Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

conversationswithtyler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#71

Post by hotpotamus »

throw0101b wrote: post #53
cinntaile wrote: post #26

It's a bit disappointing to read the comments here, the level is not very high. He's a philosopher, he's going to ask thorny questions and sometimes end up with logically sound but inhuman answers. This doesn't really tell us much about him as a person. You can lower your pitch forks.

> He's a philosopher, he's going to ask thorny questions and sometimes end up with logically sound but inhuman answers. This doesn't really tell us much about him as a person. You can lower your pitch forks. He seems to accept that what most folks would call infanticide is okay: > Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, au…

Have you read any of Singer's writing? You've gone through a wikipedia article and cherry picked out the most provocative aspects of his philosophy, but, given that he's one of the most famous modern ethical philosophers, don't you suspect that there might be some depth to his reasoning?

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#72

Post by specialist »

airgapstopgap wrote: post #4

The most important of Singer's writings, in my opinion, is "Secrecy in Consequentialism"[0], mentioned in this podcast too, though not the crucial part, which I will present without further comment except that this paper should make any utterance from Singer or any of his followers (for example, SBF) inherently untrustworthy. > There are acts which are right only if no one – or virtually no one – will get to know abo…

That's just another version of The Trolley Problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If you were the conductor, what choice would you make?

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#73

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

spacechild1 wrote: post #68
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it different? Umbilical cord? Immersed in amniotic fluid? Roundly dehumanized and unpersoned by society?

Do you eat meat?

Not on Fridays, no. For many years I've offered this up as a sacrifice for my little brothers and sisters who are murdered because of a "human right".

I find it personally revolting that people would assent to my own murder. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is mere happenstance that I was not strangled, torn limb from limb, had my skull crushed, and my spine snipped apart at the nape of the neck, then carefully extracted piece by bloody piece, reassembled in a dish (to make sure that nothing was left behind to infect mom - abortions are "safe"), and dumped in a biological waste bin to be incinerated. I escaped that fate, but others do not, so I abstain from meat on every Friday of the year.

I do not understand why you and all the others would not assent to my grisly murder as an infant, as a 50-year-old, or perhaps not even as a feeble and helpless 96-year-old hospital patient, but you would readily take up the speculum and scalpel just because I had an umbilical cord attached.

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#74

Post by cinntaile »

throw0101b wrote: post #53
cinntaile wrote: post #26

It's a bit disappointing to read the comments here, the level is not very high. He's a philosopher, he's going to ask thorny questions and sometimes end up with logically sound but inhuman answers. This doesn't really tell us much about him as a person. You can lower your pitch forks.

> He's a philosopher, he's going to ask thorny questions and sometimes end up with logically sound but inhuman answers. This doesn't really tell us much about him as a person. You can lower your pitch forks. He seems to accept that what most folks would call infanticide is okay: > Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, au…

How do you even reach that conclusion based on that sentence? Your quote talks about equivalency, you interpret this as infanticide is ok. Those are two vastly different things?

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#75

Post by iinnPP »

specialist wrote: post #70
iinnPP wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada's is legal up until the fetus leaves the womb. It's also possible to kill a fetus inside the womb and suffer no consequence for said killing. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homi...

That Canadian law does not cover the edge case of first-degree murder for a fetus is a hole in the rules, not permission to kill.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you have more recent information that shows it is now illegal to forcefully terminate the functionality of a 40-week fetus while in the womb in Canada?

Calling it a hole in the rules is inaccurate. It's not a person. You can disagree if you want.

My post was informational and intentionally lacking opinion.

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#76

Post by giraffe_lady »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #14
airgapstopgap wrote: post #4

The most important of Singer's writings, in my opinion, is "Secrecy in Consequentialism"[0], mentioned in this podcast too, though not the crucial part, which I will present without further comment except that this paper should make any utterance from Singer or any of his followers (for example, SBF) inherently untrustworthy. > There are acts which are right only if no one – or virtually no one – will get to know abo…

I thought this was interesting and it didn't make me distrust him at all. I can't really tell why it should.

It's literally just the trolley problem, which is valuable and interesting only so far as it shows the limits and practical undecidability of thought experiments like this.

Which, morally sophisticated people inevitably find is almost comically sensitive to details of the scenario or context, and that's it's virtually impossible to find a satisfying generalizable solution. And then singer is just like "no. u simply pull the lever." It's not interesting.

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#77

Post by specialist »

iinnPP wrote: post #75
specialist wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Canadian law does not cover the edge case of first-degree murder for a fetus is a hole in the rules, not permission to kill.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you have more recent information that shows it is now illegal to forcefully terminate the functionality of a 40-week fetus while in the womb in Canada? Calling it a hole in the rules is inaccurate. It's not a person. You can disagree if you want. My post was informational and intentionally lacking opinion.

FFS.

The hole in the rules called out, from the OC you linked:

A handful of private member's bills introduced in Parliament over the last couple of decades have tried to remedy what seems to be an arbitrary distinction in law. The most recent was in 2016, when Saskatchewan MP Cathay Wagantall tabled Bill C-225, which would have made it a "separate offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child during the commission of an offence against the child's mother."

[deletia]

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#78

Post by spacechild1 »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #73
spacechild1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you eat meat?

Not on Fridays, no. For many years I've offered this up as a sacrifice for my little brothers and sisters who are murdered because of a "human right". I find it personally revolting that people would assent to my own murder. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is mere happenstance that I was not strangled, torn limb from limb, had my skull crushed, and my spine snipped apart at the nape of the neck, th…

Then why are you ok with slaughtering and eating animals that are more sentient than a 12 week old fetus?

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#79

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

spacechild1 wrote: post #78
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not on Fridays, no. For many years I've offered this up as a sacrifice for my little brothers and sisters who are murdered because of a "human right". I find it personally revolting that people would assent to my own murder. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is mere happenstance that I was not strangled, torn limb from limb, had my skull crushed, and my spine snipped apart at the nape of the neck, th…

Then why are you ok with slaughtering and eating animals that are more sentient than a 12 week old fetus?

tu quoque

Re: Peter Singer on utilitarianism, influence, and controversial ideas

#80

Post by barry-cotter »

spacechild1 wrote: post #37
burgh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog Wow. Do you have any experience with little kids? With 23 months my daughter was drawing pictures, singing songs, laughing at my jokes, reenacting scenes from theater plays, etc.

The question isn’t if 2 year olds are intelligent it’s if dogs are of comparable intelligence to a human 2 year old. They are.

> As for language, the average dog can learn 165 words, including signals, and the "super dogs" (those in the top 20 percent of dog intelligence) can learn 250 words, Coren says. "The upper limit of dogs' ability to learn language is partly based on a study of a border collie named Rico who showed knowledge of 200 spoken words and demonstrated 'fast-track learning,' which scientists believed to be found only in humans and language learning apes," Coren said.

> Dogs can also count up to four or five, said Coren. And they have a basic understanding of arithmetic and will notice errors in simple computations, such as 1+1=1 or 1+1=3.

> Four studies he examined looked how dogs solve spatial problems by modeling human or other dogs' behavior using a barrier type problem. Through observation, Coren said, dogs can learn the location of valued items (treats), better routes in the environment (the fastest way to a favorite chair), how to operate mechanisms (such as latches and simple machines) and the meaning of words and symbolic concepts (sometimes by simply listening to people speak and watching their actions).

> During play, dogs are capable of deliberately trying to deceive other dogs and people in order to get rewards, said Coren. "And they are nearly as successful in deceiving humans as humans are in deceiving dogs."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.h...

Post reply on HN