大 家 好， 歡 迎 收 看 哲 學， 我 是 今 集 的 主 持 朱 銘 好 來 沒 見 了 我 們 之 後 是 這 樣， 希
望 大 家 多 多 支 持 啦。 我 們 都 終 於 決 定 要 從 啟 這 個 系 列 呢， 就
因 為 今 天 我 們 實 在 邀 請 了 一 位 非 常 重 量 的 嘉 賓， 就 不 得 不 呢， 今 天 一 定 要 跑
一 拍， 跟 大 家 聽 一 下 等 大 家。 重 拾 這 個 這 個 節 目 的 熱 情。
重 量 級 嘉 賓， 之 前 呢， 我 就 好 快 介 紹 我 們 今 天 一 起 的 主 持， 我 就 有 這 邊 的 青 南
啦， 好 feel 到 是 非 常 的 緊 張 欸， 大 家 記 得 有 這 邊 的 MK 啦。
錄 MK 老 師 麥 奇。 Hi I am man key yes。
幾 10 秒 就 是 這 一 集 最 後 講 廣 東 話 的 時 間 啦， 因 為 我 們 嘉 賓 是 不 是 講 廣 東 話 的
重 量 級 嘉 賓 是 非 常 的 榮 幸， 因 為 其 實 我 們 在 不 同 的 集 數 或 者 我 們 的 片 裡 面 都
提 及 到 不 少 次 這 個 名 字 的。 感 冒 在 加 班 就 是 Peter so today we
have A really， really， truly special guest professor， singer
and then professor singer， I think。
Our audience know you already because we have mentioned your
name， your philosophy many， many time in different episode。
So IT is A truly pressure honor to have you here。
So professor singer is like one of the most influential living
philosophy of our day， so you make many major voices on
different issues regarding like utilitarian and like animal
ethics， bio ethics and also effective algorithm。
So this is our true owner to have you here。
Thank you so much。 Thank you G man。
It's my pleasure to be here。 Yeah， Thank you。
So what A milestone for US。 Okay？
So we are so loving。 So last before we go， deep into
utility and philosophy， Maybe we can begin with some weather
personal story。 We want to know more about your
personal journey to philosophy and also you to the terrorism。
So may I ask， what is your motivation or your starting
point of studying philosophy when and Why？
In philosophy。 Well， I didn't know much about
philosophy when I was applying to go to University。
Philosophy was not taught in high schools in Australia at
that time。 So there's A little bit that I
knew about IT。 I got from the boyfriend of my
sister。 I had A sister older than me and
he had done some philosophy and somehow that we talked about IT。
I'd also read Burton Russell's history of western philosophy，
which was really the only philosophy book that I'd read，
but IT seemed interesting。 I'd always been interested in A
good argument and I was planning to study law because lawyers
have to be good at arguing。 Money， and you can make A
living。 From IT？
That's right。 And so when I went， I applied
for law。 I was accepted to study law， but
I went to see A counselor who looked at my results for my
final year of high school and he said， you know， you've done well
in A number of humanity subjects you might consider combining the
law degree with A Bachelor arts degree， which you can do。
IT doesn't take IT takes one or two years longer depending。
How long？ Whether you're doing honors arts
degree or just an ordinary one。 And so I said， yeah， that sounds
interesting。 I'm happy to do that。
So what would I study in the arts degree？
I'd done history at school and like that， so I said I'll do
history， but then I wanted to do something else as well。
So I decided to try the first year of philosophy course and I
enjoyed that and I did well in IT。
So I went on with philosophy and I became more interested in the
philosophy than in the law subjects， which I was studying
at the same time。 So there was A point at which
I'd finished the philosophy degree。
And got A first class on as result in IT， but I hadn't
finished the law degree so I went to the law skill and and
said in A philosophy is encouraging me to go on and do A
master's degree in philosophy。 Can I postpone finishing the law
degree？ And they said， sure， no problem
you can postpone for。 Postpone or cancel at。
The time IT was postponed because you just said I can earn
some money as A lawyer and I didn't know I could earn some
money as A philosopher。 And in fact， my father really
dated that。 I well， something also not。
My father said， you know， philosopher， how can you make A
living as A philosopher？ But I did the master's degree。
I got A scholarship to go to Oxford。
I did the graduate degree。 By that time， I was interested
in A career in philosophy and I never finished A law degree。
You know， there are many different kind of philosophical
question like metaphysic， like philosophy of my philosophy of
language， and some are more practical。
FX， which in which you are specialties。
So my question is， are you concerned that about moral
philosophy since you start doing philosophy or you are more like
interested in all kind of philosophies instead？
I was interested in the whole area philosophy at first。
But when IT came to thinking about？
Maybe I'm going to spend my life doing this。
I didn't think that I could really feel good spending my
life asking questions like， How do I know that I'm not dreaming
now， right？ That didn't seem A very real
concern。 IT was sort of an intellectual
puzzle how I might know that。 But that and other questions of
that kind。 They seemed A little bit too
remote from ordinary life， and I like the idea that in ethics you
can talk about issues that other people do talk about and
hopefully you can add to the quality of the discussion by
having some philosophy background。
So that's Why by the final years of my philosophy。
I was more interested in ethics and political philosophy than I
was in metaphysics or epistomology or logic。
But do you have A expectation that you want to make A real
influence in the Real World while doing philosophy？
When you start interested in effhics？
Perhaps not at first， but gradually， as I've done some
more ethics。 And also the other thing that I
should say is I'm an undergraduate。
In the nineteen sixties， IT was A decade of new student
movements。 There was the war in Vietnam。
Australia was an ally of the United States。
We actually had troops in Vietnam fighting alongside the
United States。 IT was possible that I was going
to be conscripted to fight in Vietnam。
That was A possibility given the age that I was， so I was
interested in that issue and there was A lot of discussion in
the universities about。 Is。
This A just war。 What are the criteria for A just
war？ And there was also the civil
rights movement in America which spread to Australia as well。
So that was another question with， you know， moral issues
that were being raised by students and students were
talking about Why aren't our courses more relevant to this，
right？ Why， for Example， in ethics are
we only analyzing the meanings of moral Words and asking
whether their objective or subjective or emotive？
Why aren't we asking？ These questions like， what are
the criteria for A war to be？ Just what is the basis of human
equality？ So I did think because of that
time at which I was studying that， yeah， ethics might have
something to do that's relevant to to our lives。
And triggered IT by the social environment， the atmosphere so
that you are more interested in ethics， which is more Down to FM
relevant to the Real World。 Right， I think IT was probably A
combination of my own temperament。
And also what was going on at the time in social movements。
In talking about ethics， I think you are one of the most famous
utilitarian in the world， so may I ask further， when and Why you
start to be A utilitarian？ Well， the first ethics course
that I took was taught by。 A professor called HJ McCloskey。
He's probably not heard of much today， but he was an
intuitionist along the lines of WD Ross， so he thought。
The right view of morality is that we intuit A number of
primer faci duties like the duty of。
Not nying， not killing something like that？
Yeah。 Not lying that's right，
veracity， gratitude。 If someone did something good to
you， you had A duty to be grateful and to return the favor
if the opportunity arose。 Reparation if you hound somebody
you had A duty to make IT up to them。
Beneficent so there was A duty of doing good， but IT was only
one among several duties and non maleficence not harming people
was another so and he actually was。
I think the author of one of the at least at that time famous
objections to utilitarianism。 The objection was based on the
assumption that you are the Sheriff in A southern。
Town at this time， the South was quite racist still。
And in this town， A white woman says she's been raped by A black
man and there's A mob of people who've gone out with guns and
they've rounded up half A dozen black men and they're now about
to Lynch them。 All as A sort of warning to the
black community and so these six people are going to be。
Killed， what can you do as Sheriff？
Well， you can't stop them entirely from doing this， but if
you say I've got evidence that this one is The One who did IT，
then they will Lynch that one and let the others go， and
McCloskey said。 Well， A utilitarian would have
to do that。 A utilitarian would have to say，
make false evidence， try to forge the evidence to show that
one man was guilty。 So that only one person would
die rather than six， so it's kind of A version of the trolley
problem， as you can see， and McCloskey thought that this was
A knock Down objection to utilitarianism because obviously
A Sheriff should not invent evidence。
The Sheriff should be， should be honest and do their role。
Even if that meant that more people died and I was not
convinced by that， I thought， Gee， you know， if there's really
Nothing the Sheriff can do to stop six people being。
Lynched， at least five of whom are innocent。
Except by telling A lie。 Well， that's what he should do
so， so I thought， well， that's not A knockdown。
Objection to utilitarianism。 What are the other objections
that some people think are knocked Down objections？
and I started looking at the literature and I didn't think
