The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[cobalt124]

What? You think you’re some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that?
Get a grip. You can retire from the thread at any moment you desire, but you don't get to say when a discussion has ended.

That was meant to be end of "emoting".

 

[cobalt124]

Much too general a statement. I could think of any number of occassions where giving something freely where it is need can only do bad.

Presumably in the question you asked. Maybe so. Individuals consume without thinking through the consequences, why would unconditional giving without thinking through the consequences make the current situation worse?

 

[alt]

Presumably in the question you asked. Maybe so. Individuals consume without thinking through the consequences, why would unconditional giving without thinking through the consequences make the current situation worse?

Cobalt124, I have a little difficulty in understanding your sentences (probably my fault). If your last couple of lines (underlined) refer to the unconditional giving of charity, please read my points in my previous posts. I've made them often enough - I can't just keep making them.

If not, that's OK too.

 

[apeiron]

This is what you want to see, or perhaps you had a long correspondence with him or had some beers and he confirmed this sense of it.

Your post is too filled with bad logic to be worth arguing. But de Waal clearly does not support your way of thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all

Macaques and chimpanzees have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment. Other primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. Capuchin monkeys show their displeasure if given a smaller reward than a partner receives for performing the same task, like a piece of cucumber instead of a grape.

These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality.

Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.” The building blocks of morality are not nice or good behaviors but rather mental and social capacities for constructing societies “in which shared values constrain individual behavior through a system of approval and disapproval.” By this definition chimpanzees in his view do possesses some of the behavioral capacities built in our moral systems.

“Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996 book “Good Natured.” Biologists ignored this possibility for many years, believing that because natural selection was cruel and pitiless it could only produce people with the same qualities. But this is a fallacy, in Dr. de Waal’s view. Natural selection favors organisms that survive and reproduce, by whatever means. And it has provided people, he writes in “Primates and Philosophers,” with “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interests of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”

 

[DanP]

Your post is too filled with bad logic to be worth arguing.

So all are your posts in this thread, but yeah, thanks for giving up. I am tired to see emotional posts in which one or another longs for morality to come from God, or Nature but they are unable time and again to produce the slightest proof. God forbid moral norms are man made conventions, they yell. Blasphemy ! Proof man, proof. You can silence me once for ever on the subject if you produce scientific proof.As for de Waal's opinion that most of the biologists share the impression that selfish genes give raise to selfish individuals, this is largely false. I didn't met a single one in my life who could be tricked by this, and who embraced this point of view. Most of them (All to whom I talked) clearly seen that a selfish gene can give raise to cooperative individuals.

Morality, he writes, is “a sense of right and wrong that is born out of groupwide systems of conflict management based on shared values.”

This pretty much means that killing ppl somewhere in Middle East is moral, and also that buying an iPhone instead of donating to the poor is also moral.

 

[apeiron]

Im tired to see emotional posts in which one or another longs for morality to come from God, or Nature but they are unable time and again to produce the slightest proof. God forbid moral norms are man made conventions, they yell. Blasphemy ! Proof man, proof. You can silence me once for ever on the subject if you produce scientific proof.

Again you are demonstrating a failure to be able to focus on what is being argued.

You say ethics is pragmatic and utilitarian. And what could be more based on utilitarian principles than evolution?

If morals are "just" conventions, rather than based on sound functional principles like actively balancing competitive and cooperative behaviours, we should expect to see persistent moral codes that do not conform to this evolutionary imperative.

And secondly, if competition~cooperation is a key balance to be struck here (which you now appear to accept), then logically we would expect that it would apply wherever evolutionary forces are at work. So it should apply at the biological level (as is abundantly evident), and also at the sociological level (as again it does).

Humans really have no choice but to develop moral codes which efficiently negotiate between competitive and cooperative behaviours.

As for de Waal's opinion that most of the biologists share the impression that selfish genes give raise to selfish individuals, this is largely false. I didn't met a single one in my life who could be tricked by this, and who embraced this point of view. Most of them (All to whom I talked) clearly seen that a selfish gene can give raise to cooperative individuals.

Where did you get the impression de Waal was saying most biologists believe this? I am now beginning to believe you when you say you just cannot work out what he even means to say in quite straightforward quotations. I thought you were just trying to ignore the fact he contradicts your arguments.

If you have read the article you cited, de Waal was talking about the religious idea that humans are cursed by original sin. Christianity (taking its theology from Plato's tripartide theory of mind) tries to separate man from nature (so the higher part becomes godly).

A scientist of course is concerned with putting humans back into nature. So this is why it is important to show that human morality is completely natural. It is neither god-given, nor some arbitrary convention. It is all about functional behaviour, evolved behaviour.

Of course genes can underwrite cooperative norms. That is de Waal (and my) point. And culture clearly does too.

But I am sure you will continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what has been said. You don't appear to have a coherent worldview here and so you keep making self-contradictory statements. Then getting all huffy when this is pointed out. :P

 

[DanP]

Again you are demonstrating a failure to be able to focus on what is being argued.

Actually you are self-blinding yourself.

You say ethics is pragmatic and utilitarian. And what could be more based on utilitarian principles than evolution?

