Fascinating stuff. I honestly can't think of a way for Singer to argue the point, beyond retreating to overfishing. And he seemed a little tetchy for the rest of the interview. A really interesting BHTV episode, though.

this is just a repeat of an argument that's been around for awhile - cowen assumes that we know enough about animal experience to claim that our killing them is better than them dying in the wild without our intervention. it seems like the burden is on him to prove this, not singer to refute it, as cowen is the one arguing that it's permissible to kill animals for personal pleasure.

i would also argue that cowen's challenge to singer's utilitarianism is half-baked. utilitarianism is much more complex than economists make it out to be, and often includes principles like "if i don't know that this wouldn't cause more harm, and there's very little for me ot gain from it, then i might want to refrain from doing it." cowen's version assumes perfect knowledge, completely equal preference validity, and other things that few utilitarians accept.

I can't watch this. Cowen isn't dumb, but he and his annoy me, and Singer lost me forever when he ever-so-carefully drew his bright line so he could eat oysters. Delicious, delicious oysters.

Me, I'll get exercised about the morality of vegetarianism when human beings learn to photosynthesize. Until then, this is all head-of-a-pin hooey.

i prefer if deer all die of starvation a bullet is to quick of a death for those marauding bastards

Erin, a utilitarian could also probably bring up factory fish-farming, and also the fact that suffocating (the fate for the majority of fish) is worse than a quick death via chomping. An alternative interesting discussion: perhaps the set of "natural" deaths for fish is worse than the set of "fishing" deaths. In that case, wouldn't a utilitarian's marginal analysis demand that we fish? Indeed, if we're looking at individuals, shouldn't a utilitarian concerned about wild fish support overfishing to drive them to extinction, so individual fish won't have to suffer whatever horrible death usually awaits them?

wcw, I'm not sure what you mean by thinking it becomes relevant when humans photosynthesize. Unless it's that tired old argument that vegetarians are exactly the same as omnivores, except they're killing plants instead!

I will worry about eating fish as soon as no one goes hungry in this country.

(or I need an excuse to get out of a contractual obligation)

I know Singer's an Aussie, but whenever he spoke I kept thinking, "Yeah, but what does Bret think?"

wcw, in later editions of Animal Liberation he rethinks the mullusk exception and decides, on a kind of utilitarian precautionary principle (we don't know they don't feel pain and it's easy to avoid eating them).

It's okay to eat fish 'cause they don't have any feelings.

it's not about feelings
it is the law of fluffy and cute

Thanks so much for posting this. Very, very interesting stuff. Singer's really not utilitarian as he claims to be, is Cowen's point ... and he's right. Singer is smiling to himself in a way that seems to suggest he feels the strength of Cowen's point. Love it.

As much as I'd love to think otherwise, anyone who thinks the world is a better place with them eating a fish than a vegan option is rationalizing.

PS -- Singer's life is not dealing with philosophers and debating on that level, but rather dealing with the public. If his answers are public-ready / public-friendly, that doesn't mean that, fundamentally, he isn't a utilitarian.

One can make micro level moral assessments on a Utilitarian premise. It follows strongly, therefore, that Singer's argument against consuming the flesh of fish to satisfy our palates when alternative options are abundant does produce a net negative effect given that by definition any suffering that occurs in the process is unnecessary and therefore outweighs the benefit of gastronomical pleasure.

Singer isn't moralizing here; it's logical.

Consequential moral reasoning implies reasonable assessments of the situation as it confronts us. Cowen needs to assume that his version of Nature is true which shifts the onus to him to prove this positive claim.

Singer can reasonable deduce -- without making any such assumptions -- a prohibition on eating flesh because it merely satisfies our palates, which much be considered less significant than the fishes interest in not suffering and dying when considered in an equitable moral assessment.