any of the objections were really convincing。
So then I began to think， well， Maybe there is something in this
theory。 Okay， so it's like the classic
scape goal objection to utilitarianism。
I personally don't find IT locked Down argument， but at
least I will recognize some appealing appeal of the
arguments， so you never share our Intuition that the Sheriff
shouldn't make up the evidence and kill one bad guy。
You never have that intuation。 I never。
Had that Intuition as an overriding Intuition。
Okay， I did have。 I could understand the sort of
the attraction of the view that， you know， there's something bad
about。 Our government official， A law
official in particular forging the evidence。
I could see that often that might lead to very bad things
happening， but II never thought that。
That Intuition is just so powerful。
That。 That's the end of。
Utilitarianism that utilitarianism must be wrong。
Actually want to ask how？ Do you start your journey into
animal effects？ Because we can discuss utotarism
in the next session， so I'm interested。
For anywhere effects。 But I want to talk about his
personal journey。 My personal journey to animal
ethics， okay？ So that happened some years
later because what I was just talking about was in the second
year of my University degree。 That would have been sixty five。
I completed the Bachelor of Arts degree。
I completed the master's degree。 I got A scholarship to go to
Oxford。 I went to Oxford in nineteen
sixty nine and in nineteen seventy。
I was in A class about freedom and responsibility taught by
Jonathan Glover。 I don't know if you've mentioned
Jonathan lover in this program， but he's A philosopher who。
I really liked his his work and some of the things that he did
were looking at。 Applied ethics is one of the
early people to do that， he wrote A book called causing
death and saving lives， which I think was really one of the very
good early books in in ethics。 But this particular class that I
was attending was on free will and responsibility。
All right， you know the argument well， if determinism is true，
there are no， there's no moral responsibility because
Everything we do is determine。 And then there was A fairly
small class， so plenty of time for discussion and in one of the
classes I asked the question， I can't know， remember what the
question was about， but IT started some threat of
discussion。 And after the class was over， A
Canadian student who was in the class， who I'd seen but never
talked to came up to me and said， what did you think of
lovers？ Answer to your view？
and I said， well， I didn't really think that he fully
answered my objection， and Richard said this was his。
Turn。 Out his name was Richard kashen。
Richard said， yeah， I think you may be right about that。
Would you like to come and talk about this over lunch？
So as Oxford students， we had A college to go to where we ate
lunch and I went to baileyola college with Richard。
And at that time， when you came in for lunch， there was one hot
dish on the only alternative of the hot dish was A cold salad
plate。 So Richard。
Looked at the hot dish， which was spaghetti with A kind of
brand source on top of IT and he said， is there meat in that
source？ And he was told there was so he
took the salad plate。 And I noticed that because IT
was， you know， I was wondering what his problem was with me。
There were no vegetarians who I knew， you know， nobody that I
had met in my entire undergraduate studies， I think
or my first year at Oxford was A vegetarian， IT just didn't
happen really， and except perhaps for an Indian who was
vegetarian for Hindu sort of reasons。
So we finished the discussion about free will and
responsibility， and then I said， so Why did you ask about the
meat？ You know， don't you eat meat
white or if？ If so， you know Why not？
And Richard said something pretty simple， like I don't
think it's right to treat animals the way they get treated
to be turned into meat。 And I said， well， you know
what's so wrong with IT？ Don't they。
You know， they're out in the fields， they're grazing， they
don't have any predators。 Yes， I know they get trucked to
slaughter and killed， but that's only one bad day。
And what seems A reasonably good life to me。
And he said， no， you're wrong。 A lot of these animals that were
eating。 Horrible life。
Yeah， they have horrible lives， they're inside， they don't get
to go outside at all or they don't。
They don't get to go on on grass。
They're very closely confined。 And you know， it's all just
directed at producing the meat as cheaply as possible。
I was A bit surprised because I really didn't know that。
And Richard referred me to A book， the only book that was
around about factory farming was called animal machines written
by Ruth Harrison， and IT was A pioneering study of what was
happening to farming， and IT quoted extensively from farming
magazines， so IT wasn't just her personal opinion。
SHE backed IT up by showing。 That this is what the official
advice to farmers or the。 Commercial production advice to
farmers was how to treat their animals how many chickens you
can fit into A cage for egg laying hens how many？
How densely you can pack the pigs into A shed？
and I was surprised， pretty shocked。
Yeah， I think shocked is the right word。
Do I？ When I first look at the
documentary about factory farm？ Right， yeah， yeah， well， I
didn't know any documentaries then， but there were some photos
in the book too actually， and they were pretty powerful。
So you first become A utility and then become A vegan。
Do you find IT is electoral development from your
victoritarian principle to I think？
IT， I think IT was to some extent。
So when I started think， you know， after looking at Ruth
Harrison's book， I started thinking about， well， is there
perhaps something that still justifies US in treating animals
in this way？ And I looked at various riders
who did justify treating animals。
They went very many actually， who even addressed the issue。
But there were some， you know， Thomas Aquinas said， well， God
has given US Dominion over the animals。
Okay， well， I was not religious。 I was an atheist by this time。
That wasn't going to persuade me across。
Famously， descart said the animals are autometer than feel
anything that was completely。 Uncenlausible I。
Thought can't said we don't have duties to animals because
they're not self conscious beings， but but。
I thought， well， surely they're suffering matters even， you
know， even if they're not self aware， so these all seem like
excuses to going on to， to eating meat。
And yes， and from utilitarianism IT flowed and in fact the early
utilitarians did say that， you know， if animals feel pain and
suffering。 That that counts in some way so，
so I think the fact that I was A utilitarian made IT much easier
for me to say， oh， this is wrong， we shouldn't be doing
this then if I had been A County or something， you might have
thought， well， you know， the greater manual County thinks
it's because they're not self conscious。
Maybe there's something in。 That days many content to argue
for the vegan position as well from the understanding of
morality。 Yeah。
Yes， well， I certainly argue the factory farming is wrong and
yes， it's been good to see。 Like Christine， coastguard。
Opposed factory farming and where we treat animals and
Martha nustburn from the aristotilian perspective，
absolutely so， so it's different now， very different。
But not only now there's A big philosophical literature on
animal ethics， but there really wasn't anything at the time。
There was you have to go back A long way。
There'd been A big gap， you know？
If you went back to the late nineteenth century。
There was A work by A man called Henry salt， who was not A
academic philosopher。 But sort of I guess， A general
social reformer would be the best way to describe him。
He wrote。 A book called animals writes in
relation to social progress， in which he said that you know
animals should have rights。 Basically， he said， if humans
have rights， animals should have rights to。
So there was some early work but and you can go right back to
plutak and Roman times and porphrey。
Helenistic Greek philosopher， they wrote about abstaining from
flesh but， but there wasn't anything very much recently at
that time。 Thank you。
So I think we're just about out of time for this segment。
So in the Lex segment in section， we will go deep into
the idea of dutyarianism。 So see you next section。
的 節 目 好 沒 有 提 啊。 好 好 看 啊 媽。
媽 昨 天 的 節 目 免 費 的 喔， 知 不 知 道 我 們 要 做 點 什 麼？
咧， 我 不 知 道， 爸 爸。 如 果 你 不 知 道 我 說 你 知 啊， 我 們 不 如 家
有 Patriot 委 員， 每 個 月 小 小 的 月 灰 就 可 以 支 持 更 加 美 門 的 節 目 啦。
哇， 台 灣 的 火 車 去 買 國 好， 感 覺 偶 裝 打 多 的 極 啦。
OK so， welcome back to our program so we have just A
excellent discussion with your personal journey to philosophy，
vegetarian and veganism。 So in this section we would like
to go deep into the idea of utility， although I think most
of our audience already heard of IT and have certain therefore
understanding of IT that which you might to explain the basic
idea of the mall theory of utilitarianism？
Absolutely。 It's very straightforward。
Utilitarianism is A consequentialist theory。
That means it's A theory that says the right action is The One
that has the best consequences。 What？
Is specific about utilitarianism is that by best consequences， IT
essentially is talking about。 About well about。
Happiness and its opposite suffering those are the relevant
consequences that make an action good， at least for the classical
