Famine, Affluence, and Morality | Peter Singer | Talks at Google

Talks at Google was honoured to host the esteemed philosopher Peter Singer to discuss his seminal work Famine, Affluence, and Morality and what it means to live a moral life in a grossly unequal world.
Recorded in London, June 2016
You can follow Peter on Twitter - @PeterSinger
Originally published in 1972, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is one of the most widely discussed essays in applied ethics. He argues that we have the same moral obligations to those living far away as we do to those close to us - choosing not to send life saving money to starving people on the other side of the world is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save a drowning child because we would prefer not to muddy our shoes. If we can help, we must - and any excuse is hypocrisy.
Peter Singer specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective - and few people are better placed to advise on what actions we ought to take to lead moral lives.
The book on Google Play:
play.google.com/store/books/d...
- - - - - - -
About the book:
In 1972, the young philosopher Peter Singer published "Famine, Affluence and Morality," which rapidly became one of the most widely discussed essays in applied ethics. Through this article, Singer presents his view that we have the same moral obligations to those far away as we do to those close to us. He argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we prefer not to muddy our shoes. If we can help, we must--and any excuse is hypocrisy. Singer's extreme stand on our moral obligations to others became a powerful call to arms and continues to challenge people's attitudes towards extreme poverty. Today, it remains a central touchstone for those who argue we should all help others more than we do.
As Bill and Melinda Gates observe in their foreword, in the age of today's global philanthropy, Singer's essay is as relevant now as it ever was. This edition collects the original article, two of Singer's more recent popular writings on our obligations to others around the world, and a new introduction by Singer that discusses his current thinking.
About the author
Peter Singer has been described as the world's most influential philosopher. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, Rethinking Life and Death, One World, The Life You Can Save, and The Point of View of the Universe. In 2014 the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him third on its list of Global Thought Leaders, and Time has ranked him among the world's 100 most influential people.
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

[@muddlersmovies2227]

I think the main problem is that morality is treated as something binary. I'd rather think of it as one end of a continuum. Morality could be thought of as altruism. So it provides a codex for how to treat other people (or "the community"). On the other end would be egoism -so how to take care of myself. Neither of both is good or evil in itself. It's all about balance. I care too less for myself - I die. I care too less for the community - the whole community might perish (likely including myself). And the whole discussion seems to ignore how ressources like food or money are generated in the first place: Through the work and effort of motivated individuals. So you've got to find the soft spot of "happy productivity" for each individual (which will surely differ!) combining it with a high moral standard that will ensure a healthy distribution of the generated ressources, so that the community as a whole may thrive. But few human beings are motivated to spend all their efforts just for the community. A significant amount of self-interest has always been the basis for many great achievements - and I don't see anything fundamentally "evil" in that.

[@kooshanjazayeri]

yes, as you pointed out the most important thing is balance, anything in excess would and can turn into a harmful thing. seeking self-interest can surely be very good in balance, most of the comments don't seem to take balance into account, they act as if the argument is to "give out everything you have" and then dismiss it. but i don't think morality is one of the ends of a spectrum, in my opinion morality is the balance itself, altruism taken too far is not really moral, just like it's not moral if a country give everything it has to another nation's poor (for the effects it will have on it's own citizens) it's not moral for a person to do so either.

[@volkoff6357]

The sad reality is that unless greed motivated narcissists are somehow eliminated from the gene pool, they will not allow the world to live in peace.

[@drake9634]

I was reading this and remembering that Julius Caesar was helping the people of Rome through his own egotistical path to power, giving money to the poor, reorganizing the grain dole to be more efficient (feeding the poorest), trying to do the agricultural reform of breaking the large latifundia and the wealthy landowners that basically owned almost all Italian farmland while using almost exclusively slave labor leaving the population basically jobless, entertaining the masses with spectacles and festivals out of his own pocket, etc etc, all whilst trying to reach for the crown of a King (he basically was one already, he even put a golden "chair" in the middle of the Senate), wich for me is very funny, a kind of egotistical altruism that is kind of morally grey, and i don't know how to finish this comment, bye.

[@finndaniels9139]

I mean the paper talks on this, singer just believes that balance is much closer to altruism than egoism than the normal person, and he justifies it too. It’s a great paper

[@freshhawk]

It always strikes me, when this paper is referenced, that this is *exactly* the claim that Jesus made and that Christians *supposedly* believe. The whole "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". It's also the most ignored part of the new testament. Jesus didn't get quoted on a whole lot of things, but people still manage to forget that he said "If you do not give all your money away to the poor then you are going to hell"

[@denkillen]

That is not what He meant at all. He was speaking on those who believe they could be saved by their wealth and works, which is what Singer believes. Jesus made expressly clear that only those who believe in His saving grace would enter into Heaven. Those who attest merely to their own "good works" will be told, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:21-23)

[@gabrigamer00skyrim]

I think the main problem with the drowning child example is that it fails to translate in magnitude to the problem of famine and poverty. I think a more accurate example would be the following: Imagine that when you're walking to work you see a lake with 10000 children stuck. They are not drowning but they can't leave either. Saving any child can be done but it takes you time and energy. Are you morally obligated to save all of them, or at least save as much as you can before running out of energy? What if on the next day you find the same scenario, do you miss work again to save them? When you extrapolate the quantity of individuals that you can help, the issue becomes drawing the line of how many you should help. I sure believe that donating, especially when one is affluent, is a good deed and should be done by more people. But condemning those who don't donate is not the solution, as the line of how many people one should help will always be arbitrary.

[@SatyneStars]

That's the point of the original example of the drowning child, to convince one that if they can make to save one, then they can make to save more than one. Then, he amplifies the situation, from one drowning child who one can see, to lots of other ppl, going through different types of needs, that one can't see but can help. It is an example purpositally built in a way to show how the situation can escalate Besides, I don't think he condemns those who don't donate, on the contrary, I think he is very clear and specific about the limits of it at the end of the video.

[@FruityHachi]

you're equating 2 resources into 1, money and time when a person donates money, they are not sacrificing their time during the day, it's why a lot of people prefer to donate money instead of volunteering whereas if you had to physically help out drawing people, you do have to sacrifice your time during the day

[@Goodguy507]

I think you are exaggerating the suggestion by the speaker, he’s not saying you should sacrifice everything to help the needy, instead, you should sacrifice those extra things that are insignificant to you and use that money to help people that are truly in need, your way of framing this “do you miss work again to save them” is making it sound like he’s saying donate all your money, which is effectively what you will do if you keep missing work, which means you won’t be paid, and will lose all your time and energy. And let me make another point to you, just because there are 10000 children stuck, doesn’t mean it’s any less bad if one child is stuck, don’t let the big number turn the human catastrophe into a statistic, each one of those kids is an individual, who has a life worth saving and protecting, and you should sacrifice the extra things to help them, if you have extra time in the day, instead of watching movies, go and help some of the kids, pay people with some of the extra money you have to help save more kids, do as much as you can while also not harming your own self, the point isn’t to destroy yourself for others, it’s to sacrifice the unnecessary extra things in life to help others.

[@eel9]

Why would one, given the presence of several more drowning children, feel less obligated to save the one? Why would you not be morally obligated to save all that you could? That's a simply ridiculous objection

[@gabrigamer00skyrim]

@eel9 The drowning children example is an analogy to donating to those in need. You fail to capture the idea of magnitude in my example. I'm not talking about several more, I'm talking about a whole sea of children that you can not possibly save. If you defend that we have the obligation to try to save them all, then by extension, you defend that people have the obligation to donate most/all their excess money to charity, something that I can safely bet that you do not do.

