Peter Singer

@petersinger

@mijavergara Talk to them about factory farming. Get them to watch videos taken inside factory farms, or if they won't do that, at least look at some photos and read some descriptions (Reading the relevant chapter of Animal Liberation) might do it. Then ask them if they really think it is OK to treat animals that way, just so that we can eat their flesh, eggs or milk when it isn't even an efficient way of feeding ourselves.

5 share tweet・a year ago

@lardhat

@petersinger @mijavergara That raises a follow up question. What do you think about having hens running around and eating worms in a farm, never killing them, and only taking their eggs?

@petersinger

@lardhat @mijavergara Of all the non-vegan things you can eat, eggs from hens like that are the least objectionable, both in terms of the hens having a good life, and in terms of sustainability.

@lardhat

@petersinger @mijavergara I think it can even be wrong to pay any attention to such a harmless thing. Perhaps more suffering is delivered to a boy who is sent to bed early instead of letting him watch more TV than to hens raised in such conditions.

@lardhat

@petersinger I equate "wrong" or "bad" with "causes suffering". And that's the basis of my ethical stance. I find myself lacking when justifying my notion that it's wrong to kill someone without pain, and even my notion that it would be wrong to press a button that would instantly eliminate all sentient life on Earth. Even if it's "doing to someone something they don't want", i still need to justify why that would be wrong. My normal answer to this is "it causes suffering" (frustrates interests), but this doesn't apply to the proverbial bullet to the back of the head, or to the prospect of instantaneous universal annihilation.

9 share tweet・a year ago

@petersinger

@lardhat So you are a negative utilitarian? That means, you think that we ought to minimize pain and suffering, but you don't think that we ought to give any weight to increasing pleasure or happiness? I don't think that's a defensible position. Suppose that you could experience hours of the greatest pleasure you have ever experienced, but to do so, you would need to endure a mild headache for 1 minute. Wouldn't you do it? If so, you don't think that pain or suffering is the only thing that matters. And that offers an answer to why it would be wrong to instantly eliminate all sentient life on Earth -- because then there could be no more pleasure or happiness. You might reply that at present, the amount of pain and suffering experienced by sentient life on earth outweighs the amount of pleasure or happiness. Maybe - it's hard to be confident about such a judgment. But what about the future? I'm optimistic enough to think that we are likely to do better in future, as we learn more about the world and how to improve it.

@lardhat

@petersinger @lardhat Yes, i do think we ought to maximize well being (and i "gladly" endure mild suffering in order to achieve greater joy). And this stance could also be used to argue for maximizing the population. Also (regarding my other question) to seed new life in other planets hoping it would evolve into sentience (which i happen to approve). I honestly cannot say even whether the amount of suffering in aeons past justifies the pleasure we experience in the present. I'm inclined to say yes (but i find myself respecting the negative stance). I appreciate so much my existence that i want there to be more of it. And if i could make it avoid suffering, that would be great, but even if it suffers, i still want more sentient life. What if the answer to this question depends on one's personal level of depression?

Brett Wise

@brettwise · Web Developer

@petersinger What is the biggest idea or issue that you once strongly held but have since changed you mind on?

5 share tweet・a year ago

@petersinger

@brettwise There are two big ones: are there objective ethical truths? (I used to think no, now I think that there are); and what is the most defensible form of utilitarianism? (I used to think that we ought to maximize the satisfaction of preferences, now I'm a hedonistic utilitarian, ie I think that we ought to maximize pleasure or happiness and minimize pain or suffering.

Brett Wise

@brettwise · Web Developer

Follow up @petersinger: how did you come to change your mind on objective ethical truths?

Tobelli

@dieethik · Tobelli

The Blue-Whale-Question: If we accept the premise of the ethical guideline of creating as less suffering as possible and the fact that growing crops and vegetables is a procedure which kills animals (rodents and deer are killed by machines and/or pesticides), wouldn’t the best food choice be to sacrifice Blue-Whales for the immense amount of protein/sentienbeing they do provide? If we take into account that using one Blue-Whale would kill only one sentient being (since Blue-Whale eat plankton) whereas to produce the equivalent amount of protein through e.g. beans would kill many more sentient beings, Blue-Whale-Meat would be the best ethical-utilitarian food choice. Would it not?

4 share tweet・2 years ago

@lardhat

@dieethik I've always thought of this. It's a great question. For people who think all sentient beings are worth the same, killing blue whales should be very ethical, since they kill billions of bugs that form the krill.