version of utilitarianism。 There are somewhat other
interpretations of what our well consistent。
So IT might consist in the satisfaction of our preferences
according to some views， preferences or our desires， but
you can think of IT as the view that the right action is The One
that does the most to improve well being for all of those
affected by our actions。 Okay， thanks。
So today we're going to try to challenge the idea of
utilitarianism， although you find all of them are not really
compelling so that you Stay in the camera of detailitarianism。
So in this section we would like to like discuss one or two of
them which is really famous。 So yeah。
People often say vegetarianism is too demanding for them。
I have two examples， one for cheap field action， another for
live choice。 I would call IT first of all，
let's say today I want to achieve myself and buy A couple
of bubble tea， all right？ And then all right， I feel good
about that。 But eitarian may。
Say that I was doing something more。
Why？ because I could say off the
money and give IT to the charity and probably probably IT end up
saving A life。 So actually buying A couple
bubble tea is actually the wrong thing to do so。
But for common people， they would say， wow， that's too
demanding， so that's my trip field action Example， I have
another which is I think。 More significant accurate
because for many of US， we have so many so called live projects
for each of US， right for you to be A philosopher， to be A public
intellectual， right， but。 Let's say let me given
hypothetical Example， right？ Linda wants to change her job
from working as A high earning banker to let's say to A
charity。 Officer officer， receiving only
A humble income， right？ So normally we would think that
or that's respectable actually， right？
Reflect your own values， you try to be good instead of greedy
banker， something like that， but we may place her but for
unititarian they may say， wait， wait A minute， SHE could do
something wrong because if you change her job well， actually he
could Keep the high paying job instead of changing her job
because when he。 Continues to work as A banker he
could， he could actually donate A big chunk of her income
toaturity again instead of。 And actually， IT could end up
saving A lot of lots more people than。
Working directly in tractable organization so again for
utitarianism。 Should have A wrong life choice，
but for most of US it's fine。 It's respectable。
So again， these two examples may show that user is actually too
demanding for common people。 OK， thanks for the examples。
Let's let's take them in turn。 You said that instead of buying
the bubble T， you could donate your charity and save A life。
I don't know where you'll buy your bubble tea， but give well
estimates。 IT takes four thousand five
hundred US dollars to save A life by providing mosquito Nets
for people who are otherwise at risk of getting bitten by
mosquitoes and dying。 So your bubble tea is not going
to make A lot of difference。 Of course， if you saved up， if
you never bought bubble tea and you saved up for A couple of
years， what what you might spend on bubble tea then Maybe you
could save A life and Maybe A utility would say that would be
A Better thing to do。 That's true。
So let's ask， is that claim too demanding well？
IT may just be it is I mean yes to say you shouldn't spend money
on any little indulgences like bubble tea or you know， other
larger items like you shouldn't upgrade your phone when the new
iPhone comes out， you should donate that and that's A more
substantial sum。 So it's true that that's AA very
demanding ethic。 Now there's A few things to say
about that。 IT might be that， given the
world we're in in which you can afford to spend some money on
bubble tea and perhaps you can afford to upgrade your phone
whenever the new one comes out。 Whereas other people in this
world are living on the equivalent of two dollars
fifteen US per day， so less than A thousand US dollars per year。
And they may not be able to satisfy their basic needs for
adequate food shelter。 They may not be able to educate
their Children， so perhaps it's just the fact that the world is
so unequal。 And also， of course， that we now
have the ability to transfer some resources from the wealthy
nations to the poorer nations， and we have organizations that
can effectively do that and can help people in those poor
nations can。 Save their lives， restore their
site。 Perform other basic necessary
operations help them to start A business。
Maybe it's just that fact about the world， which means that
ethics has changed because now we have the opportunity to help
strangers at A great distance， which for most of our
evolutionary history we never had。
So IT strikes US as very demanding。
But that's just the objective situation we're in， so that's
one thing I'd say about that。 Another thing I would say is。
Utilitarianism utilitarians are not unrealistic about human
nature。 All right， we do have an ethic
which says you should do what has the best consequences， but
we recognize that there are very few Saints in the world。
You're probably not A Saint， so， you know， we're not going to
really come Down very hard on you for your bubble tea。
Because we're going to say， well， you know what？
What do you do for people in poverty， right？
Maybe， Maybe you already giving something quite significant to
help people。 Maybe you're giving more than
most people give， but you still have enough to have your bubble
tea and enjoy IT。 So I think utilitarians would
say， look， that's fine as long as you're giving something
reasonably significant。 And perhaps if you become
wealthier， you're going to give more。
Then you're doing something to help people in need。
You're perhaps also contributing to raising the standard of
giving in your community because Maybe other people in your
community give less than you do。 So then we're going to say， you
know， it's。 It's great that you're giving
something。 I hope that eventually you'll be
able to give more， but it's A good thing。
So what I'm doing here is I'm separating the question of。
Are you doing exactly？ What utilitarianism would say
you ought to do， which the answer is no。
And I'm separating that question from the question。
Should you be blamed for what you're doing？
And for the for utilitarians the question， who should you， who
should you blame and who should you prayers？
Is。 Also A question that you answer
by utilitarian principles， so you should blame people when
it's useful to blame them when IT will lead to good
consequences and you should praise them when IT will be
useful to praise them。 So let's say。
You're giving， I don't know， ten percent of your income to
charities， but that still leaves you enough with to buy your
bubble tea。 Then you're certainly going to
get prize because most people in your community。
And at your wealth level， don't give ten percent， we'll assume。
So that's Why I think you can accept the idea。
Yes， it's A demanding ethic。 If you were to follow IT in
every respect but not following IT in every respect is something
that we have to live with and we have to live with the fact that
most people are going to be like that。
OK， so then you had the Example of Linda， who's the banker
earning A lot of money。 And。
SHE wants to do something that perhaps SHE thinks is going to
be more interesting for her。 SHE wants to go and work for
charity。 It's not clear。
That utilitarianism will say that she's wrong in doing that，
IT will really depend A lot on the circumstances， so。
One question is， as A banker？ Is SHE giving A lot to charity？
How much is SHE giving to？ Is SHE giving to effective
charities if SHE is？ That's good， but also how badly
does the charity need somebody with her talents to work for
them？ And how effective is the
charity？ Some charities are highly
effective。 I found it an organization
called the life you can save， which recommends about twenty
something。 Really effective charities
helping people in poverty but to get to those twenty？
We had to winnow through A much larger number of ones that are
not very effective， but let's say that Linda has actually
chosen one of the really effective charities and that SHE
has the skills to make that charity even more effective。
Then。 It's quite possible that SHE
will do more good working for that charity。
Than。 SHE would working as A banker，
even if SHE had then quite A lot of money to give because Maybe
the bottleneck with A char。 Is not that IT can't raise
funds， but that IT doesn't have the talented staff to work for
IT。 That's possible。
But it's also。 Possible that the decision
should go the other way。 IT could be that SHE has no
particular skills that will help the charity。
But she's able to earn A lot as A banker and she's able to
resist the temptation to live in the same。
High expense lifestyle as other bankers at her level you know
who want to have the latest sports car or live in very flash
penth apartments？ So。
Yeah， SHE， IT could be that the best thing for her to do is to
continue to work as A banker if SHE really hates being A banker，
she's probably not going to be very successful at IT。
You know？ That would be unusual and then
Maybe it's Better for IT to do what SHE really would enjoy
doing and she'll probably work harder at that and do more good
that way。 But IT is going to depend very
much on the circumstances and once again， if she's working for
the charity and doing good， we're not really going to blame
