This is going to my favorites..

Awesome ...

Yes, he did say that. Do you see the difference between saying "Doing X is not the same as doing Y" and saying "Doing X is a good thing that ought to be done"? The former is denying an equivalence between X & Y; the later is advocating X. Do you understand the difference?

some sweet info here

@Drgamedood He was the first philosopher to publicise Act Utilitarianism- in the late C18th. But Berkeley wrote a little about his view of Rule Utilitarianism in the early C18th. Unlike Bentham it was not a central part of his philosophy and he didn't publicise the view. (Though the terminology of Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism was only first used in the mid C20th by Harsanyi and Rawls.)

@metal87power yes, he is.

So are you saying that war is always unjustifiable, since it inevitably kills innocents? And that we should force dying children to suffer needlessly, rather than giving them a painless death? These are defensible positions, but I just want to know if you actually hold them.

I never said anything about 'killing' vs. 'dying with help'. Those are your terms that you introduced. You don't seem capable of realizing when you have introduced new terms and when your opponent has, nor understanding the difference between a justification and endorsement, nor the difference between facts you don't like and a lie. So yes, I think irrational is a fair description.

@sukka113 1) Peter Singer is a leading advocate of preference utilitarianism, e.g. right thing to do is the act that maximises the satisfaction or preferences of all involved. This deals with the issues of act utilitarianism. 2)The theory is normative and therefore doesn't require an ontological or metaphysical basis in order to put it into practice. Therefore, your claims seem to lose validity.

fomastephanovitch: Acceptance as in changing one's own values in order to conform to culture? I don't understand how that increases personal freedoms; merely accepting collective values takes away one's right to choose. Therefore, it is irrational and contradictory to neglect one's personal values to accommodate cultural trends.

Actually, he does think there is something immoral about killing children, in most contexts at least. Since most children live lives that have, on balance, more happiness than suffering, killing children undermines maximal utility. He does think there are certain circumstances in which killing a child is moral, but anyone who disagrees with that needs to learn more about severe birth defects like anencephaly.

@yvadmil Not Dr., I think.

@Pomme843 Utilitarianism *is* a characteristically modern theory, any philosopher will tell you that. Democritus was not a utilitarian. The first utilitarian we know of was actually Bishop George Berkeley, which is a surprise to many people who think it is inherently atheistic.

Probably is a good word because maybe what were talking about is probability. What is the probability that most fetuses will be fully functional productive humans? Then we are destroying not only the fetuses future utility but the societal utility derived from the productive aspects of the full development of a fetus. We should think of pregnancy as a Futures marke for social utility. The moral decision is thus a function of the probability of gain. But how do we measure these gains?

We are all increasingly conditioned into selfishness & greed in order to boost the economy : ( This video is a blueprint for creating equality, unity & peace on earth ! We could see this in practise if the christian church was less corrupt, & actually kept to christ`s teaching that the wealthy cannot get into heaven, but should help the poor ! : )

@sukka113 Modern? It has roots in ancient Greek philosophy - Democritus, for instance. Certainly, everyone is free to define and denote pleasure, happiness or utility for themselves. No need to get too technical and intellectually acrobatic about it. People are able to tell what the feel to be pleasurable or unpleasurable.

an animal that is feeling the physical pain of hunger is being altruistic to it's painful stomach when it feeds . when i think of the term selfishness i don't consider licking one's own wound to be selfish. the wound is licked, as the empty stomach is filled. in order to heal one's own suffering. to grant compassion to oneself. the lion's targeting of food can be considered violent objectivism but the intent of the lion doing so is ultimately altruistic. just as the native bushman seeks out an herb for medicine to heal oneself. the harvesting of the plant life form is objectivist. but the inent of the action to heal the suffering being experienced is altruistic. so when the lion is feeling the pain of hunger, it is inherently aware that it's cubs experience the same pain of hunger and uses it's altruistic nature to end their pain by using objective means. on another note one might argue the mother lion is not empathetic to her cub's hunger pain but rather she is just following an inherent instict to breed and extend her species existence. but the answer to the arguement is clear when you see a hippo try to stop a crocodile from killing a gazelle. the hippo has no instinct to carry on the species of gazelle. clearly the behavior is an altruistic objective to stop the gazelles suffering. the same way a dog defends it's owner or a lion adopts a baby gazelle. the objective of such behavior is clearly altruistic. the same way most humans will passionately help to stop a stranger from experiencing harm. be it via drowning, mugging, assault,murder.. objectivism is an inherent means of feeding in animal behavior but the objective of this form of objectivism is ALTRUISM. thus making the objective action INNOCENT. but when a modern humanoid uses violent objectivism to feed it isn't being used under an altruistic objective, like with the primitive animals. the pain of hunger being sustained doesn't require VIOLENT objectivism by the modern humanoid. the humans VIOLENT objectivism is itself an objectivist objective of extending pleasure where the pain of hunger is already readily sustained through the non-violent objectivism used to harvest plants. the only arguements to be made furthermore would be whether or not their is anything wrong with violence used against humans and animals for pleasure. and whether or not their is any ethical difference in dismembering a live carrot or a live dog. this delves off into a whole new section of the chapter of life on ethics. i'd say the human collective jury is already in on the perception that getting violently assaulted or killed would be bad, thus wrong. and any argument as to whether or not their is any ethical difference in stomping on a live baby carrot or a live baby human is an insult to intellectualism quite frankly. so,unlike the primitive lion's violent objectivism used for an ALTRUISTIC and thus INNOCENT objective, the modern humanoid's violent objectivism is being used for an OBJECTIVIST objective and is thus in CONTRAST; GUILTY behavior. the OPPOSITE of INNOCENT. so using this law of nature as a guidestone of social human law , when a lion in the sahara kills a gazelle, it is a lawful action. but when jeb of nashville tennessee goes and kills a pig in his backyard after coming home from walmart, that is an UNLAWFUL action making ol' star spangled jebodiah a CRIMINAL. and again, the only argument to be made is whether or not there is anything unethical about using violence to murder animals AND humans (we are animals..) simply for your own pleasure and not for survival in our modern industrialized human civilization.