Peter Singer ?

If morals are "just" conventions, rather than based on sound functional principles like actively balancing competitive and cooperative behaviours, we should expect to see persistent moral codes that do not conform to this evolutionary imperative.

And we do. The moral codes stipulates "you should not kill". No moral code I seen says "You should not kill, but there are exceptions: you can kill the "others" as a soldier when your group wants resources or territorial control" , or a code which says "Its ok to buy iPhones when "the others" are starving"

The reality is that we do kill each other all the time. As it's expected from the evolutionary imperative you quote. We do it accordingly to in group / out group paradigms. We do it in wars for resources and territorial control. For raising to status. We exhibit highly cooperative behaviors when we decide to go and kill "the others". We learned to cooperate
to the end of exercising aggressive behaviors. But, btw so did chimps. They are also very happy to gang together to kill all the males from the colony in the next valley.

The reality is that we buy iPhones and "the others" do starve. Those are facts. Not philosophical babbling.

One of the reasons we need law enforcement is because all this babbling about how morality and moral codes are evolved doesn't hold any water. You know why humans are nicer than chimps ? Because we invented police and efficient weapons to keep each other at bay. A equilibrium situation. Not because we evolved to be moral creatures.

Humans really have no choice but to develop moral codes which efficiently negotiate between competitive and cooperative behaviours.

So you agree that humans developed moral norms ?

A scientist of course is concerned with putting humans back into nature. So this is why it is important to show that human morality is completely natural. It is neither god-given, nor some arbitrary convention. It is all about functional behaviour, evolved behaviour.

And this is why for some showing that morality is completely natural became an obsession, to the point it reassembles a new religion. Because some long to see their philosophical ideas supported by science. It is IMPORTANT to be true, as you so willingly say. Like it is important for Vatican to make sure all believe there is a God. The difference between this and conventional religious dogma is replacement of God word with Nature word.

But I am sure you will continue to misunderstand and misrepresent what has been said. You don't appear to have a coherent worldview here and so you keep making self-contradictory statements. Then getting all huffy when this is pointed out. :P

While at the same time you see everywhere omens and portents of your theory. To the point you almost blinded yourself to social factors. It's weird how you switch from hardcore all out social psych when it suits your theories, to an all out evolutionary psych and neurobiology when it other theories of yours. So much for your coherence.

 

[apeiron]

The reality is that we buy iPhones and "the others" do starve. Those are facts. Not philosophical babbling.

Can you really so miss the point of the thread? These are new behaviours - both being able to buy iPhones, and to actually know people are starving way out of sight. So given this new situation, we need to evolve the right functional behaviour. And to be able to do this, it would really help to be "scientific" - to have a sound model. If we know that what we want to achieve is to strike the usual balance between competition and cooperation, then we can actually now apply a broad theory of utility.

And this is why for some showing that morality is completely natural became an obsession, to the point it reassembles a new religion.

It is simply being scientific. Joined up thinking.

 

[DanP]

Can you really so miss the point of the thread? These are new behaviours - both being able to buy iPhones, and to actually know people are starving way out of sight. So given this new situation, we need to evolve the right functional behaviour. And to be able to do this, it would really help to be "scientific" - to have a sound model. If we know that what we want to achieve is to strike the usual balance between competition and cooperation, then we can actually now apply a broad theory of utility.

I guess then for you ganging up an Army against another to control territory and resources is also a new behavior . Perhaps one dating back to the moment Steve Jobbs unveiled the first iPhone ? Give me a break.
You also completely miss the fact that the iPhone is a simple status signal, and status seeking behaviors are as old as humanity. Before iPhone , it was something else. And after iPhone4 it will be something different.
And for that matter, that it was always someone starving in society. And what's sad is, that it didn't even need to be "far away". It could be right outside the area where the dominant class enjoyed their status.

It is simply being scientific. Joined up thinking.

You claim it is. Science will have to produce more proof that philosophical babbling.

 

[apeiron]

I guess then for you ganging up an Army against another to control territory and resources is also a new behavior . Perhaps one dating back to the moment Steve Jobbs unveiled the first iPhone ? Give me a break.
You also completely miss the fact that the iPhone is a simple status signal, and status seeking behaviors are as old as humanity. Before iPhone , it was something else. And after iPhone4 it will be something different.
And for that matter, that it was always someone starving in society. And what's sad is, that it didn't even need to be "far away". It could be right outside the area where the dominant class enjoyed their status.

Again, merely a jumble of disconnected and unsourced remarks that do not address the argument.

Why would I be concerned with historical adaptive balances when the subject is new ones?

What difference does it make if the iPhones are status markers when the subject is the morality of how you divide your personal resources?

If people allowed people to starve in plain sight in the past, then this is only relevant if it can be properly sourced as a claim and then the reasons modeled.

Are you beginning to see how reasoned argument unfolds? :P

A structured approach to understanding is one that can keep levels of explanation properly separate.

So for instance - something that has been a continuing problem with your responses - there is the question of what is morality qua the "uncaring" universe versus the question of morality qua "caring" evolution. Different levels of context, different kinds of answers.

