William Crawley meets Peter Singer (part 1)

	Duration: 09:16 minutes Upload Time: 2007-04-21 17:06:18 User: kaods1960 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: The Australian philosopher talks about euthanasia, infanticide, bestiality, and paedophilia, in an interview with the BBC's William Crawley.
Comments
ethicalhedonism ::: Favorites You have to aim for relative elimination of negative value. You need to get rid of theistic belief. You need to get rid of socialist nonsense. We will have one language and one country. We could have a stronger web community with thousands and thousands of members. 07-10-16 04:57:33 __________________________________________________
JohnChampagne ::: Favorites The gist of his argument, (which you may try to critique or refute if you choose): It is wrong to violate the major interests of one being to promote the minor interests of another being. From that flows the argument that it is wrong to enslave and oppress animals to produce flesh for human consumption. It is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. 07-10-09 23:41:38 __________________________________________________
Huesos138 ::: Favorites To go any deeper than what I have allready gone and write a comprehensive critique of his philosophy is something you could do in a bachelors thesis, and I do not think I can sum it all up in a few comments on youtube... lol... I was just hinting on what points he is easy to criticize. On a nother note: I'm sure you have not read any academic philosophy att all if you really think what you said is true. 07-10-01 08:10:57 __________________________________________________
438MillionBC ::: Favorites Refute his arguments, not his credentials. 07-09-30 21:31:35 __________________________________________________
Huesos138 ::: Favorites one of the main ones were shown by professor Ingmar Persson in his paper on "univerzability and the summing of preferences" from theoria (1988). 07-09-30 12:53:49 __________________________________________________
Huesos138 ::: Favorites First of all, he doesn't have alot of meta-ethical arguments to justify his preference-utilitarianism, it is on this point that his philosophy is weak. He does not have alot of "meat on his bones" so to speak. He himself claims in the beginning of "Practical ethics" that he builds alot of his philosophy on the writings of Richard Mervyn Hare, and I believe Hares theory to be deeply flawed in a large variety of points, 07-09-30 12:53:20 __________________________________________________
438MillionBC ::: Favorites Then refute it. 07-09-29 20:06:12 __________________________________________________
Huesos138 ::: Favorites "His argument on animal rights and welfare is irrefutable" This is not true, anyone who have read philosophy would know that. 07-09-29 18:37:37 __________________________________________________
438MillionBC ::: Favorites Brilliant man. If you haven't read his books, don't talk trash about him. His argument on animal rights and welfare is irrefutable, and anybody who has so much as read the introduction to Animal Liberation would know that. 07-09-17 23:20:35 __________________________________________________
chalk20 ::: Favorites So does Singer think eating hot dogs and hamburgers are unethical? If he thinks that he really is the most dangerous man in America..LOL..Just think if everyone adopted Singer's ideas there would be no more A1 steack sauce on sale..the world come to end. Ok back to the BBQ for me. :) 07-09-05 19:31:47 __________________________________________________