Richard Dawkins on infanticide

[@quemacha]

"The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not." - Chesterton

[@LiamJCash]

seems an interesting discussion. WHERES THE NON BIASED REST OF IT ??

[@Vincetti88]

Is there a version of this video on KZbin where he gets to finish that thought?

[@MovieBr0]

Science is the only thing we have to make sense of the universe. What else do we have?

[@sithrage]

It would be nice if you showed the rest of the clip, because Dawkins clearly has another point to make, which we can't see here.

[@RighteousRebel430]

The uncut, original, full video is titled "Peter Singer - The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews with Richard Dawkins" watch?v=9xxdMUuZXUY This part of the conversation is at about 24 minutes in. Would really help if you would put the original link in the video description.

[@AndyAce83]

I don't like Richard Dawkins (or atheism) but seriously... this has to be taken out of context right? "Strictly morally" does involve that he believes that there are an emotional aspect of this? A certain "We could, but we shouldn't?" If not, he is really a sosiopath. And now he isn't just annoying me, but really he scares me to.

[@NemoUtopian]

You can be sure the poster did, that is why it was edited were it was. Even a theist should be able to see through this bit of editing if they care about the truth. Thanks for directing them to the original video though.

[@SuperflyGaming]

/watch?v=YWkJ6cZ0FY8 22:00 - Watch from here onwards to gain context, and to understand the philosophical questions being asked, very dangerous ground to tread yet beneficial. When Richard says 'Strictly morally I see no objection to infanticide at all' he is refering to the child being terminated for its sake of suffering, from an empathic point of view in which suffering is a horrible thing (and it is) which is the context of the discussion they are having if you watch this whole.

[@JohnEusebioToronto]

Stephen Hawking, Helen Keller, Jean-Dominique Bauby, Lou Gehrig, and my sister (sever brittle bone disease) and brother (a history of sever epilepsy with two strokes and can no longer speak) all walk in at once: "Hey, what are you guys talking about?" "Oh.... you know. Sports and stuff. >_>"

[@kevinjjfr]

Murder, Is murder. Your adding on a condition which is not needed. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE. EVER!

[@jeremiah5319]

A conversation between two evil scumbags should never be ignored or discarded, but rather exposed for all to be warned.

[@TorchHamma]

Have you ever heard of the watch-maker argument? If you walk across a field and see a watch, are you going to assume that it built itself? That it was put together by lightning and erosion? You assume a designer, but when you tell your friends, they just say "you're using the designer of the gaps assumption". If you look at the eye and the original amoeba, show evidence that they couldn't have evolved, then you're safe to assume a designer since they outperform a space shuttle in complexity.

[@MovieBr0]

I mean evolution, the theory.

[@Peanutz996]

Way to take something out of context.

[@flimsyjimnz]

Prove it's out of context. -It's not.

[@AndyAce83]

@alltoohuman17 Okay, I'll give it a try. There is a metaphorical line that draws between the extremely hedonistic (or liberal) and the extremely Pietism (or conservatism) and most people think that a "good life" is lived somewhere in-between those two worlds of value. The same goes for others like emotion v. logic, selfishness v altruism etc. Ricard Dawkins represents a world view that are coldly logical, extremely selfish (i.e Aristotle and Rand) and a view on humanity that is, yes... evil

[@walkingphilosopher]

@CZeke Don't be surprised, to the new atheist dummies, ALL clips that do not glorify Dawkins's GREATNESS is obviously EDITED! But not everyone's calling this out of context though, only the fools. Only the fools!

[@theposhenglishguy]

if u watched the full interview u'd understand the context of the full discussion.

[@AndyAce83]

@Meskiagkasher What are you referring to? I may have made an argument somewhere, sometime about the atheist working hard to change definitions and use new words to describe the world... But the last thing I wrote was the lyrics to REM´s - Hurt.

[@SuperflyGaming]

Correct, that is why it is a difficult question. It is merley philosophical questioning.The question here is would you end the childs life to stop it suffering. That means would you put it through hell, all its life suffering a miserable existence and say that is a better life. The question here by Richard and his friend is purley surface skimming, there would be other points raised if such a question was real and involved a real child.