Instead your approach to debate is to invent crazy statements for those who are frustrating you - such as because one situation is new, then all situations are new.

It would be good practice for when you go to college to try and marshall a structured argument here. Starting with the question of do you believe human morality is completely constrained, partially constrained, or wholy unconstrained by evolutionary logic?

Have a go at a clear statement on this. Having regard for the scientific evidence provided by the likes of de Waal.

 

[DanP]

It would be good practice for when you go to college to try and marshall a structured argument here. Starting with the question of do you believe human morality is completely constrained, partially constrained, or wholy unconstrained by evolutionary logic?

It would be a good practice for when you go to college to limit yourself to scientific evidence, instead of empty speeches. Unless yeah, if you will go one day to study philosophy, then you can talk all day long. But to respond your question: our neurobiology modulates behaviors. Including what you call moral behaviors. (cooperation / competition) and which I don't agree they are "moral".I believe they have nothing to do with morality. Modulates is key word here. They are neutral, and only the social context in which they are executed gives them an ethical load. Anyone who claims an all out origin of morality in nature is deeply misguided IMO, even if I accept your defi9ntion of morality.

Have a go at a clear statement on this. Having regard for the scientific evidence provided by the likes of de Waal.

Sure. Present the scientific evidence of your claims, that "morality is completely natural" and Ill be more than happy to do what you ask. I don't care if you present de Waal's work or anybody else, but you need to present papers which support your claims. But please, not Oxytocin papers again.

If you don't know where to start to look from those papers, may I suggest you "The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology" Jonathan Haidt's Science 316, 998 (2007)? It will get you started in finding more and more papers on moral psychology. You will find out that the ppl at the top of their field are much more cautious than you when claiming an all out, complete, origin of morality in nature. And still, an enormous quantity of the speculation regarding morality are completely unproven yet in a scientific way. There are tones of research which need to be done. So far, all is speculation. Find proof for what is discussed in Haidt's paper , and you are all set.

 

[apeiron]

Modulates is key word here. They are neutral, and only the social context in which they are executed gives them an ethical load. Anyone who claims an all out origin of morality in nature is deeply misguided IMO, even if I accept your defi9ntion of morality...
...may I suggest you "The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology" Jonathan Haidt's Science 316, 998 (2007)?

This is yet another example where you cite people who directly contradict your stances. Haidt is in fact far more "biological" than me.

Saying that people are wired at a reflexive level for "bodily and spiritual purity and the importance of living in a sanctified rather than a carnal way" is for instance the kind of thing I'm sure would rankle with you - given how you are always talking about the way you like to "hit on" girls :P.

Anyway, Haidt's analysis is a start but far too simplistic. There are two major mis-steps he makes. The first is to drive a wedge between affective and cognitive reponses. This is old cogsci thinking where input is followed by output. And the second is trying to reduce all the evolutionary information to genetics (what I mean by too biological). In humans, the evolutionary change is also happening at the sociocultural level.

But that is to take the debate to a more detailed place. It seems that you think things like "modulation" is "neutral". Which drops us back into the impenetrable thickets of your logical inconsistencies. There is no hope of a structured argument if you cannot see the contradictions in the very language you use.

 

[DanP]

This is yet another example where you cite people who directly contradict your stances. Haidt is in fact far more "biological" than me.

I pointed you to that paper not to consolidate my position, but to give you an idea where to start searching for papers which may support your point of view. A friendly gesture of help. Please do that, and when you have found scientific proof , present it. Remember, not empty words again, proof in the form of a scientific paper that morality is all out natural.

Anyway, Haidt's analysis is a start but far too simplistic. There are two major mis-steps he makes. The first is to drive a wedge between affective and cognitive reponses. This is old cogsci thinking where input is followed by output. And the second is trying to reduce all the evolutionary information to genetics (what I mean by too biological). In humans, the evolutionary change is also happening at the sociocultural level.

But that is to take the debate to a more detailed place. It seems that you think things like "modulation" is "neutral". Which drops us back into the impenetrable thickets of your logical inconsistencies. There is no hope of a structured argument if you cannot see the contradictions in the very language you use.

That's all nice, but as usual you are unable to produce anything at all to support your claims, except words and words and words. Ill take anything you have. Except more empty words. Just post a list of peer reviewed papers which prove that morality is all natural and Ill take my time to go through all of them in the next several weeks.

The problem with you is that you can't or won't produce the evidence you claim to exist. Just do it already. You are not worth listening to without those papers.

 

[apeiron]

I pointed you to that paper not to consolidate my position, but to give you an idea where to start searching for papers which may support your point of view. A friendly gesture of help. Please do that, and when you have found scientific proof , present it. Remember, not empty words again, proof in the form of a scientific paper that morality is all out natural.
.

Why would you argue for one thing and present evidence for the other? Doesn't really ring true does it. Either you didn't read or didn't understand what Haidt said, similar to the way you cited de Waal and then had to back away hastily.

And the burden of proof is the other way round here (being a science forum and all). If you can cite examples of moral codes that are at base un-natural, then let's hear it. Sure, not everyone or every society is perfectly adapted, but that too is part of the natural view.