her by saying， Oh yes， but you could have done even more good
as A banker by don't own any salary because。
We recognize that people want to do not only the most good but
also something that they find intrinsically interesting to
pursue。 Can I add on A follow up
correction because your response， like distinguishing
the Bing worth it's and the question of right and wrong。
So my follow up question is like， do you also distinguish
machine so called positive and negative duty？
Because。 For most of most of US，
according to our Intuition， we， we have to duty of not hurting，
not killing people， not producing suffering， but many
people feel like they do not have the duty of maximizing the
happiness in the world， right？ So， do you find the two or they
are just to。 The same so as A utilitarian。
I don't see an intrinsic distinction between。
The positive and the negative duties we put that as you know，
the things that you do and the things that you refrain from
doing or Amit doing。 You need to look at the
consequences in both cases。 So， you know， you might be
saying， you know， somebody might say， let's go back to Linda。
SHE was earning A lot as A banker。
SHE could have given IT away， but let's assume SHE didn't。
So by A mission Children died of malaria who would not have died
if SHE had donated to the against malaria Foundation and
the Children had been sleeping under bed Nets。
Now does that mean that SHE was under A duty to give？
Well， I would say yes， is IT the same as the duty not to go and
murder these Children？ Well， you know， not exactly。
Even though the Children are dead both ways， I guess whether
they die from malaria or die from being moted， but obviously，
you know， to make the effort to go and murder somebody makes you
A different type of person from A person who says， oh， you know，
yes， I've got lots of money， but I want to go to some of these
high brand luxury brand products I want to carry around。
This very expensive handbag， so all of my friends can see how
wealthy I am。 You know， that's。
That's A failing， I think， but it's not the same as actually
going to kill someone， so I think that's Why we would
distinguish what we say to the agent again， you know， whether
we condemn them for what they're doing or not， whether we praise
them。 We the the distinction。
You're asking about between positive and negative duties
might well be relevant to how we assess the agent， but not
relevant to how we assess the action。
And I wanted to follow up on the idea of， like， the distinction
between plain worthiness and whether the action is right or
wrong。 So I think at least in my from
my Intuition， I will tend to connect like the idea of playing
wealthiness to the idea of super arocation。
It's like if some action is super arrogatory。
And you do it or not， you're not rain worthy。
Whether you're doing IT or not。 So if under the utilitarian
account， so not you're like Lynda， Maybe perhaps SHE stayed
to be A banker。 Is utility maximizing， but SHE
switched jobs to like charity or some other jobs。
We will feel like。 I'm not sure how to say IT about
this， like， because on one hand， like she's not doing the right
action， according to utilitarian standard。
But on the other hand， because。 I will tend to think utilitarian
doesn't have the resources to distinguish between obligatory
and super arrogatory， so IT seems like if the Lynda case
she's like， we shouldn't blame her for switching her job to
some jobs that less utility maximizing。
So I'm not sure how to like continue the question。
It's just like we shouldn't blame her。
But she's not doing the right thing。
It's not even。 Like， yeah， because she's wrong，
and she's。 Paying birthy yeah， so you're
right。 The utilitarian does not have
this separate category of supererogatory actions because
you always ought to do what to the best of your knowledge will
will lead to the most good or another way of putting IT is to
say you always ought to do the action with the highest expected
value where expected value is the value of each outcome。
Multiplied by the probability of achieving that goal， so。
We wouldn't talk about supererogatory， but again， we
might talk about。 Whether Linda has done more than
you can expect of people or as much as one could expect of
people in these circumstances or whether she's done something
that falls below the standard of what people in her community and
culture might do。 And IT sounds like in this case
that the community would recognize。
That it's important to people have A job that interests them
intrinsically。 You're not really going to blame
somebody for changing jobs， even if they can do slightly less
good， as long as if they're still trying to do some good，
you know， and。 SHE is going to be working for
charity。 After all， she'll Maybe do less
good than A banker， but。 It's not like she's stopped，
stopped doing good at all。 She's still trying to do
something to help people。 In greater need than SHE is。
So again， I that's。 That's how I would draw that
distinction。 I would just say you're not
going to blame if what she's doing， but it's not because。
Of the distinction between what's obligatory and what's
subaruerogatory。 So can I describe your view as A
lessening of the classical utilitarianisms requirement？
Because usually， as we normally understand IT， classical
utilitarianism holds that an action is right， even only if IT
is like happiness or utility maximizing。
So what you said seems to be。 Like。
And actually this right is not because IT doesn't need to be
utility maximizing。 But Peter didn't said that IT is
not wrong。 It's still wrong。
No。 Yeah。
Don't want to bring her。 Maybe it's counter effective
because from the iterative perspective you bring Linda， you
won't make him make me curb doing more good。
So IT isn't contradict to IT。 To the classic utility
principal， it's still wrong because it's not in the center
is not maximizing the good， but we just don't want to bring her。
That's correct， it's not。 It's still not the right action。
But it's， there's not。 There's no justification for
blaming here unless blaming here is going to like to do some
good。 Yeah， so， so I think in this
section we have discussed on one of the most common objection to
demanding to the utility， and in the next segment we will
continue to talk about different objections to utilitarianism。
通 常 透 氣， 讓 你 無 孔 都 可 以 附 近。 均 遊 地 包 趕 你， 每 一 船 寄 庫。
腳 起 來 補 助 你 一 樣 除 了 各 種 T shirt， 還 有 外 套 tollback。
書 本 等 各 款 投 毒 式 的 產 品 除 了 香 港 本 地， 而 且 可 以 海 外 游 扣 天。
大 家 快 點 上 途 讀 失 望 店 選 購 啦。 Okay， welcome back to our show。
So in the last segment we have discussed the two demanding
objection in this section we were going to discuss。
A objection particular to the classical utilitarian， which is
the anti hindulistic idea， so introduced the objection to US。
Yes because like for classical utilitarians like the only thing
that has intrinsability， the only intrinsic value so say is
happiness or pleasure， so IT strikes many people as。
ERT because it's。 Too narrow too。
Narrow， because apparently there are A lot of things other than
pleasure or happiness understand， understood in this
way to be like variable， for Example， we value friendship， we
value beauty， we value truth and the reason Why we value those
things are not because， like they brings US happiness like
you can imagine， like writing A poem， the process of writing may
be payingful and。 Like， although after finishing A
poem， the poet may feel like happy pleasure。
Please but。 We can assume that in A lot of
cases， the pleasure that the poet gains is not enough to
offset the suffering he had during the process of writing。
I think like writing A philosophy paper may be the
same， at least for me。 I'm sorry you suffer when you
ride philosophy。 You were Happier。
Not even pressure gain only paying。
Like mom Instrumental like get A great finisher， call etcetera。
But yeah， that's one cases and we can Maybe we can further
assume in those cases that like those readers of the program may
not like their happiness from reading the poem may not be
enough to offset like the paying the suffering he has。
During。 The process it's also related
to。 A very old objection against
usitarian classical eitarians， like。
Philosopher would say， ban them， which is A classical utarian，
all right back in。 Eighteen centuries。
Late in thirty nineteen？ Yeah。
Even older than that， all right？ They call his usitarian， some
classical usitarian， some philosophy of pig， right？
IT recommends A live to be pleasurable， rather than。
Rather than studying philosophy， or。
Too perceive of。 Beauty things like virtue beauty
is it's not relevant。 What's relevant is only
pleasure。 Yeah， yes， so some people find
this like unsatisfactory at least like we have A lot。
Of even for some classical like JS mu yeah， we find this kind of
objection， philosophy or kind of reasonable and so。
He tried to distinguished the quality of pressure。
He distinguished higher and lower pleasures， yes。
I don't think you can really do that and remain A hiddenist。
I think that was A mistake that mill made。
I think he was too conservative to eager to conform to the views
of his contemporaries。 People like Thomas Carlisle， who
I think use this philosophy of swine objection。
And he he didn't want to seem to be anti intellectual。
I think Benton was much more honest， you know， Benton had
this famous saying regarding your poet。
He said pushpin is as good as poetry。
Pushpin was A game that you played in pubs in England rather
simple game， but I think the the full quotation is quantities of