[@nvda2damoon]

I don't have a problem with giving. The problem is on average charities only spend 10 cents on the dollar on the cause they claim! I have no problem giving to the homeless/poor as I know in that situation 100% of my dollar is going to the needy! and yes it IS morally significant to me, not to give to charities that are just fleecing donor's money and only give crumbs to the poor.

[@sanoj92]

It's easy to find organizations with 90% + efficiency

[@freebird1477]

​@@sanoj92who ?

[@finndaniels9139]

As the other comment said, there exist charities that do excellent work very efficiently - the Against Malaria Foundation for example consistently comes up incredibly strongly in various analyses of charities, for efficiency, low admin costs, and output impact. But aside from that, even if you didn’t trust at all any charities, there’s nothing to stop you from donating to people within your local area that you know need help.

[@asthmatictuna]

In the talk he points out GiveWell and the Life You Can Save endorse effective charities that are proven to provide good outcomes per amount donated.

[@finndaniels9139]

@@asthmatictuna these people aren’t making serious points, they’re just searching for excuses and to nitpick

[@prateekyadav1000]

The problem with argument is that no one in the comment box is good enough to be a good moral man and will find ways to escape the argument coz they know they are evil.

[@finndaniels9139]

Everyone is picking holes in it, without taking the argument as a whole and realising it is absolutely bulletproof. ‘But what about charities with high admin costs, surely giving to them is not good!!’ Well just don’t donate to those? Do research and find ones that are efficient and well run and donate to those? Or if you don’t trust any, donate to people near you who you can absolutely help properly. Or donate time? Volunteer somewhere? Take in rescue animals?

[@prateekyadav1000]

@@finndaniels9139 true

[@amiteshbhardwaj2239]

@@prateekyadav1000 Finally someone whom I can relate to. I want to create a system based on Peter's argument so that all suffering is reduced to its minimum. Would you like to join and help reduce the suffering from all of existence?

[@caffeinenarcoleptic]

Far too many comments on here, are various iterations of "I believe I see a flaw in this theory, and that justifies me doing nothing." Wrong. Search your soul, reflect on the luxuries that you justify in your entitlement ("I worked hard, I deserve these things and services"), and instead strive to donate more of your 'luxuries budget'.

[@FruityHachi]

it sounds like self-sacrifice in religion, which is not emotionally, psychologically healthy to do I agree that donating when you have the money should be obligatory but only to the point when you don't sacrifice your own needs on airplanes, people are instructed to first put on their mask before helping others there's a difference between inconvenience and sacrifice, sacrificing is about neglecting yourself, and it stems from insecure attachment style but inconvenience is something that doesn't make you neglect your own needs, examples would be choosing diferent foods when grocery shopping, or making meals/coffee at home instead of going out, or packing your own lunch if restaurants nearby don't cater to your dietary restrictions I think that spending some money on yourself, luxuries like a massage, a vacation they make a life enjoyable, a worth living, so instead of giving up all the joys, it would be wiser to practice moderation and humility - donate some money, spend some on yourself but don't obsess over luxurious brands

[@GergelyMeszaros]

Interesting, but several critical logic holes are never addressed. - how do I know if I give away I will help at all? Saving a child is direct, the consequences are predictable. Donating to charity is indirect, consequences are hardly verifiable. It might be the case we just generate more famine by increasing population, actually support corrupt warmonger government despite our best intention. - ratio or exchange rate: if I donate 1 unit of welfare how many units of suffering will be removed? There is no clear answer. It might be the case if I forgive all my excess wealth I generate diminishing difference. In case of saving the child, the exchange rate is clear. Dirty clothes against the child life. Removing suffering by charity is *extremely* complex, there are multiple actors and very-very hard to see the exact ratio of my contribution (see hole 1). If you would have 0.000000000001% chance to save the child life, you probably won't try, because even dirty clothes or the 0.000001% chance of risking your own life would render the act implausible (you can drown too). - the very definition of "moral act" is missing. It seems to be subjective but here supposed to be objective. How this moral concept is not extended to the suffering of sheep and cattle? rats? forests? Should I give money to Greenpeace terrorist groups assassinating brazilian woodcutters in order to stop suffering (extermination) of the rainforest? Should I support anti-famine organization now (which unquestionably leads to more humans on the planet) or should I definitely fight against them and let people die to save the *future* generations or the very humankind from extinction? These different agendas. Singer's agenda is seems to be one of them, and doesn't even try to address other viewpoints.

[@marktoovey1318]

So many knee-jerk, negative, financially insecure and defensive comments. The amount each person would need to give would be insignificant, the difference in your life is more likely to be the pride and satisfaction you might feel after having solved a huge global issue that saved and changed hundreds of thousands of lives and set a great example to humanity on the whole. It is a society's duty to support and care for the most vulnerable but our current economically developed society's are more inclined to judge and oppress the needy rather than aid and enable them.

[@RaferJeffersonIII]

Having been around the developing world a lot, most of their problems are down to things like corruption, religion and a general lack of common sense planning. There’s a reason why some nations developed and others didn’t - because they formed societies which were successful and others didn’t. It doesn’t help anyone to throw money at societies who will merely eat it with corruption or waste it continuing the same inefficiency. The issue is, you are too afraid to call this out objectively because it offends the idea that there’s objective right and wrong and your sense of relativism. It’s not cruelty. If your son squanders his money on drugs and gambling is it better to give them all your money or help them change? Their issues are not the doing of developed nations. The discoveries and inventions of developed nations actually have helped them immeasurably.

[@ramoncotta1264]

Your argument smacks firmly up against the fact that philanthropic organizations in over 200 years have done nothing to solve the same problems. Nothing. No church, and certainly no government or private organization has had a smidgen of impact. I propose localized involvement to be the most efficacious solution. Reliance on individuals to do real good is always better than reliance on bureaucratic groups. This comes from over 40 years of experience working in fund raising and non profits. The bulk of donations go into paying for overhead and dealing with legalities. In the end, you will do best to give a brother or sister a meal once in a while and be willing to get dirty. That's the rub. All you who have theoretical virtue, should roll up your sleeves and feed someone, on your own. Get dirty. Paying someone to do it for you, which is what you do when you donate a dollar at your local grocery store, is nothing more than the salve you put on the pain in your soul telling you are a selfish, self entitled pig. Go out and do something. Volunteer at a food bank, a youth center, a church that feeds the poor, donate your time. Build a house for someone. See that old man on the park bench riding a child's bike? Buy him a hotdog for the love of life. Say hello to the smelly woman sleeping under your apartment's stoop. Keep your money. It is worthless. Stop concentrating on your crotch, your identity, the meaning of life. Give your damn phone and your online persona a rest. You want to know the meaning of life? It's eating, sleeping in a place that won't kill you, being able to feel gratitude for receiving, but most of all being capable of gratitude for having the opportunity to serve your fellow man. You are one meal away from having more in common with the homeless man or woman than what you have in common in the day to day with your wife or husband. We were told how to do this 2000 years ago. What is wrong with us?

[@123jkjk123]

@@ramoncotta1264 Who made you god, to be so judgmental? The question is not "What is wrong with us?", it's What's wrong with YOU? - that you think you are qualified to tell everyone else what they should & shouldn't do based on YOUR beliefs. 2000 years ago we were told - that he who is without sin can cast the first stone. You sure missed that message! (although it sounds like you think YOU are perfect & without sin)

[@ramoncotta1264]

@@123jkjk123 You have the usual reaction to being scolded that a child has. You are a weak man.

[@yessir8089]

Mark Toovey, your logic is that of a 10 year old child. Well intentioned but simplistic, shallow, lacking any kind of sophistication.