@seanstrnad He thinks euthanasia should have no age limitation at all. If someone's life consists of nothing but suffering then they should have a right to die. But to qualify as euthanasia it has to be done for the good of the one being killed. So he's not talking about killing kids just because we don't want them.

In point of fact, I do teach ethics. Dare I enquire what you do for a living, good sir?

Did you read my comment? Singer, in point of fact, does NOT advocate the murder or killing of children. That is a scurrilous distortion of his views. And the only thing I'm defending him from is misunderstanding and misrepresentation. You should be too, unless you're a fan of lies and misinformation.

A hypothetical Family, Ill call Family Doe, takes care of a disabled person, both conscious and capable of suffering, but family costs out weigh monetary and non monetary benefits. Assume that no other family or unit has any interest in taking care of said disabled person. Would euthanasia then be morally permissible? Are the specific conditions of suffering and consciousness rendered moot?

So he is against the killing of all children always and everywhere? He says that it is immoral, unethical, and ought to be illegal?

@nahaymath No one, capitalist or otherwise should realistically consider a business collective to be a person, any more than a nation is a person, so yes it is wrong. It is bizarre to believe that you can mathematically characterize morality. But since that is how you choose to work things out, you have omitted the weighting function. Humans (on average) consider it more moral to consume high-nutrient foods (like meats) that they find it moral for a cow not to suffer being eaten.

There is no clear consensus on what is right and wrong. Many people consider killing to be bad, yet death penalty is legal in some countries and warfare is accepted by some. Some say that utilitarianism is the right thing, yet som utillitarian conclusion seem inhuman to many people. For example killing an individual and saving two individuals with the two kidneys seems inhuman to many.

Since there is no deontological case for a right to life, a mass genocide of many of the people in the third world, particularly places like Ethiopia could conceivably reduce dis-utility. The problem here is how do we measure the utility they gain from living while suffering? Otherwise theyd commit suicide.

Do you understand what the word 'rejects' means? You accused him of introducing the notion of 'letting die' to obfuscate the idea that he's (in your mind) advocating 'killing.' You assert that these terms mean the same thing in this context. I tell you that Singer agrees: they DO mean the same thing in this context. Then you say that you can't argue with him. Well, yeah, you can't argue when you agree. How's about you stop straw manning Singer and actually address his arguments?

@peteface24 Thanks for the intel, I was unaware.

The problem is that he doesn't limit infanticide to the terminally ill newborns. He come to the conclusion that their potential existence will degrade on collective quality of life. A pure Utilitarian looks at the good of the many, that means that it is a waste of money to acomidate the handicapped

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Look at what Singer is saying there. He's saying that (1) parents should have the RIGHT to decide if the baby should live, and (2) if they decide it should die then the process should be painless. You can disagree with (1), but I can't imagine you would disagree with (2), unless you think children suffering is a good thing. Either way, neither (1) nor (2) is advocating killing children.

You don't seem to realize that Singer REJECTS the killing/letting die distinction. It's usually OPPONENTS of euthanasia that cling to that. You're pissing on your own shoes here. And since you keep avoiding the questions, I'll ask you again: Are you opposed to war in all circumstances? And are you in favor of forcing terminally ill children to suffer terrible pain indefinitely, rather than giving them a painless death (or 'painlessly killing them', if you prefer)?

@Pomme843 "Modern" lol. Get them Pomme843. People think just because they can write they have to comment on everything.

read one of his books, weigh his arguments, make your ethical decisions accordingly.

Is it just me or did he not really say anything?

@metal87power how is this a real comment? what does this even mean?

I highly doubt that YOU are against the killing of all children always and everywhere. Such a position would not only condemn many children to protracted and pointless suffering when death is inevitable anyway, it would also mean an absolute prohibition on war, since war inevitably results in the collateral deaths of children. Unless you're a pacifist and against mercy killing both you and Singer agree that sometimes killing children is permissible. You merely disagree over when.