pleasure being equal。 Pushpin is as good as poetry
now， of course that's。 That's A caveat， which means you
know， Maybe quantity is A pleasure in the long Run are not
going to be equal Maybe。 Pushpin will get boring if you
Keep playing IT every Friday night in the pub and eventually
you want something more varied， you know？
And poetry may bring you some greater pleasures so， but
bentham's view would be， IT is whatever gives you greater
pleasure。 So Bentham， I think is A true
hedanist mill。 I think says that he's A
hedonist， but。 Actually doesn't stick to IT
when IT comes to the crunch。 Very few time。
I first hurt of meal being A too conservative because most。
Town people will praise him as A radical。
They had to change the convention。
Well in some respective course。 That's true and his great work
on the subjection of women was A very radical and progressive
work for the time。 But I think he really， you know，
well， I can tell you IT。 Wasn't quite the right term， but
conform wanting to conform to the intellectual Melia of his
day。 I agree with saying。
Visionary enough， is IT the right time？
Not。 Revisionary enough， yes， that's
right， yeah。 I believe IT because as I， as
far as I know， jsmal actually even at some point defend
colonalism， right， so。 He worked for the India Office。
He was actually， he felt most of his working life。
When compare IT to A ban from， he's much more， I think。
Benton was more more revisionary in your term。
Yeah， more already so。 What about the question， do you
the question？ Yes， do you think it's too
narrow set off the question。 It's interesting。
Value。 Yeah， this objections succeed。
Or how can utilitarian accommodate such objections
like。 Well， the utilitarian。
Will disagree with what the hedonistic utilitarian at least
we'll disagree with what you said about these other things
being intrinsically good， you know， utilitarians will
generally say yes， you。 Know truth is good。
What were your other examples？ Friendship， friendship is good
beauty。 But。
They will say。 They good because they
contribute to happiness and I would say， you know， happiness
in the broadest sense。 And that's the problem with the
philosophy of pigs objection， right？
For humans anyway， there are more ways to get pleasure than
wallowing in the mud。 And I suppose more ways to get
pleasure than having sex， which is another pleasure that
presumably pigs have as well， but we also get pleasure for
intellectual pursuits from。 I would think A poet would
normally get pleasure from creating A poem that really
works， that is A poem of high quality。
Friendship is， I think， essential to A happy human life。
You。 Know we we are social mammals。
I think there's very few humans who couldn't really live and be
happy with that loving and caring relationships with other
humans。 So I think friendship has great
value， but again I think it's Instrumental value。
Beauty is an interesting Example because GE more at one stage
made the objection to hedonism that he asked the reader to
imagine two possible worlds， one of them the most beautiful world
you can imagine。 You know， I guess you can think
of。 Gorgeous mountains and lakes and
spectacular views and the other， he says， I think just one heap
of filth。 I don't quite know what he was
imagining is filth， but anyway， you know very。
Yeah， I guess you could think of IT as A Run Down building site
or something like that。 I don't know， and Mills and
sorry more said， even if there was nobody to appreciate the
beauty of one or to be dismayed by the ugliness of the other，
it's still Better that the beautiful world should exist
than that the ugly world should exist， and that just doesn't
strike me as true at all， right？ I think beauty is only A value
if there are beings who can appreciate the beauty。
And ugliness only matters if they're being so you can
appreciate。 Or not appreciate that's the
wrong word who are repelled by the uglyness。
It's just have A follow up question， does IT mean like， if
let's say II would be poet and considering rather write A poem，
although？ 嗯， I would say just job your
career。 OK， yes， that's the question I
want to ask you because we。 There， you've got the iPad
there， start scribbling some poetry。
IT feels like when I considering where to write A poem or whether
I become A poet， like I have to calculate the expected values of
like the happiness I can bring US about of being A poet， and if
I don't find IT worthy like expected value is much lower
than I do something else。 It's sort of like kind of
connected to the Linda Example we've talked about last session，
but it's more about personal choice now。
We are not like trying to do good to others。
But it's trying to be A utilitarian。
IT doesn't mean that we like just as the Linda case we need
to like。 Just drop poetry and do
something else， perhaps be A banker ETC。
I think IT。 Would dependent how strong your
desire to do poetry is， you know， if if you have this
creative urge and you think I could be A poet and right
worthwhile poems。 Maybe it's worth giving IT A
try， right？ I don't know that I would
abandon your lucrative career as A banker and that might be A bit
risky， but you could try writing poems over the weekend or
something and see whether you have some talent for writing
poetry。 And if you did， Maybe you would
eventually hope to move in in that direction。
So it's， and I don't think it's A matter of trying to calculate。
It's too hard， you know？ If you've never really written
poetry， but you have the thought that you could， IT would be too
hard to calculate whether you could be。
A great poet who would write wonderful poems， so I think
probably。 To some extent， we would say if
it's really making you unhappy that you're not getting time to
write poems and you want to write poems， then sure， you
know， take A vacation from your job。
Try writing some poems， see how IT works at and when you know
how good you are。 As A poet， you'll be in A Better
position to estimate whether perhaps you can contribute more
to human well being by writing poems that you can as A banker，
it's possible。 But， but you won't know Until
You know how good you are。 So so can I can I further ask，
so do you think it's really the case that Everything will be
Instrumental value？ In order to get happiness so you
can really disrect the intrinsic value of the value we normally
think they are intenseically valuable like the presumpture，
for Example。 So puts up truth like the
mathematician in living in the alphary tower remote from the
world。 Just want to provide some proof
for some formula。 At the end of the day， they
pursuit of mathematical truth will not make any difference in
the Real World。 So we will just say that so they
are doing something meaningless。 You say？
That someone would feel offend that by comment， but。
Maybe， but the question？ Comments are right， okay？
And so， I mean， I think there were some there have。
Been some mathematical truths that at the time they were
discovered and people pursued them。
One might have said that's completely pointless， you know？
Yes， you've proved something， but it's irrelevant won't make
any difference to anyone's life。 And then later on， somebody has
come along with some applied problem and actually that
mathematical truth proved to be essential for for an application
which was greatly beneficial。 I can't think of examples at the
moment， but I believe there are some such examples， so IT may be
that it's worthwhile having people with great mathematical
minds prove some things because some somewhere Down the line IT
IT may become valuable and important。
But if not。 Then yeah， I'm going to say，
look。 We have this sense of things
having intrinsic value， and Sometimes Maybe。
It's A good。 Thing， Maybe， you know， go back
to the Sheriff case。 Maybe it's A good thing that we
have this Intuition。 That it's wrong for an officer
of the law to fake evidence。 And it's good that we have that
Intuition because otherwise too many law officers will be faking
things just because you know， they think， oh， I know this
guy's A bad person， but I can't really PIN the crime on him， but
I'll fake something up and then we can lock him away for A few
years and we don't want。 Police or prosecutors to be
doing that so some。 It's it's A good。
Thing that we may believe that these things are intrinsic
value， but Maybe they're not。 And this of course， does pose an
interesting issue for utilitarians， because if IT is
good that we believe some things are intrinsic value like justice
or truth or whatever。 And here I am on this podcast
now telling your viewers that it's not， Maybe I shouldn't be
doing this right？ Maybe。
I government houses comes again。 That's right。
That's what Bernard Williams called。
He he objected to sidgwick， who I think is actually the greatest
of the utilitarian philosophers we've talked about Bentham， and
we've talked about mill。 I think Henry sedwick is A much
Better philosopher than either bent them or meal， not perhaps
as creative and you know， wide wide interest has Bentham and
didn't write A great essay on Liberty like mildid。
Or on the position of women， but you know A very careful，
accurate velocity， systematic philosopher。
That's right， and he did talk explicitly about this idea of
esoteric morality。 That is the idea that Sometimes
IT might be right on utilitarian grounds。
Not to say publicly what we know is the right thing to do， and
Bernard Williams calling this famous phrase government has