[@Censeo]

Dawkins is making an argument as to why it might be ok to kill to relieve suffering. If that never ever is enough of an argument, I'd like to hear what would be moral about signing up to be a soldier, or worse, going to war.

[@TheCheweeRevolutions]

What if the child was mortally ill and was doomed to die an agonising and slow death. In that case I would be in favour of bringing on a quick and painless death or 'infanticide' as well. What he says here really isn't that morally reprehensible if you watch the whole interview rather than 30 seconds

[@katherinewilliams8565]

How do you know a cure won't be developed?

[@Dawkinsforever]

This is the type of question where both answers can actually be seen as cruel. Is it really okay so let a child live a short and suffering life?

[@magw6270]

I was Christian for years, and was educated at a private Christian school. I became atheist in isolation on my own after reading the Bible. Very few people influenced me, but that being said it isn't a choice. You can't believe in what doesn't make sense to you. Matthew 27 makes it clear that they are talking about Iscariot because it says he betrayed Jesus for the money. Acts 1 also makes this clear it is the same person when it says he "served as guide for those who arrested Jesus."

[@CZeke]

Everyone's calling this out of context, but no one is POSTING the context. This is from "The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews", and the whole thing's on KZbin. Go to bit . ly / oKAg9R or just search for "dawkins singer" (yep, that's Peter Singer he's talking to). The clip starts about 24 minutes in. Watch it and judge for yourself.

[@AlanWattResistance]

Exactly, that was my point, i was being sarcastic. This is the thinking of Evo-Atheists, or could possibly be in the future, it's opening whole can of worms.

[@squirrelterritory]

This was taken out of context, for all we know he could be using it as an argument against the morals created by that of christianity

[@magw6270]

I think Singer also would say that if people were going to abort a baby it is best to do so as early as possible so less pain is inflicted.

[@edwite777]

Not a difficult question at all. We live in a world where modern medicine can control pain but apparently Dawkins, Singer and you, seem to think we don't. And i find it amusing that people like Dawkins who glorify science in one breath can in another doubt that science can find cures for those so-called incurable diseases.

[@TorchHamma]

It's amazing how atheists here on KZbin worship Dawkins like God. They'll defend him at any cost. And they call theists narrow minded.

[@messakg123]

"despise the idea of a God having the right to judge them" has nothing to do with it. Atheists simply dont believe in god.

[@edwite777]

Have you been paying attention to this thread? I already made it clear that today's modern medicine can control any form of pain. The alleged torture need not occur.

[@freakman707]

I apologize if my summaries are a rewording that could be confusing to some, but I'd hope to assume you are smart enough to understand what was meant.

[@scienquist]

I don't understand why people are so upset about this video clip. Infanticide is perfectly logical in a utilitarian ethic.

[@gilliancampbell6759]

Logicrollsthedice, then you are as sick as he is!! This guys views are beyond twisted!!!!

[@freakman707]

I was referring to a previous comment which, summarized, assumed that because Hitler was a catholic, his doings were of God. To imply Hitler's belief in Catholicism would lead him to kill millions would be invalid, because it contradicts many basic beliefs of Catholics. I am a Christian, so I attempt to do Christian things. I go to church, I pray, I love God and my neighbors, I trust in God and try to do other similar things-which makes me a Christian. I do make mistakes, but Hitler was absurd.

[@flasher395]

We assume that a human made the message because we know that only humans use the alphabet to convey messages. The reason this and the watchmaker argument dont work is that these things are known to be done by humans. We can refer to other instances of this happening out of our experiences. However when you come to the cosmos or the eye or physical constants you dont have any other intances of this to refer to you dont have another universe which you can cross check.

[@magw6270]

If that is true, no one is Catholic. Sin is an in-Catholic thing and all people sin.