Just post a list of peer reviewed papers which prove that morality is all natural and Ill take my time to go through all of them in the next several weeks.

Why would I need to when you keep doing that for me :P. Why not now go through Haidt at your leisure and consider the evidence he presents. He says even religious experience and proscriptions against carnality have a genetic basis so far as he is concerned. Pretty extreme, eh.

As I said, I think Haidt is much too simplistic. But at least his words aren't immediately self-contradictory. He presents a logical argument.

 

[DanP]

Why would you argue for one thing and present evidence for the other? Doesn't really ring true does it. Either you didn't read or didn't understand what Haidt said, similar to the way you cited de Waal and then had to back away hastily.

I simply came to the conclusion you have no idea what you are talking about and pointed you at some papers which contains ideas like yours, and asked you to present proof for their claims. A good conclusion, since besides an oxytocin paper you was unable to post on this board anything at all to support your theories. I specifically asked you to <<Find proof for what is discussed in Haidt's paper , and you are all set. >> .

As I said, I think Haidt is much too simplistic. But at least his words aren't immediately self-contradictory. He presents a logical argument.

More words. Exactly what I came to expect from you. You are unwilling to post any papers to support your claims. I guess from a very simple reason, either you have no idea where to look for them, either they don't exist. At this point, both ring equally plausible to me.

 

[apeiron]

You are unwilling to post any papers to support your claims. I guess from a very simple reason, either you have no idea where to look for them, either they don't exist. At this point, both ring equally plausible to me.

But its you who said...

Equilibrium between competitive and cooperative behaviors. It's they key of our society, probably the key of any population of animals in this world.

So how can you now turn around and disclaim this position?

Nothing you say ever adds up. At every turn you contradict yourself.

Sometimes you make statements consistent with moral nihilism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Other times you seem to go along with ethical naturalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

But anyway, despite your doubts, the science of morality is a busy field - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

Perhaps you can read these pages and work out just what you believe so future discussions are not so riddled with self-contradiction. :P

 

[DanP]

So how can you now turn around and disclaim this position?

Do you realize that the equilibrium between cooperation / competition has nothing to do with morality and moral codes ?

Perhaps you can read these pages and work out just what you believe so future discussions are not so riddled with self-contradiction. :P

Perhaps you should just post your evidence ? Links to papers please, which do support your arguments.

 

[apeiron]

Do you realize that the equilibrium between cooperation / competition has nothing to do with morality and moral codes ?

So why do they feature so strongly in Haidt's article on moral psychology? What on Earth are you talking about?

Perhaps you should just post your evidence ? Links to papers please, which do support your arguments.

I'm waiting for you to address the evidence you yourself posted. Haidt says...

Extending a theory from cultural psychologist Richard Shweder (40), Jesse
Graham, Craig Joseph, and I have suggested that there are five psychological foundations, each with a separate evolutionary origin, upon which human cultures construct their moral communities (41, 42). In addition to the harm and fairness foundations, there are also widespread intuitions about ingroup-outgroup dynamics and the importance of loyalty; there are intuitions about authority and the importance of respect and obedience; and there are intuitions about bodily and spiritual purity and the importance of living in a sanctified rather than a carnal way.

So what is it exactly that you dispute about Haidt's analysis?

You can find the longer version of his argument here...
http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/JosephHaidtV3ppr.pdf

Haidt lays out five different moral intuitions and the relevant evidence. Now tell us how he is wrong.

 

[DanP]

What on Earth are you talking about?

What on Earth are you talking about ? I asked you to present proof on your statements. I told you once, find proof for Haidt;s points (or yours for that matter ) and you are all set, no one will be able to contest anymore that morality is a Nature's given gift. Just doit already. Or admit that you have nothing to show, save for speculations. Haidt also have no evidence, he claims evolutionary origins, but he unfortunately can't prove that. You go now and find that proof, then come back and post it.

 

[apeiron]

find proof for Haidt;s points

But he supplies that himself in his articles. So what on Earth are you on about?

 

[DanP]

But he supplies that himself in his articles. So what on Earth are you on about?

he doesnt. He speculates.

 

[DanP]

de Waal (1996) suggests that a building block of human morality visible in chimpanzees
is the desire for peace and harmony within the group.

Is this a "desire" for pace of harmony, or a cold consequence of the fact that in chimps females leave the group at puberty, wile related males remain in the group ? Hence in-group fighting is drastically reduced, while violence toward out groups sky rockets ? Let's not forget, the chimps invented the "army" with their border patrols, and a rudimentary form of genocide. Species like baboons where males leave the groups at puberty ,
are riddled by insane in-group fighting for dominance.

We think this desire is related to the ingroup foundation: group-living creatures prefer (have an innate valuation of) harmony within the cooperative groups upon which they depend both for material sustenance and intergroup defense.