[@dylanmaxwell495]

I'll ask a question as a devil's advocate. If Mr Singer had chosen a more lucrative endeavor than philosopher, he could have scraped more money out of our financial system and that would have enabled him to give more of his earnings to mitigate famine. Isn't it, by his own logic, his own moral obligation to do so. This puts the moral context in a longer time frame. If it were somehow predictable, that by jumping into the pond to save a child that a future but greater moral good was lost, wouldn't it be immoral to get your shoes wet? Mr. Gates is mentioned several times. These men are of similar age and intelligence i suspect. They both strive to live moral lives. Mr Gates is a billionaire and lives a life of luxury and is personally responsible for a far greater charitable footprint than nearly anyone, but one that never significantly affects his financial safety, or even luxury. Mr Singer is a not a rich man and leads a modest life, giving much, much less because he earns as a professor, philosopher and writer, but what he does give, he gives to a degree that probably affects his financial safety and certainly his luxury. Mr Singers choice of career is ITSELF a luxury. He's chosen compensation in the form of a less stressful, more interesting, and quieter career. He has spent millions on his choice of lifestyle. Conceivably, a latte or a nice car, is a purchase in regard to self-care, which may facilitate a more stressful, higher earning, career. To step from the hiding place of the devil's advocate, I'd suggest that we are all forced to constantly balance our giving, saving, spending and earning and endowments. There is very little black and white and though there are clear moral issues with the results (Disgusting specific stories, amoral governments, immoral governments, grift, personal failures), analogies about a children drowning in the shallows just don't hold water. A solution is to demand institutional maintenance of the world and it's denizens. Vote your conscience and suffer no compromise. Personal giving is personal and it's morality is so complicated that we should all stay out of each-other's calculations uninvited.

[@davruck1]

you sound white

[@darko714]

I doubt he could have succeeded at anything outside of ivory tower academia. His premises are completely out of touch with reality.

[@davruck1]

@@darko714 awww. Another upset white male who can’t accept they’re not a good person.

[@roseandryan1]

Your argument considers only the monetary aspect of the morality argument. If you want to be the devil’s devil advocate you could argue that Peter Singers non monetary contribution (ie knowledge and thought) enables the people to think, consider and reset their moral settings. Seems Bill Gates thinks so…..

[@davidpeppers551]

Making more money a moral obligation? First, do no harm, comes to mind. Many higher paying jobs are more harmful to the environment, people and other creatures. It is best to take in the whole picture as much as you can. Is living simply and foregoing the expensive education more morally productive? Perhaps. I think of the few indigenous people of the world still living in the traditional way. They make few demands on resources and are responsible for few carbon emissions or massively destructive wars. When he mentioned Gates. I came back to the question I often ask about him and his foundation. Has Gates done more harm than good? Aren't his non profit activities been leversging his influence and funneling more money toward his company and investments? His personal and his foundation's investments in fossil fuels companies and other polluting companies with bad labor relations may be doing more harm with the foundation's money than good. His money and the foundation's donations have been invested in these harmful companies in the past and I suspect they are still invested in harmful companies. Many of these companies continue to undermine the purported missions of the foundation on the one side and the helpful hand? Does it more than make up for the harm that the other hand is doing? Oxford wanted help on COVID vaccine development and give their vaccine away to poor countries for free or for a substantial discount. They approached Gates or he them and Gates agreed to funding them only if they promised to not give the stuff away. I guess Oxford agreed to that: www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bill-gates-vaccine-colonialism/ Gates' personal wealth grew by $10 billion during the pandemic. He could have personally bought a lot of vaccines for that: aftinet.org.au/cms/node/1932 So Gates put together a deal. How many lives were lost because a man who says he wants to help disadvantaged people pushed hard to ensure that corporations could still maximize their profits, no matter how much of the research was publicly funded, no matter how many died waiting. Preserving capitalist* principles is apparently an act of charity for Bill Gates. I ask again. Are we sure Bill Gates has done more good than harm? I certainly can't be sure. I don't have the resources to track everything down and crunch the numbers. Why didn't the Gates Foundation just buy up all the vaccines at full price and give them away? Wouldn't that still enrich those corporations he was looking after? *When I say capitalist principles, I mean the principles held by actual existing capitalists and not the capitalism of theory or fantasy.

[@GoblinsAreAGirlsBestFriend]

I think this is a fascinating argument, but with two glaring 'holes' in it. 1. We are presuming aid agencies are effective, which they are not, they are businesses with very low result rates (I recommend reading The Bottom Billion). 2. I think the actual currency that should be discussed here is TIME not money. I used to work in development aid and have always said; if we cared, we would go to the place of suffering and personally fix it, but we don't, because we are inherently selfish. Time is the real sacrifice. Money would just go into corrupt black holes.

[@jp2kk2]

you should see give well reports, there are some that are quite good.

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

Re: time. Assume 2 people who make a combined $300K. After taxes they take home about $180K. Living frugally they could donate about $100K of that. An aid worker in Nigeria can certainly be supported for less than $33K per year. So, for 2 people not doing hands-on aid they can support 3 people doing the aid. Their time is most importantly spent earning so they can donate.

[@Haqueip]

I think this argument is bulletproof

[@davidpeppers551]

The BBC report on the Foshan tragedy says people argued that ordinary citizens risk paying a price for helping. There you go, some thought the price they would have to pay was too much to ask.

[@jacobcook8613]

Since Singer is universalizing this claim. I can't help but think that the systems which arose to generate the affluence, which can be donated to charity, will crumble if everyone acted on what he is claiming.

[@andytheaardvark1]

And maybe that wouldn't not be such a bad thing after all. Many people today, even in the developed world, struggle to live comfortable lives, when there are the resources necessary to house everyone or offer everyone humane working conditions, for example. Singer inadvertently advocates for wealth accumulation in his thesis, as that allows for the most resources to be redistributed to those in need. However, under the current economic system wealth accumulation can often only be achieved by morally questionable means, such as not compensating workers fairly, market manipulation and whatever other capitalist practice you can think of... I can only imagine a system where we fix the root cause of human suffering instead of relying on charities to bandage the situation ad continuum

[@heavyweight0111]

Everyone needs to hear this and confront these realities, and it's absolutely nuts to consider that I've been using KZbin for over 10 yrs and only just been recommended this today...

[@LattWest]

I agree with being charitable and channeling our material gain into more humanitarian utilities, but I'd like to play devil's advocate because I feel Singer is missing something. I would argue that love is the foundation of true humility, compassion, selflessness, etc. An act of love itself though is beyond the perimeters of good and evil. Love is neither good nor evil because good and evil are the same thing but different ends of the spectrum. Love is outside of this spectrum. I am unsure if I can articulate this well so please bear with me. Singer's logic implies that an act of good would be to donate to charity. I think this is a mistake as it is an act formed in the ego if it is to be considered good. To donate out of a good alignment is to do so to make yourself feel better and stroke your own ego. You do so to avoid feelings of guilt, shame, fear, anxiety. This leads back to good and evil being the same as there are qualities of both found in each other no matter where you are on the spectrum. To donate to charity out of love would be free of the ego, as you would be acting on behalf of someone outside of yourself. Thus you won't have negative qualities, like guilt, maintaining a hold over you. As stated earlier, love is neither good or evil. It's an expression of the soul which is beyond the ego. The point I think we should all take away from is that absolutes are an illusion in this world. Absolutes, like good vs. evil, are tools we use to help easily categorize and rationalize things as simply as possible. That however is not reflective of the true reality. Morality should be rationalized under the principle of our actions being rooted in love. When they are rooted in the ego, they are just as bad regardless if they are classified as good or evil. To close, I believe that it's not a matter of if we are good or evil but if our actions are founded on love or not. I don't think denying love is an evil act but more reflective on the growing we need to do.

[@faza553]

Most urgent = prevention: modify the distribution of and mindset of those in political power - from the ground up..

[@JenniferM.5387]

Just as long as we don't use this as an excuse for inaction. People are hungry *now*, and can't wait while we fight for systemic change.