[@magw6270]

Mark 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be my disciple." -Jesus

[@TorchHamma]

I didn't change the subject. You brought up the god of the gaps. I was just trying to show you that nature cannot account for everything. 1. It means that somebody created the message. 2. I used logic and science to show the absurdity of materialistic causes. I am assuming what science and logic tells me about the origin of messages. 3. Atheists say that all life started out as an amoeba before evolution even took place. What they can't explain is how that life originated. How DNA originated.

[@freakman707]

The main issue was that a youtube user said that Hitlers was a catholic etc. So I said that he was not a catholic, because Catholics typically do catholic things. I said later that though everyone makes mistakes, Hitler's mistakes were simply to absurd to be counted as normal.

[@jameskrych7767]

Martha Gellhorn's words come to mind: "We have cause for fear, and what we fear is deeper and stronger than the tangible terrors we live with: menacing struggles between rival states, weapons which pre-empt nature's own rights. We fear him because we know that he is sane. It would be a great comfort to us if he were insane; we could then dismiss him, with horror, no doubt, but reassuring ourselves that he is not like us, his machinery went criminally wrong, our machinery is in good order. There is no comfort. This is a sane man, and a sane man is capable of unrepentant, unlimited, planned evil. He was the genius bureaucrat, he was the powerful frozen mind which directed a gigantic organization; he is the perfect model of inhumanness; but he was not alone. Eager thousands obeyed him. Everyone could not have his special talents; many people were needed to smash a baby's head against the pavement before the mother's eyes, to urge a sick old man to rest and shoot him in the back of the head; there was endless work for willing hands. How many more like these exist everywhere? What produced them -- all sane, all inhuman?" www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/62feb/eichmann.htm

[@ImagesByDavid]

Nah no need. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

[@ragzy02]

If this video is the best creationists can do, I think we're gonna be okay.... ;)

[@TorchHamma]

Depends on what you mean by evolution. If you mean a dog and a wolf having a common ancestor, then I'm with you. If you mean a dog and a banana having a common ancestor, then no.

[@Freeknowledgefan]

I admire Marx's critique of capitalism, his prescriptions for government are awful, based in his materialism which has no place for the prerequisites for democracy. I've concluded after reading the unedited thoughts of many hundreds if not thousands of atheists online for the past decade, that atheism is highly prone to producing moral depravity, delighting in amoral behavior and thinking. I say this as a gay, socialist, leveler who would be classified as being on the far left.

[@edwite777]

He's not telling you what to do. He;s giving you a choice to do right or do wrong. That choice is yours. He made the rules and is the only game in town. Your final destination will be of your choosing. God will tell you, you could have chosen to be with me forever, or chosen to be without me forever. Which ever one you chose, you got your wish.

[@cpu46]

@CambridgeHeights I should have reworded my above statement but there was no room to do so. My original point was that euthanization should only be used if the child would die from untreatable ailments that would cause it pain and discomfort before it died. To answer your statement if the child is just unwanted then I say orphanage. Not all cause suffering and all have the chance to offer the child a better life.

[@AlanWattResistance]

Life unworthy of life.

[@Bloodlustless]

Disgusting. I'm sure there is more context to it but he undoubtedly has no objections from an ethical or moral standpoint to murdering living children. He just stated as much. I can respectfully disagree with any atheist but that comment of his merits no respect and even as an academic in general Dawkins has hit rock bottom now in my view.

[@LumaPiano]

These things need to be considered largely on a case by case basis, there is not one easy fix solution for all. That is why we have courts; because who in the right mind would trust a computer algorithm to determine what is right of wrong? If you watch other videos Dawkins mentioned being kind to animals. It's easy to quote mine and make things look sick and twisted, but it is dishonest to put this video up out of context! I could just as easily do the same thing for good, etc.

[@edwite777]

No, I follow Him because He has provided me with all the blessings I have enjoyed in life. you know nothing at all about me and what my life was like before I discovered Him. Hell is not an option for me. I have received the free gift of eternal life that He offers to all who want it.

[@edcomics]

Obviously out of context, but in light of his recent comments this is quite amusing.

