle said contradicted what you said. At least as far as I understood, the point was to say - in a similar vein as you're stating - that rights and dignity have to be based upon something, and that, if there's no real moral standard outside of us humans, then there's really no morality at all. And yes, you are 100% correct in that dignity cannot be justified without God.

[@pamelabibby180]

its the mothers fault when the child is handicapped they made them like that

[@becauseitscurrentyear8397]

90 seconds in and leaving cause its a waste of time to hear some one claim that animals have the same dignity as humans. obsurd on its face.

[@matthiasmuller7677]

The wolf doesn't have moral agency by his nature, whereas the Individual human with only a brain stem is deprived of his natural capability by accident. If you deny this then you can never use any kind of categories but always only look at Individual entities and that's nonsenical. For example Peter Singer looks like a Ghoul but he is still invited into that studio even though Ghouls are probably not allowed in there. It's because everybody notices that he is not a Ghoul by nature but just a human who happens to look like a Ghoul by accident.

[@marco_mate5181]

The wolf doesn’t have moral agency by accident because by accident wolves have not evolved it yet. And a human being with just one neuron doesn’t have moral agency by accident because by accident it happens to be the case that one neuron is not enough.

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@@marco_mate5181 but why introduce a hierarchy of evolutionary derived abilities in the first place? Why is moral agency higher then the wolfs ability to howl or the baby's ability to lets say digest milk perfectly? If everything is only flux then there is no quality only quantity. It would be humancentric to proclaim such a judgement.

[@marco_mate5181]

@@matthiasmuller7677 because it's obvious that some qualities are morally relevant and others are not. " morally agency" is something related to morality, your quality of the wolf hasn't anything to do with that. And wolves don't even understand what moral norms are

[@matthiasmuller7677]

@@marco_mate5181 sure, intuitively I agree. But from a strict evolutionary perspective morality itself is just an arbitrary trait, no better or worse than the wolf's howling. It might actually be an evolutionary deadend. But that can only be known in retrospect.

[@marco_mate5181]

@@matthiasmuller7677 Morality is morally superior than other traits by definition. You are mixing two questions. You are asking "what are the superior traits?", but you are not providing any framework. if you mean "what are the morally superior traits?" then moral agency is obviously one. if you are asking "what is the trait that we should care about more?" that depends on what we already care about. If you don't care at all about morality, you cannot say moral agency is more important to you than the wolf's ability.

[@bozhidarbalkas7269]

It is easy to prove that the Bible is the word of God by merely quoting the Bible and/or writing a new Bible. This is what all preachers do: Every time they try to 'explain' what God meant, they in actuality write their own Bible. To them what God wrote is never enough. They have to often ignore what scribes write; oops God said or replace his words with their own and new words. Remember that even Paul warns believers not to "go beyond what is written"; while Mt 23:8 said that believers in Jesus have only one Teacher. Preachers, of course, ignore the two warnings and accept the biblical wish [or command] that also others [or some selects] teach God's word. Take, eg, the command to fear God? Some preachers do not try to 'explain' the command or go beyond it, but others do; by simply saying that the "fear' means reverence for or awe of God. This ignores the fact that the scribes command to love God above all else; so not merely to revere [whatever that means] God. The fact that-according to NT scribes God made hell and that He, ergo, knew he would have people to put into it, can be just ignored and, instead, quote the verse which claim that God does not want anyone to perish; thus, also not go to hell.

[@madlang478]

Singer posits premises with no supoort. He absolutely does not know whether anancephalic people “experience”nothing.” Also he really does not know the extent nor the quality of the experiences of animals.

[@pamelabibby180]

MY EX WAS LIKE SINGER HE DIDNT BELIEVE IN GOD HE THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO KILL HIS EXS HE WAS MENTAL ASWELL BUT HE WAS HANDICAPPED WITH MS AND PHYCOSIS WOULD SINGER LOVE HIM OR WANT TO KILL HIM

[@Dr-Sardonicus]

Stop shouting.

[@pamelabibby180]

singer wants to barbieque my grandad and my ex