Peter Singer – The Genius of Darwin: The Uncut Interviews – Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins interviews Peter Singer for “The Genius of Charles Darwin”, the Channel 4 UK TV program which won British Broadcasting Awards’ “Best Documentary Series” of 2008. Buy the full 3-DVD set of uncut interviews, over 18 hours, in the RichardDawkins.net store: http://richarddawkins.net/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=85
This footage was shot with the intention of editing for a television program. What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content).
Duration : 0:43:16
[youtube GYYNY2oKVWU]
richard dawkins is …
richard dawkins is wrong about a continuum of feeling pain. coming from a functionalist view of mental states, for pain to play the causal role it does from a variety of species to species it must be be ‘felt’ the same, otherwise it would not have the affect on our behaviour in the appropriate way. pain, and other mental states, are multiply realisable so long as they are playing the same functional role, for which it does not make sense to say that it objectively ‘less’ interspecially.
@yehcnimoigres what …
@yehcnimoigres what time does he say that?
Context?
Context?
@yehcnimoigres
…
@yehcnimoigres
It’s funny how people think that word has some sort of intrinsic wrong to it. I’m the religious will prey on everything they can quote mine from these guys
I can respond to …
I can respond to your dilemma on whether we should either care for animals or care for starving people, dying people, sick people…
My response to you continues to be: the question is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. Search Google. I choose both.
There is no false …
There is no false dichotomy there!
Answer my problem or stop talking, every response i’ve had has been way off on a tangent from my original comment.
I’ll stop trying to defend your shotgun argumentation and let you respond to that, If you cannot, then move along.
You clearly can’t …
You clearly can’t read or think. You pose a false dichotomy. You defend your arguments with a logical fallacy. Can you please stop using logical fallacies and stop wasting our time?
“I would be in …
“I would be in favor of infanticide”- Richard Dawkins
You clearly can’t …
You clearly can’t read or think, I’m discussing your mindset by use of an example, the example itself is irrelevent.
You want to take the easy option so you can say to yourself “at least I’ve done something”, and feel happy in your own little mind, while blaming the rest of the world for being wrong.
That’s the essence of selfishness, not ethics.
Can you please address my first point and stop wasting my time? I can only assume you don’t have an answer.
False dichotomy …
False dichotomy fallacy. Look on Google.
Your brain is food. …
Your brain is food. mmmmm
It’s not a perfect …
It’s not a perfect solution fallacy either. It’s a question of priorities.
To your left a chicken is laying eggs in a cage, to your right your mother is being raped and tortured to death. You look to your right and think well that might be hard to deal with, so you walk up to the chicken and release it so you can feel good about something. That is your rationale. You are avoiding real problems to focus on the trivial. That isn’t ethics, it’s simply self justification of your own helplessness.
I understand the …
I understand the terms, diverting attention and efforts away from a major problem to focus on a trivial one is not a false dichotomy. And it will add to people rejecting the theory.
eg. if you have a philosphy that agrees with scientology people like automatically associate you with nuts and ignore your view. You may not like it, it may not be “fair”, but it is true and self-alienating and damaging the cause and more important relates causes.
“focusing on …
“focusing on specially bred livestock while humans continure to endure slavery, starvation [...] is a misallocation of endeavour.”
False dichotomy. Perfect solution fallacy. Look on Google.
explain yourself… …
explain yourself… simply stating argumentative principles that don’t apply isnt helpful.
Logical fallacy, …
Logical fallacy, false dichotomy. Perfect solution fallacy.
I put it to you …
I put it to you that you have lived such a sheltered life that you have no real issues to deal with and have to create problems where they don’t exist for your own self worth.
There are only a finite number of resources in the world and focusing on specially bred livestock while humans continure to endure slavery, starvation, rape and murder, and entire species go extinct and we destroy the planet is a misallocation of endeavour.
Some perspective please, you have poor ethics and morals. FACT!
Exactly, Singer …
Exactly, Singer claims to be embracing darwinism on the topic with no argument from Dawkins when he says we should behave differently than non-human animals because we are animals ourselves.
That is rejecting dawinism flat out. Much like Dawkins is when he rebutts the misconstrual of the selfish gene theory that has been misused to exploit a survival of the fittest world view in business markets.
Don’t lie to me in your premise and expect me to go along with you is what I am saying to Singer.
Meat is food, plain …
Meat is food, plain and simple.
There’s is no “is-ought” problem because it is not a problem.
You can’t argue a negative because you want to live in a disney world where all the animals dance and hold hands.
If that’s the …
If that’s the deepest most thorough study you can come up with in regards to the is-ought problem of meat consumption, I have nothing else to add.
How is it that …
How is it that nobody can understand this? The mere fact that were are all related cannot exclude us from the natural world.
If you wish to make an ethical argument that’s all well and good, I would say misguided, and lacking both perspective and evidence, but you can make such an argument.
The original premise is incorrect and totally irrelevent to morality, darwinism or any other topic which is being discussed.
The ancient …
The ancient civilisations that didn’t eat meat did it for economic reasons, not ethical ones. ie if a hindu eats the tractor then he wont be able to continue farming other foods, hence the cow is sacred. If they had access to abundant meat then the situation would never have arrived. Wherever meat is available we eat it because it is food.
This slavery …
This slavery argument is like PETA comparing a farm to a nazi death camp, it is not eqivalent unless every creature is equal. In which case you would have to be against pets, or even guide dogs for the blind, or medical research animals. They are treated exactly like slaves. Given everything to survive except their own freedom. Aren’t you supposed to be arguing for ethics? Removing the life enabling devices from your fellow creatures couldn’t be further from ethical.
Eating meat is …
Eating meat is justified because meat is a food source. People can also survive without legs, do you support an international amputation of lower limbs program?
Less than what? A …
Less than what? A lion gnawing on an antelope while it shrieks in pain? If we shouldn’t eat a viable food source then you should really be creating a tofu for lions program in the serengeti.