[@jesussmithvi]

and you heed to the warnings.. therefore you follow him out of fear of going to hell

[@Freeknowledgefan]

I would characterize this as an exchange of ideas, not us using each other. I think Marx started out a lot better before he tried to turn his earlier ideas into a science, which couldn't be done. To fit his ideals into materialism he had to destroy their vitality and idealism. That won him prestige but it made his system prone to turning into a nightmare. Though I'd admit that the "Marxist" governments honored him more in name than the observance.

[@edwite777]

You miss the point. Your first choice was death or putting the child down as if it were a dog or something. A baby is not a dog. A dog has no soul a baby does. My first choice was to comfort the baby as much as you can , and hope the cure comes soon. And if death eventually comes, fine, at least you gave the baby a chance. With you , you gave up on it.

[@empreme]

Is that Peter Singer?

[@MovieBr0]

Firstly, you have completely changed the topic. Now your talking about Biology 1. Human minds look for patterns. I know you typed the message because it is logical, but that does not mean that someone created you. 2 .The human mind cannot understand everything, we should approach things logically and scientifically. This means we should not assume everything, we should PROVE what we can prove 3. Our DNA is complex, yet so similar to chimps, and evolution explains why. Please just look it up

[@idunnononame]

@mag1102009 Note that he said strictly morally, and presumably goes on to give a more full explanation. He wasn't recommending implementing this... also it was rather a hypothetical question. How can you not recognize this? And what on earth is the connection to genocide here? Also what is atheism in its most extreme form? An atheist that isn't quiet when others try to impose their nonsense on the rest of us?

[@theposhenglishguy]

yep i'm almost certain that 99.9 percent of videos claiming 'dawkins said this, dawkins said that' are quote mined or false.

[@AndyAce83]

You keep believing that or... better... find the entire interview and see it for your self that not only does he defend infanticide, he defends cannibalism and says that it´s better to cry for the pain of animals than humans and start the entire horrible evil train of thought with "You are one of the most moral people in the world".

[@AndyAce83]

@instereovideos Don't let yourself go Cause everybody cries And everybody hurts Sometimes...

[@Moireach91]

@crabbit101 I assure that any reformed Protestant scholar does not class Roman Catholicism as Christian in any sense. The bottom line is you absolutely MUST take the Bible's very own definition of Christianity. What is the point otherwise? The Bible's advice is, '..by their fruits you shall know them'. By their fruits, not their claim, which is as far as your definition goes. The Bible even foretells of the emergence of a false Christianity, calling it the 'great falling away' (2 Thess 2).

[@markedfang]

I seriously don't get why people think we worship Dawkins. Sure, he's a smart guy. Woah. -clap clap-. o.O We don't have brilliant biologists EVERYWHERE? Dawkins just happens to have a great interest in voicing his opinion on religion for the same reason every other atheist does. Though there's surely monetary incentives for him aswel. That doesn't mean his ideas hold less merit. Ideas stand and fall on their own, indepent of who voices them.

[@Legacy4magic]

You can rationalize anything if given they believe the same thing, foundationally, as you do.

[@TorchHamma]

I am saying that science cannot be the only source of truth. To say that it is would be self defeating because science cannot justify itself. Philosophical assumptions need to be put in place. I never said that just because we can't explain something, that means God did it, but I am saying that there are things which science cannot account for.

[@AndyAce83]

No, I didn´t. I was accusing you. I am allowed to do that. Many people are cliché. Their thoughts & ideas are not their own. I am accusing you of being 1) a humanist that 2) "hates" 90% of the world. If not, answer this; 1) Are you an atheist?, 2) If there is no God, what do you believe in (saying "nothing" makes you a nihilist)?, 3) If you believe in humanity, what is your thought on theist and other metaphysical idealists (buddism, etc)? Answering these truthfully will probably prove me right.

[@magw6270]

Where did I say a single word positive about Stalin?