And I will ask you one last time: do you oppose way in all circumstances? And do you insist that suffering children should be required to die long, painful, protracted deaths, rather than being painlessly killed? You don't have to defend your position, you just have to own it. If you continue to refuse to answer, I'll take that as confirmation that you're a coward.

"Handicapped" is not a particularly useful adjective here. Not much more useful than "black", "rich" , "short" or "Canadian". His moral agenda is reducing suffering not eliminating handicaps. Indeed, he would oppose the suffering of certain animals which could be thought of as the moral equivalent of a handicapped human. He (probably) would not oppose euthanasia of any particular person if they were suffering, or if there was no consciousness present in that person.

"killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." Did he not say this? Is he not a supporter of abortion? What's your spin?

@fleuvio123 Oh, the irony.

1) He does not advocate killing children; that is a libelous distortion of his views. 2) Even if he did advocate the killing of children, how does that bear on his thoughts on other matters? If he has good arguments with respect to ethics and economics, his poor arguments in another field is irrelevant. 3) No serious person says that Singer is right simply because he is a college professor. To suggest that is to imply argument from authority, which Singer would denounce as fallacious.

You don't seem to understand the difference between ADVOCATING X & claiming that X is sometimes justified. The prior is an endorsement of X, saying that X is good; the later says that X isn't bad, it may be permissible in certain circumstances. You seem very angry, uninterested in rational, perspicacious analysis of morally complex situations. You'd prefer to get on your high horse and pronounce your moral superiority, grounded in emotion and ignorance. Let me know how that works out for you.

The arguments presented here have no rational basis for them. It's basically just a bunch of assumptions that "right and wrong are basically just a reflection of feeling good or suffering". What do chemical reactions in the brain have to do with right and wrong? And wait a second... if this is just a random-chance universe, how could such a thing as right and wrong even exist, and how could anyone possibly know about it, and what they are? That's what I wanna know.

If we're fair to the people who go around slandering Singer as a Nazi, at least he has views which are much more like the Nazis than most of the people who get called Nazis by trolls on here!

"Even if he did advocate the killing of children, how does that bear on his thoughts on other matters?" That's priceless. You should run for office. Or teach ethics.

You and just like anything else in this universe have been created by a series of random "procedures". That could be true. I guess. Or do I? The thing is that we don't "know" anything. There simply seems to be more evidence (things that according to our rationality and way of thinking are true/valid) supporting one argument than the other. That way of seeking and finding the truth is called dialectism. Whether the argument you chose to support is the truth or not is to be decided by you.

I'm irrational? You just lied to me. You lie in each post - Killing isn't killing. Saying that killing is "ok" isn't advocating that people actually do it, but then you clearly say that they have the "RIGHT" to do it and should do it if they want to! Singer says that, and so do you. And then of course, once they DO it, they DIDN'T do it, because there's no "killing" going on, just "dying" with a little "help."

It isn't possible to have a discussion with you. You have clearly demonstrated that you are irrational. You will change the meaning of words like "kill" and "die" at will. No exercise of logic has any meaning in that context. "Singer REJECTS the killing/letting die distinction" Case in point. Good for him. There's nothing to argue about then. He just "rejects" the distinction. The only good thing about this sort of encounter is that you people condemn yourselves by your own words.

@nahaymath Is the purpose of your maths purely obscurantist? Singer is wrong. Humans favor humans. Every species favors their own - that's called life and genetic competition. A human has no reason to consider the life of a cow equal to his, anymore than a bird does to a spider. Singers attempt to hijack the definition of 'person' is meaningless. He has inherited the word from every human before him who used it to mean 'a singular human'. Utilitarianism is communist and evil.

The question is Priori or Apriori morality.. should morality be conditional or should morality be unconditional?

April fools!

Do you find no irony in the fact that you "teach ethics" but are defending someone who advocates the murder of children? Is murder not unethical in your system?

Liar.

All face, no substance. One would wonder why he put his mug on KZfaq if the answer wasn't so obvious (vanity - considering the lack of thought content) (or, in philosopher's parlance, he did it for the secondary values (riches, fame, and the ultimate end-goal, sex) rather than for the primary value (quality of content). In other words, he is in error in trying to communicate anything of substance through video and vocal speech (both of which are major distractions to extended thought) (the written word is the best medium to date). He covers 'philosophy on selfishness' and begins with "I believe" - which accurately portends the purely speculative (and not very deep) BS that follows, and he continues it with "I think" - indicating a lack of awareness of all the verified knowledge that is out there now (in this case the biological basis for aggressive/competitive instincts) - where he does not have to resort to "what he thinks" (especially when it is wholly lacking). I elaborated, but KZfaq wouldn't post it (too long?). I'll have to post a journal titled "187: Critique of a Typical Feeble Thinker (Who is (Typically) Deemed Otherwise)"

ayn rand > peter singer

He IS NOT a philosopher!