morality thinking of the Europeans in their white painted
government has building somewhere in the colonies
telling， saying， well really？ We ought to do this because
it'll be for the benefit of US and the British Empire， but we
won't tell the natives what we're doing。
And even if they're really objectively thinking it's the
best for Everybody， including for the local people， we don't
want to really tell them because they won't be。
Able to understand IT， you know they're not as sophisticated in
intellectuals like we are， and they won't be able to understand
IT。 So yes， I mean， there can be an
abusive as esetary morality， but。
I have defended Cedric on this in the book the point of view of
the universe， which I coauthored with catagina de lazarik， A
Polish philosopher。 and I think I think you， it's
actually hard to deny that Sometimes that is the right
position to to do well。 One thing that's different，
though， is that sidwick made this statement in A five hundred
page work of philosophy， which very few。
People were going to read or the people who were going to read，
we're going to be people who would appreciate the point， you
know？ Now we talk about in the podcast
and I'm sure your audience is also very sophisticated， but you
know， we we do have wider audiences than Cedric ever did，
and so that there's A bit more of A paradox in talking about
these things。 Put IT in this way， so Why we
believe that pursuit of truth perceability is intensically
valuable because at the end is consequently beneficial？
Better that we should believe。 That we have to make them to
believe that they are intrinsically valuable， but
actually they are not。 Is IT okay？
Okay。 So should I continue on another
projection on the hidden system？ Like， which is the very well
known experienced machine objection that's just like， use
A couple of minutes。 No one minute to explain to the
I will do that。 So like suppose there is an
experience simulating machine which can simulate any
experience you would like to have so you can simulate like
whatever you find pleasant。 Okay， whatever you make you
happy and it's interesting that this machine has A special
feature which is。 When people get into the
machine， they forget that they are in the machine， that what
they are experiencing is not real。
So we chainnam and like standing in front of the machine，
confronting A choice now whether to get into the machine for the
rest of my life， like if I get into the machine or of all
Everything I want to have。 Will， I can experience IT like
Maybe I want to be A well known philosophers。
I make contributions like to philosophy， Maybe just as like
Peter， yeah， and definitely in the Real World， let's assume I
hope it's not the case that I won't be able to do that and I
won't like the utility or the happiness that I can bring
about。 By staying in the Real World is
not as high as the utility I can bring about when I decide to go
into the machine。 So in this case， utilitarianism
seems will say that yes， like chingdam used to go into the
machine because it's the best outcome we can have for the
well， okay and but it's A bit。 Surprising because we normally
will think like， oh， that's not real， you're just having
experience without really having those achievements like you。
You are in the machine。 You have your experience like to
become A very famous philosopher， but you're not
really A very famous philosopher like。
IT seems like this suggestion suggests what is really
important。 What is really valuable is not
the pleasure， not the experience， but the achievement
itself。 So that constitute an objection
to utilitarianism。 Yes， IT does。
IT is an objection specifically to hedonistic utilitarianism。
I think because with preference utilitarianism， you can say，
well， it's my preference is to be living in the Real World and
to know that I'm living in the Real World。
I don't think I also don't think it's A knockdown。
Objection to hedanism。 There's A number of reasons why
I say that， but let me just take up one thing in in your Example，
you were suggesting that the pleasure that you would get by
going into the machine would be greater than the pleasure or the
suffering you can relieve， not only for you， but for Everybody
in the Real World， right？ Because if not， then A
utilitarian will say， well， it's wrong to get in the machine
because you're just an egoistic hedonist。
You're just thinking of yourself， if you get in the
machine， whereas if you don't。 The machine， you're A universal
hedonist， which is what utilitarians are， that is you
want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for everyone。
Yeah， yeah， yeah， I think actually we can try sort of
universalizing the Example like this time， the choice is not
just I whether I myself go into the machine， but whether we
should build the machine， assume that's affordable， right in
affordable course so that everyone can enter into the
machine just like matrix movies like everyone in the machine
like so that like。 Everyone can experience like the
happy experience that there is no suffering anymore in the in
the world。 How about？
Animal suffering so all the animals go into the machine as
well and really just just， you know， imagine that they're
eating the wonderful food or something， or。
Yeah， we can， or if not at least， like if all people get
into those machines like we can relieve A lot of animal
suffering right now。 Well， I guess， at least at least
the humans will stop inflicting the immense amount of suffering
that they're now inflicting animals， yes， but of course
there is also animal suffering in nature， which we're not
relieving， but then we're not relieving IT at the moment
anyway。 Maybe One Day we could。
Yeah， so。 I think I'm still going to bite
the bullet and say if in fact， the machine is like this and if
IT can produce more pleasure for Everybody and less pain and
suffering for Everybody。 That would be A good thing to do
to go into the machine， and this is also something that lazar
erratic and I discuss in the point of view of the universe，
and we cite there the suggestion that IT may be that the reason
that we're reluctant to go in the machine is status quo bias。
So psychologists have demonstrated that we are biased
towards maintaining the situation we're in now， unless
of course it's really intolerable， but in general
we're biased。 Maintaining the situation now
rather than moving to A different situation， which we're
not familiar with， even if sort of the prospects of that
situation are moving the changes positive and there's somebody
called Felix de brigad who did A study to try and test that， and
he asked two different questions， one is， you know， you
describe the experience machine as you just described IT， and
you ask people， would you go into the experience machine or
not？ And。
Most of them say no and then you ask them A different question，
you say， as IT happens， you are now in the experience machine，
and you know， like in the matrix you have this， you can wake up
and you have this moment。 You can take the red or the Blue
pill， and if you take one of those pills， you'll go back into
the experience machine。 And if you take the other pill，
you'll wake up and you'll no longer be in the experience
machine， right？ And so the life that you know
that you thought was the Real World， but it's actually part of
the experience machine， you know， the people that you love
and care for。 The the job that you have all of
those things where you live。 May completely change when you
leave the experience machine， would you leave IT？
And that does significantly affect the number of people who
reject the experience machine。 Because now that you tell people
that the life they're having is the experience machine， more of
them are willing to Stay， you know， whether it's more more
than half is another question of the study。
Didn't have A really big sample， but I've asked that question A
couple of times。 I asked IT in in Beijing，
actually， in one of the talks that I gave， and there was
definitely A significant increase in The Show of hands
when when you asked the question the second time。
So， so I think the response is like， Why people refuse
intuitive to go into the machine？
Not because you know， this Hinduism is wrong just because
they have the tendency or bias toward settical codes。
So I think this is one of the response to the experiment
machine from the point of view of A hinder。
Yes， so I think this segment come to the end， so we have
discussed。 The objection and respond about
hindulistic utility。 So in the Lex segment， we will
continue our philosophical discussion。
Kelvin pouna 喂， 你 們 這 一 段 廣 告， 好 煩 喔。
Calvin 明 白 的 不 中 意。 囉。
Time 去 囉， 你 會 不 斷 地 見 到 我 的 by the way， 因 為 我 們 又 沒 有 budget， 又
沒 講 過 這 段 就 我 們 唯 一 的 廣 告 Kelvin， 我 們 一 個 的 建 議 給 你 不 中 意
的 買 了 我 們 這 段。 時 間 去。
得 不 得。 我 不 OK。
Welcome back to our show。 So last section we discussed
that the idea whether happiness or pressure is the only thing
that intrinsically matter to US。 So in the lock segment we will
move to another objection， another dimension or implication
of deteritarian， which concern human rights and animal right
so？ With manki introduce the
objection to US all。 Right， let's start with human
rights。 For Example， all right now。
There are A lot of place in the world fighting walls， right？
So， but let's say let's say we are writing A just war， all
right？ Just， for Example， right？
And we capture some factors from the other side， and normally we
would say that they got their human rights as well， so that we