[@Hegelmaus81]

@@JenniferM.5387 You've identified my primary worry with Singer's articulated position here. I think utilitarianism would not object to letting some number of hungry people starve *now*, provided that the resources that would otherwise have gone to saving them are committed to a project which will help a much greater number of people thrive than those left to starve. At the very least, I don't see that utilitarianism has the grounds to object to my proposed alternative, since it holds the utility/happiness/pleasure of each person equivalent qua person, such that the greater number of people living better lives would presumably "outweigh" the harm done by letting that smaller number starve. We don't have to endorse something like Parfit's "repugnant conclusion" to object to this rigidly computational approach to ethics.

[@bizichyld]

I have a science degree but ethics fascinates me. I’m sure it been brought up at some point, but what’s the defense to the criticism that if everyone donated the majority of their money, how would we afford to run our own economy? Part of the motivation to work it to better our own lives, so what’s the motivation to work and make money if we don’t enjoy the direct benefits? Or is that the root of the problem-that we are selfish creatures?

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

I think the argument would be that a lot of productive labor is spent producing luxuries when it could instead be spent on saving lives. Say you never purchased Starbucks again and redirected all that money to charity, lots of baristas would lose their jobs and coffee plantations would go fallow but the baristas could move into other careers that produce things people need and the coffee plantations could instead grow food. From a classical Econ standpoint satisfying demand is, itself, productive regardless of moral weight. So if all the demand was for vaccinating children in Nigeria instead of for Starbucks satisfying that demand is just as good for the economy as producing pumpkins spiced lattes.

[@FruityHachi]

it's more about materialism, impulse buys, obsession with luxury brands do people need a luxury car to enjoy the benefits of working? no, they can better their lives by buying a less expensive car which is also efficient do people need luxury clothes? no, they can buy less expensive clothes which are just as durable do people need to buy the latest iphone every year? no, if the old iphone is still functioning people on average produce a huge amount of unnecessary waste by throwing away things that can still be worn, used and buy new things just because so it's about that people should practice self-restraint when they want to enjoy the benefits of working, but if people don't want to change their spending habits then it is about selfishness

[@facelessman7733]

Consumer spending is the beating heart of market economies.

[@Pcwarmachine]

The problem with this argument is that our entire economic structure for the past 500+ years is based on people spending money on things they may not have truly needed. And what happens to all those people whose livelihoods depend on those kind of purchases if everyone just stopped doing that and instead diverted that money to charities. They would then be the ones that were starving and the economies of those "affluent" countries would crumble like a house of cards.

[@memitim171]

You say that's the problem with the argument, but really he can only make the argument in the first place because "our entire economic structure for the past 500+ years is based on people spending money on things they may not have truly needed" Seems like that's the real problem to me.

[@th3comb1ne13]

@@memitim171 The alternative to our economic structure is socialism. And we all know how that turned out.

[@memitim171]

@@th3comb1ne13 Not really the only alternative though is it? As much as some people would love you to believe that.

[@th3comb1ne13]

@@memitim171 What is the alternative then. And how is that better than capitalism.

[@memitim171]

@@th3comb1ne13 Spare me, you already know the answer...

[@eel9]

I find the criticisms in the comments here pretty hilarious. Philosophers struggle to and do not convincingly refute his idea here, which, in my opinion, is absolutely correct. But people in the comments who've put about 5 minutes of thought into it feel a need to challenge this idea instead of changing their amoral habits. And, as a result, there are some frankly stupid arguments being highly voted.

[@gabrigamer00skyrim]

And why should they change their amoral habits after a 1h video? If the author wants people to change to convince. And also, who are you to call any argument stupid?

[@eel9]

@@gabrigamer00skyrim If you listen with an open mind, you will either accept what he says or put forth a reasonable counterargument. Given that his argument has held up over forty years of philosophers trying to refute it it is unsurprising that the arguments made against it in youtube comments fail to convince

[@gabrigamer00skyrim]

@eel9 Regardless of whether it was refuted or not, we can safely say that it is not being adhered to by the majority of society. And on a topic with massive implications such as poverty, what good is a set of morals that can't be widespread enough to be part of society's ethics? And the reason why I believe it it hasn't been widespread and it won't be in the future it's because it conflicts with the right of property. If the right thing to do is to donate my excess money, then in order to not violate my morals I must lose all my excess property as a consequence. At that point I would not be the owner of part of my property, as I'm obliged by my morals to share it. Do you really think this set of morals stand a chance in today's world? One can make whatever set of morals they want, as long as it poses no harm to other individuals. But said set can only be considered as true if a considerable amount of a community vows by it. I think no one doubts that if people dedicated more time and money in helping those in need the world would be, in general, a better place. My problem with his argument is the maxima that ALL excess should be donated, as long as your loss is lesser than the receiver's gain. It should be up to the individual to decide his criteria for donating. There's also a pragmatic issue that simply donating money to charity, especially those in underdeveloped countries, can make the benefactors solely dependent on donations, hence it will never fix poverty, just contain its damage. But that's a whole new discussion.

[@eel9]

@@gabrigamer00skyrim Imagine you are living in a society in which it is widely accepted that one has the right to kill. In fact, every day, most people either murder somebody or assist in a murder. Not murdering is seen as a kind act, for sure, but it's not seen by society as morally obligatory. Would murdering still be morally wrong? Are you morally obliged to stop murdering, even if you really don't want to? You can see that the viewpoint of society does not change anything. Money you own can be seen as money which you have a choice where it is spent on. If you offered a new car if you killed 10 people, would it be morally wrong to accept? If you say yes, then why is it not similarly morally wrong to spend the same amount of money on a new car instead of on saving the lives of those 10 people? You lose money either way; your choice is only whether the 10 people live or die-but you do get the car if they die. Framed this way it becomes clear that most large purchases are morally abhorrent.

[@Goldberglimited3377]

It's a hard pill to swallow when a multi millionaire is calling you evil for spending money on yourself.

[@mayarathan]

The real solution would be to force the governments to take the right stand in major global events in favour of humanity and not be driven purely by national and corporate interests. But that comes from public pressure. People who care about such issues happening in far away places are minority. But they can influence others to take a stand at least temporarily. Coincidentally, the people who donate and pressurize governments are mostly the same.

[@pasticcinideliziosi1259]

people have money. if they care, why don’t they boycott the companies and give money to causes that are good for them?. i understand that this is a simplified idea and that many corporations offer things we can’t do without at first glance. but money is what drives the world and there is little to do about it. the fact is that people own virtually all the money, yet the idea of using what drives the world to effectively drive it to the right actions doesn’t even cross most people’s minds.

[@palavpalavets5911]

That's what the communists claimed to be doing and we all know how it ended.

[@RaferJeffersonIII]

All that is going to be is more and more tax being spent by someone else for what they see as their pet projects. Who decides who is needy? On another note, why can’t developing countries sort themselves out? Perhaps the poverty will encourage them to give up their religion and lifestyle because if it’s led them to poverty then something has to change. The issue with this idea is that it assumes affluence falls out of trees and isn’t the result of good decisions and behaviours. My wife is from a developing country and the lack of foresight, planning and common sense in the way they do things is the cause - not the actions of the developed world. Like adolescents they have to learn from their mistakes but I agree for things like famines we have a duty to help.

[@raz6630]

No doubt this is a good point he makes and one founded by good intention . However the main criticism is that this cannot be enacted 100% if it was capitalism would collapse shops would all go out of business and we would go without work . For example if we all gave the maximum amount to the point where if we gave anything more it would cause substantial suffering , and lived without excess we would all have only one pair of shoes and eat the minimal , while we could live, all our economy would lose demand and die we would soon as a nation become as poor as desperate as those we wanted to help therefore not being able to help anyone . So this idea should be enacted 50% instead of 100% , but is useful as most people give nothing .