[@jeffreyblack666]

The issue was you said that Hitler was not a Catholic and calling him one is like saying Dawkins attends church regularly. You also said that if you do uncatholicy things then you are no longer a catholic, which if applied correctly would result in no one in a civilised country being a catholic. You then tried to backtrack and change what you said.

[@edwite777]

Obviously those that deserve to go to hell chose to ignore God's warnings and have no one but themselves to blame. People like Hitler were fully aware of what was contained in the Bible concerning how God expected man to act towards his neighbors including the Jews. Yet he chose to ignore it.

[@theposhenglishguy]

(cont) watch the genius of charles darwin for full context.

[@AlanWattResistance]

That's the point, classic Eugenics.

[@Freeknowledgefan]

We will have to agree to disagree on Marx. I think he was better early in his career than he was later. While I don't deny there are individual atheists who are nice people, most of atheism seems to devolve into a belief that people one doesn't have affection for are objects to be used, destroyed or neglected. I used to believe otherwise until I interacted with large numbers of atheists online. Given what materialism is, it's the nice atheists who couldn't be predicted.

[@SuperSeaknight]

Yes, but who decides how much suffering is too much? The parents? The government? What about areas where children die of starvation? Should they all be put to sleep to prevent the pain and suffering of starvation? Yes starvation is preventable but does it matter when it is not going to be prevented and that child is going to suffer a painfully slow death?

[@AndyAce83]

@alltoohuman17 "Gosh, there's a lot to criticise here"? Well, aren't you patronizing without understanding the point? The point was to draw out distinctions. Line between moments and similarities cross them. I find it wonderful that you are addressing philosophers as "we", when your in fact only a student. I have studied psychology, but I am not a psychologies. I have studied philosophy, I do think for myself, but I would not address myself in "we" the philosophers.

[@magw6270]

I don't think there is any necessity to agree to disagree, if I read a little more I could simply end up adopting your view and then we both agree about Marx. I haven't met atheists (to the best of my knowledge) that are that tribal. I am rather utilitarian, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize humans have intrinsic value (usually, a dead human definitely doesn't). People can be used without being harmed, right now I am "using" you to possibly get more knowledge and give you a fun chat.

[@perrotthill]

The problem with stupid people is they do not understand the subtle way that very, very clever people speak and think.

[@MovieBr0]

I don't have to explain that, you cannot prove that it was created, you are assuming, it is not the same as random typing. I have observed message typing, but not God creating. You remind me of the Douglas Adams quote: “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

[@magw6270]

(All that being said, there are plenty of troll atheists who debate only for the sake of frustrating people that they deem to be stupid, they don't desire to free minds they just like feeling good about themselves for being so "smart.")

[@pgrothschild]

Typical of the fundamentalists to provide a snippet with little to no context, just like they do with Darwin's quote on the evolution of the human eye.

[@BigG99]

You miss my point.. all im saying is that some atheists, hate the idea of the christian God having total right to do as He wishes with his children but demand the same rights over their creted and concived children such as abortion, and so on. its not meant to apply to everyone but many atheists i know think in this illogical fashion.

[@stevestone935]

hmmm, this is curious indeed. I wonder if you put the same words in the mouth of a christain, what other athiests would say-

[@cpu46]

@CambridgeHeights It's not the killing thats the problem its the reasons for doing so. I would hope that someone who has a child and can not care for it or didn't want it anymore would put it up for adoption. Euthanizing it when there are no valid health reasons just seems sick.

[@magw6270]

Dawkins is lazy about debates, he just doesn't find certain ones to be worth his time. However, Singer's arguments are flawless, if a baby is not self aware the killing of the baby in a painless manner causes less suffering than killing any of the adult animals we kill for food. As a society we allow babies to die all the time by simply denying disabled babies life support: if would be far more moral to euthanize these babies. The Cannanites killed certainly suffered more.

[@edwite777]

As for pain control, there are all kinds of medicines for all kinds of pain. Each type of pain can be controlled differently. You can go on the internet and find that out for yourself. As for Atheists having morals,. What Atheistic principal would prevent one from being a cannibal? If mankind has made laws , who is mankind that they should tell me what to do , or tell me that it is wrong ? From an Atheistic perspective, it should be no more wrong than a fox killing a chicken.