Sure we do. but it has nothing to do with morality. It's reciprocal altruism, in its most cold biological sense. Everything they claim to be the result of "desire for hramony, morality, whatever ", can be explained through the selfish gene theory. A theory which also explain pretty well why we compete for status, why we cheat on each other, why the average duration of a marriage is so small in the western world, why we buy IPods, why many humans don't really care that others are starving, why humans are able to switch allegiances so easy, why Zimbardo seen what he seen in the so called "Stanford Prison experiment", why we need law enforcement and courts of law, even why we sometimes do apparently perplexing acts like giving a substantial tip to a stranger we will never seen again in our lifes.

There is no need to postulate innateness of morality.

We find this desire in ourselves: we are a part of the community of
morality researchers that has long been divided on the question of moral innateness.

Small wonder. This will be like the differences between conservatives and liberals, an ongoing battle with no conflict resolution in sight.

This makes us uncomfortable, for we really like and value the many members of our
community, and we have tried, in this essay, to show how all are right about something,
all have something to contribute.

I like you too Apeiron.

We propose that some degree of harmony and synergy
can be restored if most morality researchers were willing to endorse this statement: the
first draft of the moral mind has diverse moral content that was specified in advance of
experience, but this innately given content gets revised and greatly extended during the
course of development as children actively construct their moral knowledge within a
cultural context that uses narrative to shape and guide the development of specific
virtues.

Or they can embrace the point of view that morality is man made, that evolutionary behaviors have no moral bearing, that only the social context gives them an ethical load, and that kids acquire their "moral sense" slowly from developmental experiences, and a functional moral judgment ability only once they develop a full theory of mind. It would restore the harmony as well :P

Is anyone ready to celebrate with us?

Not quite yet.

All quotations are from Haidt's morality paper http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/JosephHaidtV3ppr.pdf.

 

[cobalt124]

Alt asked if somebody could comment on his/her questions:

Peter sounds like a commie to me

How is Peter Singer a communist?, not that it has anything to do with the OP.

Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given
proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?

No.

Secondly, presuming you feel the same, have you done the same ?

I don't see it as a moral issue, or necessary to have feelings about it. I believe Singers suggestion can reduce suffering.
Have I done the same? No.

Thirdly and MOST importantly, let us assume for a moment that the wealthy West CAN save the mal nourished, sick, pestilence stricken multitudes - WHAT THEN ?

At the very least, the west, its governments and its peoples could do way more than what we are doing now.

What is the global population ? Have you seen a population growth chart ? Fairly flat for millenia, and
the last couple of centuries almost verticle.

WHAT THEN ? What do those multitudes do ? The reproduce, and for every one you saved, you now have 2, 3, .. pick a number.

WHAT THEN ? You go save them too ?

WHAT THEN ?

Resources are finite, so education and population control would be required, or we just let things ride as they are.

Peter's Pipe Dream ends in global catastrophe, nuclear warefare .. canibalism ..
Unless of course, we save 'em, then neuter 'em ..

How about we move away from the "them and us" mentality which causes suffering.

I saw a program recently - about the worst slum in India (forgot it's name, sorry) - people there were
happier than most Westeners.

Why do you think they were happier?

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to
save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years,
the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a
movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Pure communist talk ! (not you Greg - Peter)

Seems a straightforward question.

Indians are probably the most discriminatory people on earth.

Discrimination anywhere ("them and us"?) will get in the way of saving lives and reducing suffering.

Are you suggesting that we (the Western World) should give everything other than what is absolutely VITAL to us, to charity so as to save the third world ?

Give what we choose to, unconditionally.

Those millions and millions that you have saved and made healthy and well, will reproduce, into an already
burgeoning population. You've only shifted the problem a generation or two, and made it double or triple worse.

Education. And population control will have to be faced by every nation at some point.

you may as well say you've taken over the role of the diety (or natural law, depending ..)

I see a lot of this going on in this thread, and "deitising" of science. Science doesn't choose. People choose. Whether via a
god, evolution, biology, sociology or psychology.

It could realistically be argued that a very large percentage of what we spend in your country and mine,
is non-essentail. By Peter's terms, all this is morally wrong.

Hopefully I am not going off topic too much by saying that morality need not come into this.

Why on Earth would we want to exacerbate the population levels of, say, China or India ?

I wonder what people in China and India have to say about populations in the west. Them and us. It causes suffering.[/QUOTE]

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

By unconditionally giving where there is need. One planet, one set of resources. Population control will be necessary
everywhere at some point in time, or we can just let nature take its course.

My experience in life has been that taking short term / long term, and micro / macro consequences into
account, is alway a worthwhile, indeed an essential, thing to do. The most successful individuals, corporations, governments,
do it.

By what measure of success? By whom?

What is horribly wrong about contemplating the fact that if you save and make comfortable a large number
of people, they will reproduce and present the next generation with a two or three fold problem ?

Possibly it's the way it is being phrased.

Much too general a statement. I could think of any number of occassions where giving something freely
where it is need can only do bad.

Not necessarily, if it is done for the right reasons.

Cobalt124, I have a little difficulty in understanding your sentences (probably my fault). If your last
couple of lines (underlined) refer to the unconditional giving of charity, please read my points in my previous posts. I've
made them often enough - I can't just keep making them.

I am referring to unconditional giving.