should torture that we shouldn't torture the capture soldiers and
but from。 An uitarian point of view，
actually， there may be lots of reasons for doing that， because
if you torture A soldier from the other side fighting and
unjust war， then you could deter。
Other soldiers from fighting the unjust war， and IT could
actually。 IT may actually bring an end to
the world， because when especially when they want our
soldier but normally all right， normally we would say that in
order to retain our humanity or in order to just avoid。
Committing world crime we should respect their rights as well。
We should not。 We should never torture。
The soldier， even though they are actually fighting from the
other side。 So I think the objection is like
there are A lot of hypothetical or actual scenario in which you
torture or violate the human rate， but by doing that you can
maximize the happiness so you bring about the best consequence
like the Tory problems so you can push the fat man off the
bridge and then。 Make IT as A roblog to save the
five people， all those cases pointing to the same innovation，
which is human being。 We got more right and morat
tissue respect our Mor right and we shouldn't be treated as A
means。 We are A being with dignity。
So what do you think about this？ Well， I think it's very good
that we have conventions about protecting rights and preventing
war crimes， I think。 It's been hard work to try to
get conventions between nations which establish some rules of
war and rule out certain things as crimes。
and I think that is probably saved an immense amount of
suffering。 So I would not likely discard
those， but I。 Can。
Certainly again， imagine at least hypothetical circumstances
in which you would do more good。 The problem is though，
especially in A war situation， you've always got to think if if
you start torturing your captive， you know prisoners of
war， then the other side is going to do that to to your
soldiers as well。 So I think you don't want to do
something that will create A breakdown in those
circumstances。 For me， the more plausible
hypothetical about torture is the the terrorist who has
planted the nuclear bomb in A big city。
And the only way you can get him to tell you where the bomb is is
by torturing him， and if you don't torture him， then the bomb
will go off in A few hours and you can't evacuate the city such
A big city in that time。 So perhaps millions of people
will die， so I don't think these human rights are absolute and in
those imaginary circumstances anyway。
I would say we justified in violating them， but I would not
really want to just regard the conventions of human rights as
as something that's meaningless or that we can lightly push
aside。 Again， it's like the government
of utilitarian， so we have to tell the people we have to
respect the right。 Yes， we should certainly tell
the officers。 I mean， look， we saw we saw this
very plainly in Iraq， right when the US was revealed that the US
were torturing prisoners in Abu grave， the the prison that they
set up。 And and you know， there was no
real evidence that incredibly valuable information was coming
out。 I think when you get prisoners
and you get prison guards who are in power over them，
Sometimes those prison guards have A sadistic streak， or they
like to just， you know， harm these people， they start to see
them as subhuman， and I think that's， that's A terrible thing
and IT will happen。 IT definitely will happen if we
don't have。 Strict rules against torture，
which？ You。
Would only want to violate if you were absolutely sure that
this was the only way to prevent some real disaster。
So what about the fat man version of the Tory problem？
Because the fat man will be A Better candidate because he's
innocent compared with the terrorist or the soldier might
be being Murphy。 So will you also say that okay，
we can。 We should push him off the
bridge to save the five people。 This case I would， and it's
interesting， I think that， you know， there's two versions of
the trolley problem。 There's the version where you're
standing by A switch and the only way to save the five is to
throw the switch and the trolley will Run Down the side branch
line and kill one。 And most people think that's。
Okay， you should throw the Switcher， at least it's
permissible to throw the switch。 And yet the the fat man case is
just the same， except that instead of throwing A switch，
you have to actually push him off this bridge and。
And Josh green， who started our his career in philosophy but
then became A。 Professor of psychology。
Has done research that suggests that we have this intuitive
response to hands on violence and that's an evolved response
because for， you know， hundreds of thousands of years we could
harm other people by this hands on violence。
And so we evolved this response to say no， that's bad， whereas
we didn't have the possibility of killing people by throwing A
switch that's very recent， and so that isn't an involved
response。 And I think that's A plausible
explanation for。 What's otherwise rather puzzling
Why people are prepared to say yes， it's permissible to throw
the switch， but no， it's not permissible to push the the
heavy person off the bridge。 You try to explain your way？
The I explained， yeah， because I'm not。
I'm not really moved by these intuitions。
I think there are many people are too prone to accept the
instinctive reactions and those instinctive reactions Maybe
evolved responses like this one that are no longer。
Really applicable to the present world， or they may be result of
culture or religion or early education。
I don't think they're very reliable guide to what we really
ought to do。 So if we。
To the issue of animal effects。 Do you think human being in
general should be given any special more status or more
right compared with the animal because they're just sent him
being like US？ Well， let me put IT this way。
If you think that all human beings irrespective of their
capacities， have rights。 That no non animals have。
I think it's very difficult to justify that because after all，
there are some non human animals whose capacities to talk or to
reason。 To be self aware to be A moral
agent。 Superior of those of some human
beings who infants， for Example， none of US had those capacities
when we were infants， Maybe people with profound
intellectual disabilities， but the idea that all of these
humans are somehow morally superior in status。
To any non animal， whether it's A chimpanzee or an elephant or A
dog or A pig， or A chicken or A fish。
I don't see， you know， that just seems to me speciesism。
IT just seems to be doing the same as what racious do when
they say yes， all white people have A status that is superior
to that of all black people。 And， you know， people actually
did think that in when， during the time of the slavery， they
seem to think that so I think we're doing something similar
between species。 I want to follow up A question
regarding like human rights and animal rights， because。
Like I'm not sure is your point of view is seems like we can
have human rights as fiction， A useful fiction， A uitarian rice
for Ordinary People。 But what about animal rights？
Because I think， like more theoretically sensitive people
may sense A difference between advocating annual rights and
just advocating animal welfare。 So some people may say， like
animals don't。 I'm not sure what they will say
about A human case。 Maybe human rights is like， it's
not really there too， but there is no animal rice。
What we care about is actually annual welfare so that when we
can be sure that healing this chicken and eat IT will not
cause like immense suffering or to the extent that we like the
pleasure we have by eating them， being outweighed by the
suffering inflicted in that case， no right for the chicken，
so we。 Just cue IT in eighty eight just
like that。 So if your response to human
rights as A fiction is A good one， so isn't IT like we can say
the same thing about animal rice？
We actually A utilitarian should advocate annual rise and not
just animal welfare。 So， I mean， I don't， as we've
been saying， I think that rights are A useful convention
Sometimes， but I don't ground my ethics on the idea of rights
and。 And when IT comes to animals
again， I don't grant my view about the moral status of
animals on this notion of rights I granted on the principle of
equal consideration of similar interests， which I think is。
A utilitarian principle， you give the same way to pain to as
in one person as you give to pain in another person and you
give the same way to pain in A non human animal as you give to
A similar kind of pain in A in A human being。
Should we have A sort of fiction of animal rights？
I don't know。 I mean， I think it's。
It's probably less useful because it's just because it's
it's harder to convince people， at least at this stage that
there are rights。 Maybe at some point society will
change and we will want to talk about rights。
I did join something called the great A project which suggested
that we should attribute rights to life， Liberty and protection
from torture to great apes。 That was an attempt to sort of
make the argument again。 Why should all humans have these
rights？ But even our closest relatives，
the chimpanzees and gorillas and orangutangs， should not have
these rights very basic rights。 So I'm not in principal opposed
to the idea of declarations of rights for animals， but I Do
think there's this sort of simpler principle that people
