Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

[Starlight]

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are two people who's work I wasn't overly familiar with until recently, but have really come to admire over the course of the last year.

Dawkins probably needs no introduction on these forums, but I found his book on religion (The God Delusion) one of the few books I have ever read in which I 100% agreed with everything in it, and I also found his works on evolutionary theory (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and The Blind Watchmaker) excellent as well.

Peter Singer is maybe less well known around here than Dawkins, and he is an Australian moral philosopher who's book in the 70s, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals basically singlehandedly began the modern animal rights movement, popularizing veganism and vegetarianism, and the ethical treatment of animals. He has also long argued that people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world, and in the last few years has pioneered the new movement of "Effective Altruism" which is about carefully choosing charities that do the most good and working out exactly how to live our lives to maximize the amount we can help others and the number of lives we can save (See The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically).

So I was thrilled to stumble across this video this week in which these two of my favorite intellectuals have a discussion with each other. Having watched it a few times myself I thought I'd share it here so others can enjoy. They discuss a variety of subjects including evolution, meat-eating, and effective altruism. Well worth a listen:

If anyone has some interesting comments to make or questions to ask about either of these people or their ideas, hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.

[Starlight]

They discuss a variety of subjects including evolution, meat-eating, and effective altruism.

Oops, effective altruism is not actually covered in the above talk, but Singer talks about it in detail in other talks I had recently watched including in his three talks at google. I find his argument about saving a child from a shallow pond particularly intriguing (starts at 2:25 in the first of these google talks) - if we would sacrifice a great deal to rescue a drowning child we happened to notice as we were out walking, why do we generally not bother to sacrifice anything comparatively much to save dying people in third world countries - why do we buy ourselves luxury items and generally enjoy our lives when that money could actually save someone's life if given to the right charity?

[seer]

If anyone has some interesting comments to make or questions to ask about either of these people or their ideas, hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.

On Singer:

Abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide

Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

Similar to his argument for abortion, ."

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that to which the subject consents. He argues in favour of voluntary euthanasia and some forms of non-voluntary euthanasia, including infanticide in certain instances, but opposes involuntary euthanasia.

In 2002 disability rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson debated Singer, challenging his belief that it is morally permissible to euthanize new-born children with severe disabilities. "Unspeakable Conversations", Johnson's account of her encounters with Singer and the pro-euthanasia movement, was published in the New York Times Magazine in 2003. It also served as inspiration for The Thrill, a 2013 play by Judith Thompson partly based on Johnson's life.

He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.

Bestiality

In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals...

And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...nd_infanticide

[MaxVel]

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are two people who's work I wasn't overly familiar with until recently, but have really come to admire over the course of the last year.

Dawkins probably needs no introduction on these forums, but I found his book on religion (The God Delusion) one of the few books I have ever read in which I 100% agreed with everything in it,

Really? That's hilarious.


From a real philosopher:

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.

[Adrift]

On Singer:



He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.




And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...nd_infanticide

Singer is a terrible terrible individual. This is what happens when left with nothing to guide your ethics but cold naturalism. It's no surprise that Starlight is a fanboy.

[seer]

Singer is a terrible terrible individual. This is what happens when left with nothing to guide your ethics but cold naturalism. It's no surprise that Starlight is a fanboy.

Yes, he is a moral scumbag, a perfect fit for Star...

[Sparko]

"people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world, and in the last few years has pioneered the new movement of "Effective Altruism" which is about carefully choosing charities that do the most good and working out exactly how to live our lives to maximize the amount we can help others and the number of lives we can save (See The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically)."

Gee I know something MORE you can do morally to help save lives, not only in the 3rd world, but the entire world: Oppose abortion and infanticide. Imagine the lives that could be saved.

Stop being a hypocrite, Starlight. If you truly believe human life is important and worth saving, then oppose abortion and infanticide.

[Adrift]

Really? That's hilarious.