 

[alt]

Alt asked if somebody could comment on his/her questions:

How is Peter Singer a communist?, not that it has anything to do with the OP.

From post #1 in this thread;
Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong.

To me, that's the sort of mentality I generally categorise 'commie'.

Haven't you thought it through ? Are you REALLY happy to give away EVERYTHING other than your basic neccessities ? If not, are you happy to be called Immoral ?

No.

So you confirm, that he DOESN"T give all his money, other than for essentilas, to charity. According to my (his) first point, above, he is immoral, and now, hypocritical.

I don't see it as a moral issue, or necessary to have feelings about it. I believe Singers suggestion can reduce suffering.

Can reduce suffering .. in the short term, though that too might be dubious. ANyway, what about the long term ? A couple of generations down the track, when the population, being enabled, naturally explodes ?

Have I done the same? No.

So you haven't given your all, either; OK (tut tut ..)

At the very least, the west, its governments and its peoples could do way more than what we are doing now.

Way more, waay more, waaay more, or waaaay more ?

Resources are finite, so education and population control would be required, or we just let things ride as they are.

Ah .. population control .. there's the god complex sneaking in. What's the point in enabling them them to breed, only to later have to 'double' stop them ?

How about we move away from the "them and us" mentality which causes suffering.

Humans have always had a 'them and us' mentality. Evermore. All life runs on survival of the fittest. In any case, dare I say it, an 'us and us' mentality, smacks of communism - again.

Why do you think they were happier?

Because material possessions, and an abundance of food, etc, doesn't seem to be the secret to happiness.

Seems a straightforward question.

As do many other unanswered ones.

Discrimination anywhere ("them and us"?) will get in the way of saving lives and reducing suffering.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Did you get a good look at the link I posted which detailed extreme discrimination by upper castes in India againt the lowest castes ?

Give what we choose to, unconditionally.

I disagree.

Education. And population control will have to be faced by every nation at some point.

Within their own, probably. I find it bizzare, however, that we, or some in the West anyway, have decided it's appropriate to educate them, enable them to reproduce, then neutralise their ability to do so - or at leasr control or restrict it. Who died and left us the boss ?

I see a lot of this going on in this thread, and "deitising" of science. Science doesn't choose. People choose. Whether via a
god, evolution, biology, sociology or psychology.

Hopefully I am not going off topic too much by saying that morality need not come into this.

I wonder what people in China and India have to say about populations in the west. Them and us. It causes suffering.

I wonder too. I'll bet they're not keen to make it grow.

By unconditionally giving where there is need. One planet, one set of resources. Population control will be necessary everywhere at some point in time, or we can just let nature take its course.

Better to let nature take it's course in the first place, I reckon. Your 'population control' at some point in the future, will most likely turn out to be nuclear warfare and canibalism.

By what measure of success? By whom?

You disagree with the proposition that it's better to consider consequences than not ?

Possibly it's the way it is being phrased.

You lost me. What were you trying to phrase ?

Not necessarily, if it is done for the right reasons.

Well, yes, but that wouldn't be unconditional, would it ? Which is what you said earlier.

I am referring to unconditional giving.

Unconditional but for (what you consider to be) the right reasons, Uh-huh ..

 

[apeiron]

All quotations are from Haidt's morality paper http://www.philosophy.dept.shef.ac.uk/AHRB-Project/Papers/JosephHaidtV3ppr.pdf.

You mean all from the conclusion. Is that the only paragraph you could be bothered reading?

You keep whining about wanting proof. Then deal with the evidence in the body of the paper. Start with the five intuitive responses Haidt lists and tell us why his evidence in support of them is no good.

 

[DanP]

You keep whining about wanting proof.

And you keep babbling platitudes instead of presenting it.

Then deal with the evidence in the body of the paper. Start with the five intuitive responses Haidt lists and tell us why his evidence in support of them is no good.

Not conclusive. There is no evidence in there, only speculations.

 

[Zarqon]

smacks of communism - again.

Even though I, like you, am not convinced by Singers arguements, I really wish you would stop using "communism" as some kind of end of the line for the argument. Communism is just an idea among many on how to organize the society. Stating that something is commie doesn't by itself say anything about an argument being right or wrong, you still have to explain WHY it is right or wrong in this particular case.

 

[nismaratwork]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

I agree, and it's the secret to our success as humans, and why we'll manage to lose it all. If we can ignore someone starving down the road (not in the USA I suppose), then people will ignore anything. I'm sorry, but we're doomed to the fate of all runaway apex predators, and the world and the universe will be unfazed with that passing as is by our presence.

 

[cobalt124]

To me, that's the sort of mentality I generally categorise 'commie'.

Thankyou for the explanation. Though I agree with Zargons sentiments on this.

Haven't you thought it through ? Are you REALLY happy to give away EVERYTHING other than your basic neccessities ? If not, are you happy to be called Immoral ?

So you confirm, that he DOESN"T give all his money, other than for essentilas, to charity. According to my (his) first point, above, he is immoral, and now, hypocritical.

I'm not taking it that personally. Morality and feeling and good intention aside, I think he has a point. It seems more and more I am missing the point of this thread. I latched onto the usefulness of the act in question, rather than the morality of it, which are both under discussion here.