can more easily understand。 And incidentally， in the case
you mentioned of the chicken。 Talking about equal
consideration of interest， I think it's easier to see。
That if you consider the interests of A chicken at all，
then particularly A factory farm chicken who's lived its entire
life in miserable， crowded conditions。
Has A much greater interest in not living that life at all。
Then you have in in the meal that you might get out of the
chicken。 But I want to make A follow up
question because I think at some point an animal rights。
Are forced to compare human rights to animal rights， for
Example， in some medical research we actually queue some
Maybe trampancy or Maybe some grid。
Probably not chimpanzees anymore， generally not used
other。 Kinds of memos。
Certainly other memos。 Yes， in order to well， do the
mechanical research in order to save more human lives。
And I have heard that you think at some point is acceptable， but
but that。 'S really offense animal rights
advocates because for them。 Well， if you， if it's not okay，
if it's not， if it's unacceptable for US to do this
kind of research on human。 Children， Why we should， Why we
could ever。 Do this thing to animals， do
this thing to those mammals that IT seems like for for them， or
Maybe simply another philosopher Tom Rick and， or especially as
yeah。 Yes， yes so Tom Regan was A was
A friend of mine， but we certainly differed on on this
point。 I mean， we were agreed on the
criticism of speciesism。 We agreed that the moral status
of animals is。 Should be much higher。
Than IT is in the world today。 But， but he was an absolute
abolitionist about animal experiments。
He thought animal experiments not justified， even if。
They， you know well to save lives， A large number of lives，
and it's just A small number of experiments。
He thought IT was wrong as A utilitarian。
I can't say that。 And I don't want to say that。
I think you can justify some experiments。
You try to minimize all the harm that you inflict on animals。
You use the smallest number that you can to get valid scientific
results。 You make their lives as
comfortable as possible outside the actual experiment， but if。
This experiment is going to save thousands or tens of thousands
of lives on A small number of animals。
Under those circumstances， I would have to say that that's。
A justifiable thing to do？ But do you think in this
circumstances IT really difficult to calculate the
expected value because。 We just like the person of
mathematical truth， they may be useful in the future， but the
experiment on long human animal you can。
It's really difficult to judge to calculate expected value。
So how can we decide whether we should do those things on the
red or other memos now？ I want to add like A concern
because some people may think that like the progress of
science like of research is proceeded just in this way
because， like in A lot of cases， if we are considering like
physics that we invest A lot of resources， money to do A lot of
experiments， I Maybe most of them are useless at the end。
But。 Just like our papers， and。
Of your article， but my be is very small portion of them。
But we just。 We only waste our time and the
effort of getting them published， but we don't inflict
suffering on。 Just on ourselves。
But yeah， but if， like physics is proceeded in this way and
that's the only path to A real breakthrough， so Why not like A
research on like medical experiment like like new
medicines？ For some， like previously
uncurable diseases can be proceeded in this way， so some
people may argue in this case。 It's the kind of like
calculating and the expect value， but at least IT justifies
some of our experiments， no matter how。
Inhumant IT is， IT seems to animals。
IT doesn't justify them， no matter how inhumane they seem，
unless somehow you just cannot do this work and make IT more
Humane， right？ Because always the question is。
Are you minimizing the suffering of the animal as far as
possible， compatible with getting useful results？
And generally speaking， I think that you know we don't make
serious efforts to minimize research。
In fact， you know， one of the papers that I gave one of the
talks I gave in the two of of China。
I talked about the fact that in China to obtain blood for
medical research。 There's A horrible procedure
called eye in nucleation， which is done on mice， and basically
you squeeze the eyeball out of The Mass that fully conscious
mass and take blood from behind IT and you more or less drain
The Mass of blood with The Mass then dies。
But it's not an Easter ties to do this and this is not done
elsewhere。 I presume it's not done in Hong
Kong， you know it's it's it's done in mainland China， as far
as I know， only there。 And there's just no effort，
really， to minimize the suffering of the animal that
goes on there。 So so this is the real problem
that that there isn't enough effort made to reduce the pain
and suffering of animals because they're just not candid
sufficiently in terms of their status。
So in， Speaking of reducing the suffering of the long human
animals， I have one last question， I'm curious about your
view about suffering in the natural world？
So you mentioned in our show and also Yesterday talk the
suffering of the wildlife in the lecture world。
So I read the paper from job laman in New York times。
He said that he as A utilitarian support the idea that we should
genetically。 Modify the wildlife into
something else which do not admit， so they turn the carnival
to the herbapho。 So what actually I make A video
in this on this YouTube channel years before to introduce the
article and all the comment on the video。
Fake Oh no talent are all crazy people。
So what do you think？ Should we also be deals？
The lecture suffering of the wild life？
Well， I mean， there's some natural suffering of wildlife
that we can reduce。 For Example， we can have bird
friendly glass so that birds don't crash into the Windows of
our buildings and kill themselves。
That's reducing wildlife suffering。
But I don't think that we can at present transform predators into
herbivores and and obviously the many people who value
biodiversity in the preservation of A natural ecology， and I
don't think the animal movement should get into A headlong
conflict with them when there's so much human inflicted in
suffering on animals， particularly in factory farming
that really we should deal with first。
The other point is that it's not only predators and carnivores
that cause suffering in nature， it's also the method of
reproduction that has evolved in many species of producing
hundreds or even thousands of offspring each year， of which on
average only two are going to survive to maturity because
otherwise the species would be multiplying hugely and the
others die， and many of them Maybe die from starvation or。
You know， they're tadpoles living in A pond that dries up
in the summer when there's no rain and they just die， so
nature is pretty cruel。 And。
Perhaps at some stage in the distant future， we'll find ways
of making IT less painful for animals， but as you say， that's
not A priority for me at present。
But you theoretical believe that the LTRO software is just
carrying the same more weight with the artificial suffering of
the long human。 Annual？
It's yes， it's。 Suffering， I mean， again，
there's no agent to blame for the suffering of nature。
Evolution is not an agent and we were not created by A divine
creator who said all this suffering in motion， whereas
there are agents to blame for the suffering of animals in
factory farms。 But the suffering itself is just
as bad， whether it's caused by A human or whether it's caused by
nature。 It's the degree of suffering
that matters， not because or how IT was caused。
Thank you。 So I think we come into the end
of today， so Thank you so much for sharing your view on
different kind of issue。 Like animal， we learn A lot and
I think on those if you Maybe we may agree or disagree， but I
think your work we might。 As one important thing is that
philosophy。 Abstract ideas， IT is really
relevant to our world。 To our live。
We can gain from your insight to rethink our more responsibility。
And how can we make the world A Better place to live？
So at the end， I know that Peter singer has also got A broadcast
right。 So would you mind to introduce
to our audience peter's broadcast？
Thank you very much。 Yes， I Do A podcast called lives
well lived。 I do it together with the。
Woman， I mentioned who's been Co。
A couple of my books kasha de lazari and you can find lives
well lived wherever you get your podcast， Spotify， Apple
podcasts， just Google IT and you'll find IT。
We've had A lot of really interesting guests that we've
interviewed people like youval harari， Jane Goodall， Daniel
carnaman。 Neil de grasse Tyson， if you're
interested in the universe and what he has to say about ethics，
we're talking about what IT is to live well and that's
obviously relevant to the questions about hedonism that
you've been asking me。 And also practical， I think so
it's。 It's A combination of of
philosophy， practical philosophy and different views from
different people relevant to how we live well。
Thank you so much， Peter， so it's A really honor today to
explore your view on different issues， so I feel excellent
today。 So I have done。
We have done our jobs， so let's Keep your eye on our show。
We will be continuing doing philosophy so see you next time。
Thank you Peter。 Thanks very much。
Thank you man frankong。 Thank you all。