Hacker News Reader

The distinction between moral agent and moral subject is important here.

"moral agent" is someone whose actions are actions are eligible for moral consideration.

Non-human animals are usually considered "moral subjects" or *"moral patients". Moral agents must treat them well because they can suffer, but they don't have moral agency themselves. They can be purely amoral. Their acts can be horrible, but they don't have concepts of morally right or wrong.

In the middle-ages pigs were were tried and sentenced to death for murdering humans, but today attributing moral responsibility to non-moral agents is usually considered wrong. Within humans, insanity or young age can limit moral agency. Little children are moral subjects.

However Singer is proposing a thought experiment in which Dolphins exercise moral judgement. So he started it.

> [Dolphins] also routinely murder the infants of rivals.

Infanticide was very common in ancient times pre-Christianity:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

and is still somewhat accepted in modern many cultures if the child is a girl:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-ratio_imbalance_in_China

It also should be noted that Singer himself is not against it in many circumstances (though he doesn't view the entities involved as people, so it's not infanticide under his own definition):

> Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[61]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[62]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_in...

What many in the West think of as 'obvious' universal rights are in fact culturally contingent on Christianity.

I’m not arguing that dolphins are objectively or even relatively good or bad. I’m saying that ascribing them with assumed superior moral judgement is silly, especially given what we actually know about them.

> Infanticide was very common in ancient times pre-Christianity:

But christianity allows for infanticide. God himself did wipe out all the first born infant sons of egypt after all.

> What many in the West think of as 'obvious' universal rights are in fact culturally contingent on Christianity.

The racism, misogyny, slavery and genocide is also culturally contingent on Christianity as well.

"Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+15%3A2...

The "beauty" of the bible is that it is hundreds of pages long and gives christians the justification for all the evil and good in the world. It isn't an accident that the greatest acts of genocide in human history have been carried out by christians. Entire continents genocided, entire races enslaved, entire cities nuked. All by christians.

A religion, book, god, etc that orders you to murder children and infants cannot be a source of morality. If you think equality of sexes, races, etc are grounded in christianity then you do not know christianity. A religion that believes a woman was created from a man's rib and brought about his downfall is the basis of the universal rights?

Please note that Christianity is characterized by its emphasis on Jesus and the New Testament, in contrast to say Judaism. Feel free to criticize Christianity as well as other religions, but the criticism is more fruitful if based on actual practices or authorative texts such as the Catholic cathecism

Wikipedia:

> In 318, Constantine I considered infanticide a crime, and in 374, Valentinian I mandated the rearing of all children (exposing babies, especially girls, was still common). The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was homicide, and in 589, the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the custom of killing their own children.

> Please note that Christianity is characterized by its emphasis on Jesus and the New Testament, in contrast to say Judaism.

Also note that Jesus was jewish and he explicit said he came to uphold the old laws and prophets ( old testament ). And the bible contains both the old and the new testament for a reason.

> Feel free to criticize Christianity as well as other religions, but the criticism is more fruitful if based on actual practices or authorative texts such as the Catholic cathecism

I quoted the bible. What's more authoritative than that?

> In 318, Constantine I considered infanticide a crime

So constantine I should be credited, not catholicism?

> The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was homicide, and in 589, the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the custom of killing their own children.

So these christians went against the word of god? As I said, the bible and therefore christianity allows for infanticide. God himself commanded it. Obviously I believe infanticide is wrong. But to credit christianity with the banning of infanticide doesn't pass the smell test.

Also, it's hard to take anyone seriously when they claim the bible is not an authoritative christian text when it's the foundation of christianity.

> I’m disappointed he projects some sort of idealised aloof moral superiority on anything non human

Can you pinpoint where you got that impression? Note that it's not him that "chooses" dolphins, but it's the interviewer that asks him about what would it look like if we had an LLM that works with dolphins.

Fair enough, but he’s said stuff like this before and nobody twisted his arm.

