Americans think they're the leader of the world and yet can say that they're putting their economic interests ahead of the lives of - quite possibly - tens of millions of people who over the next 50 years will die because of floods or storms or tropical diseases or whatever. I guess that sort of thing makes me angry.
Interpretation
This quote critiques the prioritization of economic interests over human lives in global leadership.
Peter Singer expresses frustration over the tendency of American leaders to prioritize economic gains over the well-being of people worldwide, particularly in the face of climate change and its devastating impacts. He emphasizes the ethical implications of such decisions, highlighting that the consequences will be fatal for many in the future due to environmental disasters and diseases, which he sees as morally unacceptable.
In practice
During a speech on climate change, I could use this quote to highlight the moral responsibilities of leaders.
The belief that the animals exist because God created them - and that he created them so we can better meet our needs - is contrary to our scientific understanding of evolution and, of course, to the fossil record, which shows the existence of non-human primates and other animals millions of years before there were any human beings at all.
Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. How bad a pain is depends on how intense it is and how long it lasts, but pain of the same intensity and duration are equally bad, whether felt by humans or animals.
What is faith? If you believe something because you have evidence for it, or rational argument, that is not faith. So faith seems to be believing something despite the absence of evidence or rational argument for it.
Almost everybody accepts that some people can be killed. 'The concept of 'brain death' - the belief that people on respirators can legitimately be killed - shows that.
If we all think only of our own interests, we are headed for collective disaster - just look at what we are doing to our planet's climate.
Even in the era of AIDS, sex raises no unique moral issues at all. Decisions about sex may involve considerations about honesty, concern for others, prudence, and so on, but there is nothing special about sex in this respect, for the same could be said of decisions about driving a car. (In fact, the moral issues raised by driving a car, both from an environmental and from a safety point of view, are much more serious than those raised by sex.)
Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful.
I ask the fundamental question of rationality: Why do you believe what you believe? What do you think you know and how do you think you know it?
Here in Britain, black people are disproportionately targeted, arrested and imprisoned for drug offences, while organised and violent crime are granted a massive source of revenue.
No one is free, even the birds are chained to the sky.
Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds - and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe.
In the morning, when the nothing vase casts a something shadow, like the memory of someone you've lost, what can you say about that?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.