Can reduce suffering .. in the short term, though that too might be dubious. ANyway, what about the long term ? A couple of generations down the track, when the population, being enabled, naturally explodes ?

Based on my reading the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer, like he seems to have done, I've not gone too much into the practicalities of this, which given what has been achieved by people so far, I don't see as imsurmountable. So I think it is valid to discuss what Singer is suggesting, and see where it can go, without necessarily going into practicalities, or morality, or feeling, or good intention.

Way more, waay more, waaay more, or waaaay more ?

Way more.

Ah .. population control .. there's the god complex sneaking in. What's the point in enabling them them to breed, only to later have to 'double' stop them ?

Well, I was tarring you with a "god complex" brush too re "them and us", because that is how you seem to be coming across. I may be wrong. Any scenario anyone cares to come up with, will have to consider population control at some point, so like any situation where a decision like this has to be made, let's hope no one is playing God.

Humans have always had a 'them and us' mentality. Evermore. All life runs on survival of the fittest. In any case, dare I say it, an 'us and us' mentality, smacks of communism - again.

I'd like to know more about that. I don't see that.

Because material possessions, and an abundance of food, etc, doesn't seem to be the secret to happiness.

I confess to being confused, I don't know whether you actually mean this, or you are being sarcastic, or what? But if it is the case, then it is possible that what Singer is suggesting can benefit all round? Too commie?

As do many other unanswered ones.

Because they don't get answered.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Did you get a good look at the link I posted which detailed extreme discrimination by upper castes in India againt the lowest castes ?

I read your quote, not the link. Where are the good intentions in discrimination?

Within their own, probably. I find it bizzare, however, that we, or some in the West anyway, have decided it's appropriate to educate them, enable them to reproduce, then neutralise their ability to do so - or at leasr control or restrict it. Who died and left us the boss ?

I'm hoping education would allow people to make more informed choices rather than westernise them, but I take your point. No-one can be the boss in this. the consequences are on the whole planet.

Better to let nature take it's course in the first place, I reckon. Your 'population control' at some point in the future, will most likely turn out to be nuclear warfare and canibalism.

I don't think it's that hopeless, either with regard to nature, nuclear warfare or cannibalism.

You disagree with the proposition that it's better to consider consequences than not ?

I'm disputing the success of governments, companies, and individuals. What is being measured to determine their success, and who is doing the measuring?

You lost me. What were you trying to phrase ?

We can forget that one. I misread what you were saying.

Well, yes, but that wouldn't be unconditional, would it ? Which is what you said earlier.

Unconditional for the individual giving, the right reasons being it will make things better, possibly for everyone.

Unconditional but for (what you consider to be) the right reasons, Uh-huh ..

I think there is a rational, secular way to do what Singer asks in his question, and I think it could improve the lives of a lot of people, and I'd like to find out if, or how right or wrong,that idea may be.

 

[alt]

Even though I, like you, am not convinced by Singers arguements, I really wish you would stop using "communism" as some kind of end of the line for the argument. Communism is just an idea among many on how to organize the society. Stating that something is commie doesn't by itself say anything about an argument being right or wrong, you still have to explain WHY it is right or wrong in this particular case.

It was meant in the vernacular. A colloquialism like 'sounds commie' or 'smacks of communism' is not uncommon, particularly amongst your countrymen (assuming you're American).

But look ..

any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong

.. is, IMO, highly offensive and just plain wrong. What do you call it ? How do you feel about it ? Is it something you do yourself ?

 

[alt]

cobalt 124;

I'm not taking it that personally.

OK - let’s take it collectively
“any money spent on non essential items and services by any group of people, corporations, governments, etc, is morally wrong”
Nope ! - Still sounds odious to me.

Morality and feeling and good intention aside, I think he has a point.

You can‘t put morality aside - it‘s an essential element of his statement.

It seems more and more I am missing the point of this thread. I latched onto the usefulness of the act in question, rather than the morality of it, which are both under discussion here.

No wonder you are missing the point. You are trying to read 'out' (as opposed to read in) Singers ‘morally wrong’ accusations.

Based on my reading the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer, like he seems to have done, I've not gone too much into the practicalities of this, which given what has been achieved by people so far, I don't see as imsurmountable. So I think it is valid to discuss what Singer is suggesting, and see where it can go, without necessarily going into practicalities, or morality, or feeling, or good intention.

Feel free. But you can't extricate Singer from his 'morally wrong', no matter how hard you try. Only he can do that.

Well, I was tarring you with a "god complex" brush too re "them and us", because that is how you seem to be coming across. I may be wrong.

Oh, that's OK. Keep and bear in mind however, that all I have done here , or rather, all I've intended to do, is ask some questions that naturally pop into my deific (Heh) brain, every time I see those 'save a family in India' adverts. Such questions as I’ve iterated here several times.

Any scenario anyone cares to come up with, will have to consider population control at some point, so like any situation where a decision like this has to be made, let's hope no one is playing God.

Disagree - there would be numerous scenarios where population control would not have to be considered. Surely you can think of some ?

