Evidence receipt / commitment
Published · transcript-backedPeter Singer: commitment
7 Jun 2023 Conversations with Tyler Peter Singer on Utilitarianism, Influence, and Controversial Ideas
“I would say he became so committed to the idea that he had to show that morality is objective — that otherwise nihilism is true, nothing matters, and his whole life would be a waste — that that influenced his acceptance of arguments that otherwise he would not have accepted.”
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Peter Singer
- Attribution
- Verified speaker
- Claim type
- commitment
- Recorded
- 7 Jun 2023
- Publisher
- Conversations with Tyler
Transcript context
…It’s often interesting, but the whole thing, to me, seems a mess. The project is too hard. He’s not thinking marginally enough, and to make all of consequentialism, and maybe Kantianism, compatible — I just don’t think it can be done. I like the fact that you think the project is too hard and you started off by asking me about whether it was a good thing that humans settled North America. [laughs] I see the project as making a case for the idea that there are objective values, that things matter objectively, and I think it makes a significant contribution to that project, so I don’t think of it as a failure. There are some parts of it that may be a failure, maybe the attempt to reconcile the three series — a form of consequentialism, a form of Kantianism, and a form of contractualism — maybe that’s a failure. Certainly, the proponents of those other theories or nonconsequentialist theories don’t really approve of it. In fact, I don’t like the form of consequentialism that he ends up with as part of the triple theory, and I talked to him about that. The third volume, to some extent, grapples with that. I edited this collection of papers called Does Anything Really Matter? Originally, Parfit was going to reply to in the volume, but then his reply — characteristically for Parfit — grew so long that it had to be a third volume. That’s really why there’s a third volume. I think that there are problems with what he says about consequentialism, and he doesn’t really address act consequentialism. It’s rule consequentialism that he’s reconciling with the others. I don’t think he succeeds in producing reconciliation between the major ethical theories. I think that part of it is a failure. Why did he fail? I would say he became so committed to the idea that he had to show that morality is objective — that otherwise nihilism is true, nothing matters, and his whole life would be a waste — that that influenced his acceptance of arguments that otherwise he would not have accepted. Who’s an underrated philosopher that we should be reading more, talking about more, thinking about more?…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.