[@gymonstarfunkle136]

Reparations and economic assistance need to happen immediately. A global commons needs to be created via taxes levied from larger economies based on their means. Doing so will not only help people in need but could help to free countries from the pressure of needing to industrialise aggressively just to avoid being bullied by bigger countries, or to achieve rugged self-sufficiency because richer countries are unwilling to redistribute. Alleviating some of this pressure could allow greater scope for sustainable development, for instance, which can't really happen in current geopolitics. I'm sure some would argue that we already have a global commons in the form of the IMF, World Bank and other aid institutions. I'm very sceptical of these institutions, however. One of the key issues involved in global commons is the big multinationals. These have among the most means to contribute, but also the most resources for evading taxation. Much of the contributions they do make are bound up in tax avoidance and the appearance of moral virtue. We are meant to trust in the largess of the philanthrocapitalists, and Singer's arguments play into that. Indeed, Singer plays into the idea that it is the wealthy who are best positioned, not only financially but morally, to educate the masses on the common good. His ideas of morality can appear aimed at greedy, hedonistic capitalists but are mostly aimed at the working poor. For instance Singer argues 'fix your diet, save the planet' without considering that, in capitalist economies, people have less choice over their diet the further down the economic scale they are.

[@harriemeeuwis978]

In this conception of moralty I guess effective charity should be coupled with efficiënt charity. That could make choices easier and better. In the example of the child drowning in the pond the man would probably have less hesitation to help if he would/ could just take of his expensive shoes and then rescue the child at lesser costs. But I really don' t see any great diffetences between this version of charity with a business angle in it and christian charity. Am I my brother's keeper was alteady a moral question/ debate 2000 years ago.

[@tinawexler6547]

Their are a lot of complexities that complicate this argument but I propose another one: in a world where we know about SO MANY drowning toddlers, how do you pick which one to save? Meaning, there is hunger and poverty all over the world, and even if I donated all of my disposable income, how do I know where to send it?

[@Dom-Andre]

The closest one, at your surroundings, its doing what you can with what you have, and a normal person can help in their normal surroundings I think

[@davruck1]

you sound like a clown

[@darko714]

That’s right. Stick to saving kids in ponds. World aid organizations are primarily interested in power, not actually helping anyone.

[@finndaniels9139]

@@darko714 but you do actually have to actively pursue this, it’s not a defence against doing nothing, just a defence of not doing a form of something

[@DANCEGARAGEPUNK]

Osfam !

[@david8905]

What is Singer's personal history of giving? How has he redistributed HIS wealth?

[@alysononoahu8702]

Remember the album of THE concert for BANGLADESH...? ❤❤❤❤❤

[@Primitarian]

And so it follows that we are bound by the following moral commandment: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. But if that is what he is saying, I do have a problem, for this is valid only if you assume that personal excellence, freedom, self-reliance and responsibility are of no moral significance.

[@caffeinenarcoleptic]

@@Primitarian You are suggesting that we play morality judgement police, namely, recipients must pass our imposed criteria, before they are considered valuable enough to receive our aid?

[@Primitarian]

@@caffeinenarcoleptic How am I suggesting that?

[@finndaniels9139]

But he isn’t. He isn’t saying you should give more than you can. The moral significance is a personal thing

[@Primitarian]

@@finndaniels9139 I grant you that "he isn't saying you should give more than can," for that would be asking the impossible. As to "the moral significance is a personal thing," what does that mean?

[@finndaniels9139]

@@Primitarian I am approaching the part of your argument where you state singer is asking you to give up your freedom, self reliance etc. If to you these are things of strong moral significance, then by definition Singer is not asking you to give these things up. Maybe you can have all these things while giving up on getting a new iPhone. In this case Singer is saying you should forego the new phone in exchange for giving aid.

[@Foxholt]

So my question is this: Has this ever been applied to the charitable organisations themselves? I'm not basing this on any figures, but if the organisation is found to squander more of the money they receive on executive salaries so that those executives can buy luxuries and not donate, then is it still morally sound to donate your money to an organisation that does some good, at the expense of propagating further evil?

[@Goodguy507]

I mean the logic of the argument can still be used for small scale charity, I live in a country with many poor people who struggle to find food some days, I could donate to them directly, and the argument by Singer would basically apply to my situation if you modify it slightly, in other words, while he uses the logic to advocate for donating to charitable organisations, it can be used to any form of charity, and yeah obviously try to avoid charities that will suck your money to the pockets of executives, paying your workers a good wage is fine but a charity shouldn’t be a means of profit and wealth for the organisers

[@freshhawk]

That's covered in the paper, and it is very clearly an empirical question. Are there charities that efficiently distribute this money? Yes, there are many that give 100% of the money (because other donors cover the operating costs) and it is trivially easy to find out who they are. Are these standards applied to charitable organizations? Yes, constantly. You just did it, it's the most common objection to charitable organizations that people have. It is probably the *number one* standard that charities are held to (maybe it's "how effective are you" and "what percentage goes to operating costs" is second, maybe)

[@Foxholt]

@@freshhawk Very good reply, thanks for the info. So is it up to the charity register to hold the charities accountable to these standards and if so are the findings reported anywhere? If "Are you effective" and "What percentage of donations goes to operating costs" are their biggest barriers to receiving donations you'd think this information would be as freely available as possible. Granted I've never looked it up (but I'm about to) but you'd think it would be public knowledge that this information is available.

[@freshhawk]

@@Foxholt That's a good question, I suppose the answer is "yes" if we take your assumptions as given. But what is most interesting about Singer's paper and the response to it is that your assumption (which most of us make) is wrong. The biggest barrier is *not* this information. People can have this information and they will still not donate. They can be convinced that their money will definitely save lives and will still prefer to spend their money on new clothes or a new car, etc. Hence the conclusion that this chain of logic forces on you, which people very much dislike, "People are generally evil/bad/immoral". We're getting into the difference between the question "how should charities act in a practical real-world way" and "in theory how should be judge people, what can we say about how people might act", etc

[@Foxholt]

@@freshhawkSo after reading your comment I did some a little research and there are a number of independent organisations that do this very thing, rating Charities on their effectiveness. One of the main ones is called GiveWell, and reading through their website they actually factor in both of those questions in terms of how the charity acts (what percentage of donations goes to saving lives) but also how people act (for every, say, $4000 donation, people will stop donating or move their donation elsewhere) to arrive at a cost per life saved. It's quite interesting and worth a read. Either way though, you are probably right in terms of information not being the problem. Overall though I think the idea that humans are intrinsically evil is not technically correct, as it's our societal norms that dictate our actions. What's really interesting is that our collective morals no longer align with our societal norms. How and why that happens would be a very interesting thing to know.

[@michaelmcghee858]

The issue lies in our need to take part in the system within which we live. If we are to donate all money we would ordinarily spend on 'luxuries' such as Coffee, eating out, new clothes, new cars etc, soon enough nobody will have any money to donate. Money needs to be earned in a capitalist society, and you earn money by providing goods and services, without consumption of those goods and services nobody earns money and none can be donated to charitable causes. While capitalism is probably to blame for much of the inequalities and poverties we see across the third world - and at home - it's also the only way we (presently) can earn the money to then donate in the hope of lifting people out of poverty and address inequality. If we're to address that it has to be done from the top down, until then the most moral thing to do is to continue taking part in the society in which we live whilst doing *more* to help charitable causes.

[@Haqueip]

Agreed, i think singer knows that too. This solution is in need control, not always gjving everything

[@rdor011]

the problem with Singer's argument is that then we can't justify keeping ANY part of our discretionary incomes.