I confess to being confused, I don't know whether you actually mean this, or you are being sarcastic, or what? But if it is the case, then it is possible that what Singer is suggesting can benefit all round? Too commie?

No, I wasn't been sarcastic. What's confusing ? I said that material assets are not always a measure of happiness. How does this support Singers position ? I would have thought the opposite to be the case, in that people in poverty and sometimes extreme poverty, can be as happy as a Westerner - if not happier. No need therefore, to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc.

I read your quote, not the link. Where are the good intentions in discrimination ?

Well, you should read the link. It's very informative, and shows how the highest caste, discriminate against the lowest. Perhaps you should start at the top of these societies by educating those in the highest castes into doing more for their countrymen. Did you ever think of that ?

Where are the good intentions in discrimination ?

What ARE you talking about ?

I’m hoping education would allow people to make more informed choices rather than westernise them, but I take your point. No-one can be the boss in this. the consequences are on the whole planet.

People have been making appropriate choices for millennia, from what they abstract from the world around them, and from the natural forces and recourses available to them, without hanging by a thread in anticipation of your education. Populations, societies, nations have risen, fallen, risen, fallen .. are you going to teach them how to rise and not fall ?

Or do you propose something even more bizarre, i.e., feed them, make them well and capable, but them keep them in some sort of stasis, so that they can’t overly reproduce, over consume, become a threat to you, etc .. a stasis according to your image of what’s right for them ?

I’m disputing the success of governments, companies, and individuals. What is being measured to determine their success, and who is doing the measuring?

I think I'm getting a measure of what you're on about here. This part of the conversation came about form you saying that consequences should never be considered, to which I replied that they should be. You’ve bought this round, and round .. Now your above comment, seems to be going in a different path again. From disputing the consideration of consequences, to disputing success. It seems you have a lot of baggage to unpack.

Even my dog considers the consequences of his actions. I too, consider the consequences of my actions, as do larger entities.

If you're against free enterprise and capitalism, in favour of a more socialist / communist order, don't speak in tongues - just say so, although, perhaps, you should start a new thread, as that would be moving quite away from this one.

Unconditional for the individual giving, the right reasons being it will make things better, possibly for everyone.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think there is a rational, secular way to do what Singer asks in his question, and I think it could improve the lives of a lot of people, and I'd like to find out if, or how right or wrong,that idea may be.

That's nice. Good luck with your quest. Let us know what you find out.

We might dispute your success, or your measure thereof, though by your earlier prescription, that should be of no consequence to you.

 

[EnumaElish]

In last weekend's WSJ, Singer wrote a column as part of an op-ed debate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074333552233782.html

Sometimes we should choose to protect the environment and the nonhuman animals that depend on it, even if that denies economic opportunities to some people living in extreme poverty.

He then goes on to claim that cost-benefit analysis, or economics in general, cannot deal with these issues. I think he makes a couple of valid criticisms about the imputed value of human lives and the oft-assumed levels of discount rates; but in the process he fails to make a distinction between positive and normative economics. Worse, I think he does it intentionally to deflect attention from an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position.

 

[alt]

In last weekend's WSJ, Singer wrote a column as part of an op-ed debate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074333552233782.html
He then goes on to claim that cost-benefit analysis, or economics in general, cannot deal with these issues. I think he makes a couple of valid criticisms about the imputed value of human lives and the oft-assumed levels of discount rates; but in the process he fails to make a distinction between positive and normative economics. Worse, I think he does it intentionally to deflect attention from an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position

Interesting article - and I agree with your above (especially my underlined). From the article ..

But this concern for the poor appears to be in tension with the need to protect our environment. Is there any point in saving the lives of people who will continue to have more children than they can feed? Don't rising populations in developing countries increase the pressure on forests and other ecosystems? Then there is climate change. How would the world cope if everyone were to become affluent and match our per capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions?

In the above, he says what I've been saying all along here. Then he adds more fruit to the cake by 'developed nations have fewer children and consume less' .. LOL.

News flash - China just introduced a lottery for new motor vehicle purchases. No longer can the average 'developed' Chinaman/woman buy a new car at will - they have to participate in a state lottery to win the right to do so. New car sales dropped by 60% - 70%.

 

[cobalt124]

an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position.

Well aware that I am coming across as a supporter of Singers moral stance here, and that my next question reinforces this notion, are you referring to anything here that has not been discussed in the thread so far? Just interested, I haven't got a position on this that I feel the need to defend.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well aware that I am coming across as a supporter of Singers moral stance here, and that my next question reinforces this notion, are you referring to anything here that has not been discussed in the thread so far? Just interested, I haven't got a position on this that I feel the need to defend.

As a casual poster and reader on this thread, I have to say that I think you've been getting your butt handed to you by literally everyone here who has addressed your points. Maybe, and I'm just floating this as a concept, you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend.

You're sharing your thoughts with others, which indicates that you do care what others think and believe; you're failing terribly at making your case, or that of Singer. You're not really coming across as rational or ethical, just reactive and misanthropic. If that's what you're trying to communicate, success!... but if not, as someone who is mostly reading this, you really have a TON to defend.