[@MPaulHolmesMPH]

@EatCarlSagan Throughout history, people have done all sorts of atrocities in the name of some random religion. They weren't necessarily sociopaths. I would say they felt like they had permission. Well, having the conviction that there is no authority above myself, and when I'm dead, I'm dead, would remove the need to ask permission. What would compel me to justify anything? "Look ma, a real life sociopath"? Oh no, some guy just called me a name that has a "morally negative" connotation.

[@MPaulHolmesMPH]

@monosespaciales My empathy "ought to be" what compels me to justify my actions? Why is that? Empathy exists as a spectrum in people. It also must be taught (ex: 90% of my foster kids are on the low end of the spectrum). And even if I have empathy toward person x, I may feel justified to despise person y. Why declare our sense of empathy to be our guide? So we can avoid labels? And what is this OUGHT? As a side note, about 99% of all crimes are not touched by the world's legal systems.

[@TorchHamma]

"Science is the only thing we have to make sense of the universe" Did you use science to come to that conclusion? You couldn't have. What you just made is a philosophical claim. You just made sense of the universe by saying that you can only make sense of it via science. But you can't use science to make sense of science. That's circular reasoning. Philosophy is unavoidable.

[@AndyAce83]

@AndyAce83 in fact Dawkins doesn't state that infanticide should be done by doctors either. I just took it for granted, but Mr Dawkins world view is so ugly that perhaps he saw it like a child being tossed in the river.

[@TorchHamma]

There is nothing confirmed about how DNA came to be. Perhaps we can hypothesize about the development of its structure, but that's not complete or signficant. What's important is the message it contains. You still have that to explain. So far, I think a creator is the most reasonable answer. Ignorance is not the reason why I think it's a creator, but my knowledge of how messages come to be that allows me to assert a mind behind DNA and the several other components of the cell.

[@miguelm26]

@WillShakespeare2007 What this proves is that atheist morality is arbitrary and that they apply it as they please, moreover, they put forward that anyone apply it as they please. What kind of morality is that?

[@AndyAce83]

Just like to say that I have, and it´s repulsive. It goes to show the cruel and vulgar minds of the atheist. Horrible. Pure evil.

[@TorchHamma]

All messages have intellignce behind them. If I see alphabet cereal letters arranged that say "TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE", I'm not going to assume that the cat knocked the box over. Somebody clearly made that message and it's perfectly okay to assume that without seeing her do it. If I see a puddle in the shape of a human body and that it was like that before I got in it, then yeah, it's safe to assume somebody made it for me. Aliens would be more reasonable than blind chance.

[@freakman707]

Well, I wouldn't want to further argue with you, because we've replied many times and haven't had much progress with any issue that wasn't irrelevant to the video or even topic of the universe. I hope you go far in life and have a wonderful and beautiful wife, as you find Jesus. God bless.

[@shadowofthewarriors]

Can someone please explain the problem with this? It seems like what he said is the more humane option...

[@allan3141]

@edcomics the "implication"? It was not an implication! He was explicit.

[@jeffreyblack666]

Nope. Not a liar.

[@BigG99]

here is the fallacy of athiest logic..... they despise the idea of a God having the right to judge them, destroy them, do what he wishes with them and calling it his right as creator, but they feel its fine for a mother or a person to have those same rights over a child or another being they created in their womb. Kind of an inconsistency in logic there.

[@AndyAce83]

@alltoohuman17 So neither you, nor Massiveants see the problem in this. In fact you give the impression that my spelling is a bigger problem than abortion one year after birth. Fine. If you can't see the problems, it is not my duty to point it out.

[@MovieBr0]

Wait. Are you saying you don't believe in evolution?

[@freakman707]

When I said, "referring to a previous comment which, summarized", I meant a comment by a different KZbin user, and not my own. What was the issue again? I'd like to have a professional talk about this.