[@Prettybrownngurl]

“We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility- that is, the level at which by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents”

[@shefudgrupa]

@@Prettybrownngurl How would you measure ''as much'' suffering? How would you go about to standardize a unit of suffering in the first place ?

[@someone-cn8pt]

I think it's okay to be a little selfish, you should still live a full life, you need to have some vacations, some money for hobbies etc. I wish for everyone to have these things, so I don't think it's unreasonable. Also people that live in affluent countries can't be fulfilled by food and shelter only cause that's the norm.

[@JenniferM.5387]

It needs to be sustainable. If you make yourself miserable, you won't keep it up year after year. That said, most of us don't go nearly far enough. Giving too much is not a problem most people have.

[@veganworldorder9394]

@@shefudgrupa it is not meant to be precise at the atom level obviously. The idea is that if you have to kill your family in order to donate more for example, then you have a reason to not donate more. You asking this question shows that you miss the point.

[@_UnknownEntity]

This reminds me of the three dogs and a bone story

[@nebula1919191]

He is ignoring taxation. The government and business will never tell you how charitable you actually are.

[@adreaminxy]

He's such an absolute gangster.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

Every dollar you spend on a cup of coffee pays someone's salary, pays taxes, pays the coffee growers, the coffee pickers, creates wealth that makes more jobs. Charity generally doesn't create wealth, so it doesn't lead to more resources, more jobs etc. Charity may be less good at reducing hunger than buying a cup of coffee every day.

[@garrysmodsketches]

"people evolved in small tribes, but now the world has changed and we live in a much bigger community" Wrong. I have a community and I know people who are in my community. 8 billion people are not a community.

[@slbe9721]

Does anybody knows what zakat is?

[@yeetman4953]

its not nsomething special to islam.

[@ramoncotta1264]

That's Islamic. In Christianity, it is called a tithe. Usually 10% In Hebrew: terumah, ma'aser.

[@wesleyhorton70]

I am dying to know, well, as least very curious, is this the same Pete Singer that in the late 60's wrote and did the song, "Little Boxes?"

[@funkyfriesan]

Written and composed by Malvina Reynolds 1962.

[@Steve_Edberg]

Not the same guy. That was Pete SEEGER, not Singer.

[@Steve_Edberg]

Also, Pete Seeger died in 2014 at the age of 94. This gentleman, Peter Singer, is considerable younger. He is still alive today and is only 77 now.

[@hustlinc3540]

@@Steve_Edberg Also Pete Seeger was a true activist. Always actions before blabber.

[@Paul-ei8nq]

When the individual sees clearly the barriers to possible action can dissolve. Fragmentation of the human psyche perpetuates nonsense greed and mental fear. Must see with grace and understand the fragmentation with the whole being to move beyond it. Each individual functions according to their ability.

[@markparfett5380]

Some people spend a hell of a lot on shoes.

[@NowioART]

Which is their moral and ethical and earned right.

[@43nostromo]

I'd love to help. I really would. But, I only carry $100 dollar bills.

[@morrisonkey202]

If you subscribe to the simple equation Daniel Quinn puts forth in The Story of B, then you'd find it morally wrong to give money to organizations that increase food supplies to humans around the world. The reason is increase of food has always historically led to increase in population and resource consumption that's truly "grossly unequal" to that of other beings on this planet. So, unless your morality is self-centered (only human serving), then you have a moral obligation to do what is right for our environment as a whole. This means you must not do that which aids humanity in its population growth. So if you hold this belief, it would seem that not giving money to end world hunger is the moral thing to do. But I guess singer would then argue you'd be morally bound to donate to environmental funds...

[@dmytrodoncov5996]

Thank you for being a moral soldier 🪖💚

[@vhawk1951kl]

From where do men (human beings) get this strange religious mumbo-jumbo that they call "morality"?

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

@@vhawk1951kl living organism's need for survival. i can't believe you asked this stupid question

[@raz6630]

No doubt this is a good point he makes and one founded by good intention . However the main criticism is that this cannot be enacted 100% if it was capitalism would collapse shops would all go out of business and we would go without work . For example if we all gave the maximum amount to the point where if we gave anything more it would cause substantial suffering , and lived without excess we would all have only one pair of shoes and eat the minimal , while we could live, all our economy would lose demand and die we would soon as a nation become as poor as desperate as those we wanted to help therefore not being able to help anyone . So this idea should be enacted 50% instead of 100% , but is useful as most people give nothing .

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@MorbiusBlueBalls but you will not survive; from the moment you first drew breath or were born you embarked on a process identical in all respects to jumping from a very high place, and the natural and inevitable consequence of that is the insignificant nothings like you do not survive - cannot survive. You do not "need" to survive, but rather*want*to survive, but you can*want*as much as you like because you will not and you are falling right now, and the consequence of that falling could not be described as survival - you are temporary little mouse (nothing and nobody)

[@MorbiusBlueBalls]

@@vhawk1951kl i don't just "want" to survive i need to survive because I'm living being and all living beings have drive to survive that's what defines me as living. and yeah we all die that's not a surprise for me but i as every other being has drive to survive in any instant

[@maggieo]

The less money you have, the more you give to charity. Why?

[@gardenjoy5223]

Ancient wisdom here. "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4 verse 17 from the Bible.

[@Wolcik3000]

16:00 why does it have to be global effort? shouldn't you do local and then try to grow it to national first? If we have such problem that children are dying in the streets without anyone helping them, then shouldn't be tackle that particular issue first and not to broaden the problem that scope of it can be done only by giant organizations? shouldn't the ethic be improved from bottom up starting small where we can instead of organizing foundations that hire people and as such will have the fist priority to continue to exist and grow regardless if the intentional function is achieved at the second plan?

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

1. You should absolutely help locally if you have the opportunity to. 2. The cost of saving a life in Africa is much lower than saving a life in the US, on average. A $7 net will prevent malaria, $7 in the US isn’t enough to buy a quarter-pounder meal.

[@Wolcik3000]

@@9e7exkbzvwpf7c why Africa? Why not Mexico?

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

@@Wolcik3000 it’s likely true that it’s cheaper to save a child’s life in Mexico compared to the US, but in absolute terms it’s still cheapest in Africa so your money goes furthest there.

[@Wolcik3000]

@@9e7exkbzvwpf7c i think I wrote in a different post. Countires not only judge their strenght objectuvly, but subjectivly to their neighbours - this is why USA helps cartrl in Mexico rather than attempt to help get rid of it. RPA is part of BRIKS same as India and China to dethrone petro dollar. Investing in poorer countries without exploiting them for resources seems to be considered economical suicide and military self destruction plan. It would be wonderful if we could all live along kumbaya, but as long as we are plaing endless games of life like war and resources are limited it seems to be only something insignificant people can do, while those with actual capital seems unconvinced that raising overall human capital and making sure next generations are healthy and well feed. Potatoes grow the same way whereever you plant them - well, as long as theres good soil and water. Whoever helps africa they usually give them fish, or borrows them the rod at high percentage or in exchange for resources and labour to get them so we can have iPhone 20

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

@@Wolcik3000 Sorry, I didn't follow any of that. It's objectively true that if you wanted to save a life, say ensure a child lives past the age of 5, this would be much cheaper to do in sub-saharan Africa than it would be in Mexico due to Mexico being a richer country than most sub-saharan Africa countries. Most people in Mexico can afford mosquito nets, so giving them a $7 mosquito net will not be as useful to them as it would be to someone in Somalia since the net is much more expensive for someone in Somalia to obtain on their own.

[@user-up8jx3mt6j]

Authentic moral goodness functions on your motivation - not a result.

[@finndaniels9139]

Depends tbh, besides Peter singer is a humanist I think we can be sure his motivation is pure

[@n8sterling727]

I have a feeling he and Rand would not see eye to eye ;)

[@alysononoahu8702]

FYI..O.C.D. has a symptom called "scrupulousity"..... this is what it is like....