From a real philosopher:

Or better yet, how bout some prominent atheist or non-Christian philosophers and scientists,

Source: Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008 by Thomas Nagel

Richard Dawkins, the most prominent and accomplished scientific writer of our time, is convinced that religion is the enemy of science. Not just fundamentalist or fanatical or extremist religion, but all religion that admits faith as a ground of belief and asserts the existence of God. In The God Delusion he attacks religion with all the weapons at his disposal, and as a result the book is a very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute by Michael Ruse

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.

© Copyright Original Source

[mossrose]

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are two people who's work I wasn't overly familiar with until recently, but have really come to admire over the course of the last year.

Dawkins probably needs no introduction on these forums, but I found his book on religion (The God Delusion) one of the few books I have ever read in which I 100% agreed with everything in it, and I also found his works on evolutionary theory (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and The Blind Watchmaker) excellent as well.

Peter Singer is maybe less well known around here than Dawkins, and he is an Australian moral philosopher who's book in the 70s, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals basically singlehandedly began the modern animal rights movement, popularizing veganism and vegetarianism, and the ethical treatment of animals. He has also long argued that people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world, and in the last few years has pioneered the new movement of "Effective Altruism" which is about carefully choosing charities that do the most good and working out exactly how to live our lives to maximize the amount we can help others and the number of lives we can save (See The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically).

So I was thrilled to stumble across this video this week in which these two of my favorite intellectuals have a discussion with each other. Having watched it a few times myself I thought I'd share it here so others can enjoy. They discuss a variety of subjects including evolution, meat-eating, and effective altruism. Well worth a listen:

If anyone has some interesting comments to make or questions to ask about either of these people or their ideas, hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.

Behold your gods.

[rogue06]

On Singer:



He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.




And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...nd_infanticide

Singer, who as you pointed out, advocates killing disabled babies up to 28 days after birth, won the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics.

[rogue06]

Source: Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute by Michael Ruse

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.

© Copyright Original Source

Ruse (who is an atheist) and the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al.) do not get along and neither side makes any attempt to hide it.

As Ruse says in Why God Is a Moral Issue:

Source: Why God Is a Moral Issue

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And in "Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?" he has written about his disagreements with Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists

Source: Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And from an article aptly entitled "Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion":

Source: Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion

Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm. For a start, there is the near-hysterical repudiation of religion. To quote Richard Dawkins:

In the caricaturing of "faith" as murderous fundamentalism, one hears echoes of the bloody and interminable Reformation squabbles between Protestants and Catholics. It is also of course to give help to the real enemy, those who turn their back fully on science as they follow their religion.

There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

In article he explains his support for evolution and opposition to creationism but notes that because he is not like Dawkins, who sees science and religion at war, those in the latter's camp loathe him. P.Z. Myers refers to him as "a clueless gobshite." As Ruse notes, "because I will not bow down in praise of Dawkins and company, because I laugh at their pretentions and positions, I am anathema maranatha."

And this second article he concludes his piece with

Source:

Call it a secular religion if you will, but the humanism I have been discussing in this piece does bear strong similarities to conventional religion. One finds the enthusiasm of the true believer. And as a non-believing Darwinian evolutionist, as one who is a humanist in the broader sense, this makes me feel rather ill.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Singer, who as you pointed out, advocates killing disabled babies up to 28 days after birth, won the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics.

Was it for "Bad Ethics?" Because if so, he really deserved it.

[Sparko]

Ruse (who is an atheist) and the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al.) do not get along and neither side makes any attempt to hide it.

As Ruse says in Why God Is a Moral Issue:

Source: Why God Is a Moral Issue

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Yeah we can see that here in the contrast between, say, Sylas and Tassman.

[rogue06]

Was it for "Bad Ethics?" Because if so, he really deserved it.

Sort of like how Bill Maher received the 2009 Richard Dawkins award from the Atheist Alliance for his contributions to an increased scientific knowledge because of his movie attacking religion (Religulous) even though Maher had gone on record as a germ theory and HIV/AIDS denialist and anti-vaccine advocate

[Adrift]

Ruse (who is an atheist) and the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al.) do not get along and neither side makes any attempt to hide it.

Yep. I've read and listened to him on a number of occasions. I do believe that he has a very simplistic view of faith, and what that means to the believer, but he's far more patient and reasonable than any of those in the New Atheist camp.