> I’m disappointed he projects some sort of idealised aloof moral superiority on anything non human

I see no evidence in the podcast transcript of Singer making such a claim. What exactly are you basing your assertion on? Quote the transcript please.

He thinks dolphins would ask “ Why have you failed? Why have you failed to stop humans treating animals so badly?”

Dolphins are violent murderous rapey predators. What on Earth makes anyone think an intelligent dolphin would give a crap how humans treat animals in general? They’d be just as likely to try and make a deal with us to help us out with marine research, in exchange for helping them to genocide the males in another dolphin group so they can gang rape the females.

You quote part of a sentence about dolphins from the beginning of the transcript.

1. The context is Cowen posing a quirky, ice-breaker kind of question that entertain some counter-factual assumptions to get a conversation rolling. Not unusual in these kinds of pod conversations. The quirky setup and the laugh is evidence that strict realism about real world dolphins is not assumed by Singer and Cowen there. For example Cowen says "We explain to the dolphin that you’re Peter Singer, right?", but from Singer's other work it is clear that he doesn't think science into any dolphin so far has found cognitive capacity necessary to understand the concept of a well known academic moral philosopher who has written the kind of arguments Peter Singer is well known for. The best interpretation is that what is happening at the start of the conversation is merely a loose way to imagine and talk about an outside view on the harm humans do to other animals.

2. Setting 1 aside you ascribed a view about not just Dolphins but "anything non human" to Singer. What's your basis for that?

3. As for the "moral superiority" ascription, Singer imagining a dolphin asking him "Why have you failed to stop humans treating animals so badly?" doesn't imply that Singer thinks dolphins (in general, or that imagined kind) have "moral superiority". For one, real humans have already asked that question so the imaginary dolphin is at most on par, not superior, in asking it. Secondly a moral thinker (real human or imaginary dolphin) may be able to point out some moral problems or ask moral questions while at the same time be unable to refrain from harmful behaviour and unable to understand other moral problems, including those where they're themselves part of the problem. So nothing Singer says there implies that he thinks dolphins (real or imagined) are morally superior in the sense of never causing any harm or understanding all moral problems better than humans or anything like that.

> Given the right context of communication it’s a likely a group of dolphins would side with us to exterminate another group to take their territory and females, as condemn us for anything.

Uh... Okay. The Industrial Revolution to me is just like a story I know called "The Puppy Who Lost His Way." The world was changing, and the puppy was getting... bigger.

So, you see, the puppy was like industry. In that, they were both lost in the woods. And nobody, especially the little boy - "society" - knew where to find 'em. Except that the puppy was a dog. But the industry, my friends, that was a revolution.

Dolphins don’t read much, and aren’t likely to engage with a moral philosopher. So it should be no surprise that Singer reaches out to a more receptive human audience…

> as though humans are obviously morally inferior to any possible other species

maybe with great brains should come more responsibility/morality ?

Yes, absolutely. We must strive to do much better. I said as much in my comment. That doesn’t make his naive projection of child like innocence and purity on anything non human credible.

My takeaway from the article was that dolphins are presented as victims of humans, not necessarily as morally superior or having childlike innocence.

Anyway, a lot of philosophizing and debating extreme corner cases is just an excuse to avoid the elephant in the room. No amount of lions hunting zebras or dolphins practicing gang rape can be an excuse for the horrible way intelligent animals are treated today by humans considering themselves civilized and humane. Just as concern for the nutritional requirements of poor children in third world countries is not a free pass for wealthy westerners to consume large amounts of animal products themselves without much regard to environmental impact and animal welfare.

Do you have criticism against his more confident claim that factory farming is wrong? To him it seems like ultimately sentient animals (capable of feeling pain and suffering) are moral patients.

You can also see his perspective on dolphin gangbang in his discussion about reintroducing or controlling predator species (these seem to me to be morally similar situations); he is not very confident on such marginal cases.

I think he has a lot of good points on many such issues. I said as much above.

We don't even think all humans should be held responsible for their actions because they cannot understand the moral ramifications of their actions.

How would we go about doing it in a sane way for animals?