[@bridiexox9030]

42:00

[@Xogroroth666]

00'44": "That this essay is still relevant today" No? MORE relevant than EVER, is more correct. That is, back then, in 2016. And FAR MORE so today, 2023. We are just hopeless.

[@123jkjk123]

I say it's Singer's argument that is hopeless. It wasn't relevant (to a functioning world) in 1972 and isn't now. The whole world would starve and no one would work if everyone lived up to Singer's impossible moral standards. As others have pointed out Singer himself doesn't live up to that standard half as much as he thinks he does.

[@Xogroroth666]

@@123jkjk123 Have you looked at Earth and all on it, recently? I guess, you didn't. We happily kill, maim, destroy and sometimes even rape for money. Or, hell, just for the fun of it. Tell me how your pink glass world looks like?

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

5:28 I have an example: Currently, Israel is being attacked by Hamas. Also, Afghanistan is dealing with the results of huge earthquakes. The attacks in Israel took a fair number of lives (which is horrible) ....but not nearly as much death (at this point) as the earthquake in Afghanistan. So, where is the example? 1) would you, if you had the chance, help people who were suffering in both cases? 2) ...would you still help people on both cases after you're reminded that Israel is being attacked by Hamas... and Afghanistan is under the control of a Taliban government? ....so, the real question is: if you could afford it, would you still help earthquake victims if it meant that, socially speaking, you would be seen as helping the Taliban? You'd be forever know as the person who helped the Taliban government. Most people wouldn't find that to be an acceptable way to be seen publicly. Most likely wouldn't want to be seen as helping the Taliban, even though it's still just *helping suffering people.* In the US (where I live), people don't like if you don't support Israel....and the government is sending an aircraft carrier to help. Meanwhile, most don't know about any earthquake in Afghanistan, and when they are told... their response is, frankly, disgusting.

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

obviously, there are differences between the two cases....and most of us aren't in a financial position to help anyone else around the world. However, if you express your opinions and they don't align with the moral principles our nation proclaims (Israel = friend; Taliban = Foe), then you're "morally supporting our nation's enemies.

[@Cronama]

So if I had nothing to spare I would be morally righteous?

[@dwightschrute4750]

No, he’s only referring to wealth above marginal utility.

[@gardenjoy5223]

Absolutely not. My brother has nothing to spare. And why not? Because he refuses to work for a normal salary. So he pretends he cannot find work, so he can get government assistance. That leech fool will find himself in eternal want in hell one day. He's about as morally unrighteous as it gets.

[@cocoabar4044]

@@dwightschrute4750 Who decides what that is?

[@dwightschrute4750]

@@cocoabar4044 An economist

[@tomfool43]

But this would make Bill one of the most virtuous men on the planet...

[@finndaniels9139]

Not really, it’s like that Jesus thing where the old lady gives a tiny amount but it’s all she has, and Jesus views her as more moral than the rich man who gives more cash, but a smaller percentage. Bill gates has given more to charity than this entire comment section combined probably, and yet his life is still less affected by the giving than the student in Singer’s lecture.

[@123jkjk123]

The problem with Singer's argument is that no one would ever accumulate enough money to donate to help anyone and the whole world would starve. How did Gates accumulate all his money? - by being immoral & evil (according to Singer).But if Gates gave his money away (as Singer says he should), there'd have been no Microsoft and he'd never have been able donate as much as he does now. Singer doesn't seem to know that it takes money to make money. And if no one had money there'd be no money to donate. Then throw in the fact that people would not work as hard if they gave it all away - leading to more famine, disease & death than there would be otherwise. Really his whole argument is ridiculous to me and humans would be extinct if they ever lived up to Singer's completely impossible moral standards. Hard to see how & why this theory has even been taken seriously.

[@JamesV1]

Are you purposefully being obtuse? 1 person donating 1,000,000,000 dollars is the same as 1,000,000,000 people donating 1 dollar. The hoarding of wealth actually helps his argument. I don’t think you understand anything about this argument, and I pray that you reassess your point.

[@th3comb1ne13]

@@JamesV1 Redistribution of wealth to the poor is called socialism and that has failed miserably time and time again.

[@3rdEarlRussell]

No, that is incompatible with premise 1. Learn to read.

[@caffeinenarcoleptic]

@@th3comb1ne13 Absolutely not! Singer is proposing that INDIVIDUALS (not governments) redistribute wealth.

[@caffeinenarcoleptic]

@@123jkjk123 It does take money to make more money. But that is NOT what Singer is talking about. He is talking about donating the money that the rich and even upper middle class spend on luxuries.

[@CandidDate]

...if I am my brother's keeper, *maybe*.

[@DANCEGARAGEPUNK]

We are all increasingly conditioned into selfishness & greed in order to boost the economy : ( This video is a blueprint for creating equality, unity & peace on earth ! We could see this in practise if the christian church was less corrupt, & actually kept to christ`s teaching that the wealthy cannot get into heaven, but should help the poor ! : )

[@jeremytine]

but why be moral? serious question. I presume, from evolutionary standpoint, that desire for morality gives an advantage of fostering a community that may help me in a time of need and thus we all succeed to pass along genes. If evolution as you hinted at is what we are servicing, Then you would need to show that there is a positive ROI on average for helping a poorer person far away. Yes a relative small effort on our part makes a big difference on their part, but at the same time their ability to return the favor is potentially even smaller. In your previous big think video, you cited enlightened self interest as a reason for morality, which I support. I don't see the enlightened self interest here. To be fair the math has so many variables, that I am mostly relying on intuition and simplified models. A better investment is helping those closest to you.

[@denkillen]

Many of the criticisms expressed in these comments are accurate, but still only superficial. C. S. Lewis deconstructed this form of utilitarianism in his book, The Abolition of Man: Unless there is some higher form of moral authority obligating us to this sort of behavior, there is no objective basis on which we should feel obligated to help anyone other than ourselves. Altruism for its own sake is nonsensical and would ultimately only lead to humanity perpetuating a miserable baseline of sustainability.

[@FriedrichBoettger]

Classical case of a fundamentally decent sort of academic with a predictably collectivist premise. Since this paper came out, the usual ivy tower crowd has struggled with concepts like 'extra money', 'affluence', and what is 'obligatory'. Before we even argue about whether there should be more or less 'charity' in the world, go ask all your friends and relatives how much 'extra money' they have. Chances are, if any of them take you seriously, the ones who think they have 'extra money' will likely be the ones who don't keep money very long. 'Effective Altruism' is a personal choice that can clearly be fulfilling and useful on a personal level. Let any group of people (like a government or university staff) get a hold of it, and you end up with the PRC or the fine enlightened altruists in Havana, who have no trouble defining 'extra money' for you.

[@kooshanjazayeri]

you never missed a meal did you?

[@yessir8089]

"9 millions East Pakistanis fled to India, if only we could have helped". How deluded is that. It is like saying "6 million Ukrainians died of starvation during the Holodomor. If only we could have helped".

[@garrysmodsketches]

Comparing starving nations to a drowning child is dishonest. A child is helpless and children are not bad, it's not the child's fault that something bad happened to him because kids are good and innocent. Nations have agency, they make decisions. Instead of a drowing kid, a better analogy would be a homeless man. A homeless man approaches you and says: "I am poor and homeless because I make bad decisions because I kinda suck. Please give me some of your money so that I don't starve."

[@hustlinc3540]

If the charities actually do their job, and they DO NOT! Also presenting Bill and Melinda as some benefactors and good doers is ridiculous.

[@bobsaginowski2043]

Organized charities are not always optimal, charity begins at home,make a difference in your own neighborhood, if you help one person it makes a difference. Sending your money off to some bloated bureaucracy charity is not virtuous, it's hollow virtue signaling.

