What does /lit/ think of Singer
>>8032721
He's kind of a tool and his model of morality is one where it is impossible to be a good person. Of course it's utilitarian and egalitarian minded so it's wrongheaded from the outset, but the conclusion is fundamentally one that no human being could abide by.
I mean this man's moral calculus is as follows: Your son is drowning in a lake. You're on your way to donate $100 to a family with 3 African babies. The African babies will die if you delay your donation at all Therefore you should let your son drown because 3 lives are more valuable than 1. If you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that any given human life is more or less equally valuable (controlling for disability of course, which is why cripples hate Singer since he's in favor of euthanizing people who fall below his idea of a utility curve), you've kind of missed the point of the entire human experience.
He quite literally says this shit. And on top of that he spends thousands of dollars visiting his invalid mother in Australia. When pressed on that he admits that he is a terrible person. So even the originator of a mode of morality cannot bring himself to operate under it.
>>8032793
I think his system that he created is quite interesting though.
Though every moral system i have come across until now was flawed in some way, i think he has come closer to one that could be, if presented differently, quite good.
But being a hypocrite isn't the way to go, i must admit that.
>>8032721
Great philosopher, great public intellectual.
Of course, he does have pretty extreme views, but it's not as if he doesn't argue for them and hasn't thought about obvious objections like
>>8032793 's
The main line, I think, is that he thinks we can give a debunking explanation of partial but not impartial moral intuitions, undermining the strongest evidence in favor of rejecting utilitarianism.
But anyways, I think he's more important for his work that doesn't assume and doesn't argue for utilitarianism. Try "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" or Practical Ethics. Or if your not up for that, maybe one of his popular books, like Animal Liberation or the Life You Can Save.
>>8032793
That all sounds reasonable, non-impartial moral intuitions are the deceptive handiwork if evolution.
It's not surprising that mere humans lack the will for morality, one day we will replace humanity with utility maximisers, and the world will be as it should.
>>8032822
The Point of View of the Universe is great at defending utilitarianism against common-sense morality, and egoism.
>>8032835
So basically you're in favor of the AI extermination of the human race?
But even then let's keep in mind that human genealogy carries on through any AI we create. Just as God made man his ape, man will make AI his machine. Our biases, savagery, cruelty and other nasty traits will carry on in any machine we make which is capable of usurping our place in the world.
Utility implies a value. Things do not have inherent value, all value is created through perception. Values may be placed on a rational or irrational basis, but the key is that values are placed, values are naturally artificial. We agents acting in the universe create values, which by association with us, parts of the universe, become parts of the universe, but only parts. There is not an identifiable whole of the truth out there, for even in perception of this truth humans necessarily have to distort it in order to fit our perception.
>>8032840
The very title of this work reveals its fundamental flaw: The universe has no point of view, it has no capability of perception and if it does, again, it has no capability to communicate its perceptions to humans WITHOUT humans distorting its perception in the process of detecting it. If the universe cannot perceive, it cannot place value upon things.
He actually might be the worst philosopher to have ever lived.
>>8032939
>to have ever
typical anglo "philosopher"
>>8032721
on the spectrum
>What does /lit/ think of Singer
I think he's alright. Definitely more suited to the short story. His novels never really 'wowed' me like some of his shorter fiction did.
>>8033119
Trolling? Or not reading the thread?
Talking about Peter Singer, the
philosopher
>>8032931
>The very title of this work reveals its fundamental flaw...
Much of the book is defending the idea behind the phrase (which comes from Sidgwick) from this very kind of criticism. Maybe you should actually look at it. Or maybe just read the description on Amazon?
>Things do not have inherent value, all value is created through perception
Got an argument for that?
Also, don't see how this view is in a better position to dispute the claim that it could be right for AI to exterminate humans or us to favor such an outcome (if that's what they or we perceive to be most valuable).
>>8033119
What did you think of Enemies: A Love Story?
>>8032721
The only rights you have are the rights you can enforce
I heard an anecdote where he was at a friends house for dinner. The owners dog met him at the door and he pet it. The owner then said, "Wow Pete you must really love animals".
He replied "Not particularly, I just want to reduce suffering".