@petersinger

@dieethik I don't think the crucial factor is the number of beings killed, but the amount of suffering caused. There is no painless way to kill a blue whale -- I think that a mouse unfortunate enough to get crushed by a tractor would die much more quickly.

@lardhat

@petersinger @dieethik I agree with paying attention to the amount of suffering caused (the objection that we don't have the means to objectively determine the amount of suffering with absolute precision is moot, in my opinion). And i don't think krill is capable of much of that. I don't object to the eating of arthropods. I don't think it's worth it.

Tobelli

@dieethik · Tobelli

@petersinger @dieethik I respectfully disagree. Even though the death of the mouse (by crushing) might be less than the death of a whale, the correct comparison (for producing the same amount of calories) would be 1.000.000 crushed mice against one whale, and that in my opinion is way more suffering than on the mice part than what is caused by the killing of the whale. Also I was talking about the best food choice... This is actually a very practical ethical question. P.s. Thank you very much for answering , you changed my life!

Tobelli

@dieethik · Tobelli

@dieethik p.p.s You changed my life with your books not with your answer here... Thought I had to specify that in order to avoid misinterpretionts

💖

Andrew Ettinger

@andrewett · Product Marketing, Twitter (ex-PH)

What is the biggest difference you see between Princeton students and other (non-Ivy League) students you've worked with?

@petersinger

@andrewmettinger Everywhere I've worked there have been excellent students, bright and hardworking. At Princeton, though, that category takes up a larger proportion of the total student population.

@lardhat

Another question: What would your stance be in regards to seeding life in other planets and leaving it to evolve on their own? Would it be ethical to kickstart a process of evolution that could or would end up producing sentience, while inevitably producing suffering too?

@petersinger

@lardhat If I knew that intelligent life would develop, I'd be inclined to say yes.

@lardhat

@petersinger @lardhat Me also. And if it didn't, then it wouldn't be unethical. I believe intelligence and sentience are very related (and there could be some term to unify both concepts), and they are linked to the capacity to experience suffering and pleasure. But i'm quite alone when i discuss this subject with other people interested in ethics. They say they would try to stop me if i tried to seed new life. Haha They think i would be some kind of villain.

Dami

@damiosinubi_ · Dami Osinubi

@petersinger @lardhat I am with my fellow IB students, who are currently studying your book, 'The life you can save' and this surprises us, seeing as this would surely be expensive, and the funds could be used to save the poor

@petersinger

@damiosinubi_ @lardhat I wasn't assuming that it would be expensive. In fact I wasn't considering the question as raising a choice between different priorities, just as asking, more abstractly, whether it would be a good thing to do if one could do it.

@lardhat

@petersinger @lardhat Yes, it was an abstract question. Let's make it free of cost, for the sake of argument.

Danny Sensocentrismo

@medinatfm · Sensocentrismo, papá.

I Understand that there's a ethically big diference between a worm and a cow, but ¿how can we measure that? ¿what ethically is consciousness more important, and why?

@petersinger

@medinatfm We can't measure it, as yet. Maybe one day we will be able to. At the moment we can only form rough estimates, based on what we can observe.

@lardhat

@petersinger @medinatfm We can actually measure sentience, in a way, by observing behavior. The amount of options a brain is capable of producing in some circumstance amounts to its sentience. And suffering is directly related to it. In a way, the only things that suffer are our options. "I'm thirsty. But water is far away, and i'm also tired." Whatever i choose, the other option (the other interest) will suffer. The more the options a nervous system is capable of producing, the more its sentience. The less options, the more automatic, the less it can suffer. And worms are pretty automatic creatures. We have, in fact, made robots with the same level of sentience than a nematode worm, by copying its nervous system. Should we be ethically worried for such robots? No, not yet. They'er still quite far from being ethically important. But then so are worms.

Emily Hodgins

@ems_hodge · Community and Marketing, Product Hunt

@petersinger Thanks for joining us today. During your career to date, what is the best piece of advice you've ever been given? Flip side - what's the worst?

@petersinger

@ems_hodge Probably the best came from one of my philosophy professors - to write as clearly and as simply as possible. That's certainly helped me to reach a wide audience. I'm having trouble thinking of any really bad advice I've had!

⭐️

Ben Tossell

@bentossell · Community Lead, Product Hunt

@petersinger Hey! What does your writing process look like? How do you go from idea, to words to publish?

@petersinger

@bentossell I start with a question that seems to me both interesting and important, and I try to formulate my thoughts about it. Once I have some ideas, I start writing, and I find that the process of writing helps me to formulate my ideas, make them more precise, and -- sometimes -- leads me to change them.