[@freebird1477]

What I thought was if everyone gave all their $ to charities, probably our economy wld collapse and we'd b starving.

[@finndaniels9139]

The money is still being spent, in fact it’s probably being spent more as wealth redistribution would stop hoarding of mega wealth.

[@whatthedeuce3006]

Helping is good but give money to strangers for free is very bad for them, you make them more bad than good so that makes you a very bad person. I prefer giving a person money for making me a coffe so they can buy some food rather than give money to homeless people to make they think its good life not working or being homeless. This to work as effective as possible we have to help people near you because this way there are no "filters" .

[@quaver1239]

In the 1980s I knew Peter singer when he worked in Melbourne. I thought him crazy. His notions about killing disabled newborns were beyond any pale. His views about almost everything changed with the years, almost as rapidly as the years themselves changed. One idea that seems to have remained with him is that it’s fine to kill humans who are no longer “useful.” Using, I imagine, his own definition of “useful.” On the other hand, I found him a delightful person with whom to just casually talk. But far from delightful in any other respect. He is 4 years younger than I am, and he seems to have reached a time when he should simply keep quiet and not insist on talking at every available opportunity as though all around him are of minimal intellect and need explanations for every word he utters. Go home, Peter Singer, and be quiet.

[@freebird1477]

Would we strive so hard for success if we knew we were going to give it all away,? Just being human, the work/ reward goes out to lunch.

[@maclark88]

The irony of mentioning Bill and Melinda Gates support.

[@maxgersch8313]

23:27

[@dickrichard5579]

The premise of this paper is preposterous and I disagree with Peter

[@andytheaardvark1]

Eloquently put 👍

[@rockpaperscissors6521]

News Anchor: "This just in: the child left to die on a Chinese street--sparking outrage across the globe--may in fact have had Downs Syndrome." Peter Singer: **sweats nervously**

[@JenniferM.5387]

That's not an accurate representation of his position.

[@rockpaperscissors6521]

​@@JenniferM.5387 no duh

[@Brough1111]

Bill Gates i dont need any moral overhaul if he's involved.

[@sijacquz]

A lot of defensiveness in the replies. People love their Starbucks lot!!! - lol

[@gymonstarfunkle136]

A lot of defensiveness in this reply.

[@muuubiee]

The entire argument is just completely and utterly flawed, it doesn't hold under even the slightest scrunity. I do not understand how people can spend years and years of their life, and still have this weak logic.

[@muuubiee]

​@Kylan The argument is a single instance, which which will yield social consequences, and also personal consequences. So sure, this act is seen as obligatory, simply because it's a single instance and in proximity. The conclusion has infinite repeatability. Meaning, the argument would have to contain millions of kids drowning in the ponds. At which point, it would not be seen as a obligatory action, and cost of saving these children would be immense, you'd have to spend the rest of your life in the pond. The argument totally fails to hold for the conclusion. Philosphy is like, the tip of social sciences, the most useless and dumb part of social sciences.

[@JamesV1]

I think you missed the point if you don’t see the conclusion as “we should spend the rest of our lives in the pond” since that’s exactly what he’s arguing.

[@muuubiee]

@@JamesV1 But t hat's not part of his "argument" of the pond. He cannot use the "pond" argument to build upon it...

[@dmitry5319]

I am a researcher in STEM sciences and I am shocked by a couple of things. 1. It is really funny that an argument that even a child can understand or make constitutes a scientific paper. Not mentioning that it is a sort of prominent paper. I wonder what other people in social science do. 2. It is really funny that to explain this argument one actually needs 14 pages. 3. It is not science, it is ideology. As for the argument itself. Even the fact that you must safe a drowning child is debatable. How would you proof this? The fact that other people would condemn you at a party is not a proof. The question is where do the believes of those people at the party come from. I think, the reality is that we developed various social norms as a survival mechanism for the community as whole. Communities which did not collaborate, which had ideology that puts individual interests absolutely above interests of the society did not survive the competition. This is how we got our values, which are, to large extent, summarised as the Christian moral. But, first of all, this does not prove that these values are right. Second, all these values are very vaguely stated. Yes, you are supposed to help weak, but nobody says precisely how one defines weak, how much you are supposed to help them etc. So, details of a concrete example do actually matter. For example, replacing a child with an adult matters as children normally are not supposed to be able to care about themselves, while adults are. And, how does one define morally significant sacrifice? Say, somebody works like mad, is all the time stressed just to be able to live a life that he wants: have a nice apartment, being able to afford going to cafes once in a while to get coffee, which, of course, he can make himself. Does a person like that have a moral obligation to pay to someone, who's hungry once in while, but is, otherwise happy? And I am not making this up. I have in mind many example of people of low income, which are by far happier than those that make a lot of money. And after all, quite often, it is the fault of poor people that they are poor. So, at the end of the day, it boils down to things like to what extent people are responsible for their own success or suffering. This is not a scientific question, this is more a matter of ideology. Individualist would say that the only one who's responsible for your life is you, while socialist would say that life is unfair and everyone should have equal standards. Finally, one may wonder why we should keep the moral from the Bible, which is based on the way our life went 1000 years ago, if the modern life is totally different. For example, Singer mentions that proximity is irrelevant as now we can learn about people suffering at any place of our planet due to modern technologies. I wonder why he forgets that do to modern technologies is by far easier to travel to other places escaping famine, making money abroad, etc. I can write a lot about this stuff. I just want to say that this argument of Singer does not look solid to me by any stretch of imagination. To me the bottom line is roughly as follows. There are two things, which are not entirely settled. 1. To what extent the success and the suffering of people is their own responsibility. 2. I believe it is totally normal is you value you interests higher than interests of others. The question is in the precise exchange rate: how much of your own interests you should consider moral to sacrifice for which precise amount of interests of other people. In these regards, Singer take a very extreme point of view. 1. He, essentially, argues as if success or suffering is purely luck based and not at all deserved. 2. He argues as if your interests should be as valuable to you as interests of other people. This is a very extreme ideology.

[@andrewzheng4759]

Extremely well articulated. Very nice. The only thing I would add is I don't think this paper purports to be a scientific publication, since it was published in a philosophy journal. Still, I do share your sentiments that certain ideas should've been more rigorously/precisely defined.

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

Interesting, what branch of study are you in? If you were a Math PhD or a Physics PhD or even a CompSci PhD you’d be 100% comfortable with the idea of a paper that answers the question: “Assuming X is true, what must also be true?” That’s what Singer’s argument/paper is doing. Assuming you believe you’d be morally obligated to save the drowning child, then if you’re being consistent you must be morally obligated to donate excess income to effective charities.

[@dmitry5319]

@@9e7exkbzvwpf7c PhD in theoretical physics. The main problem with logic here is: The fallacy of extrapolation (more precisely: fallacy of unwarranted extrapolation), occurs when a phenomenon responsible for a number of trivial local effects is read into the great global phenomena, or when a generalized rule is concluded based on too few cases. The global problem is whether you are morally obliged to help someone who needs it. In reality, it is a complex question. An extreme example of this problem is a drowning child. Assuming that you are morally obliged to help him/her does not imply that you have to do the same in all cases when other people may need your help. I can make an opposite example. Let us assume that a son of some dictator in a poor country gets drunk and smashes his Ferrari against a wall in car accident. He is unhappy, because his car is destroyed. He also feels frustrated that now there is an empty space in his garage between Lamborghini and Bugatti. He is unhappy. Is a poor street beggar from his country morally obliged to give him money? No. So, by Singer's trick we can conclude that I am not morally obliged to help anyone who wants my help.

[@anleekij]

Let's be altruistic and help people, even if it's a kidney, unless it's to a conservative Republican. "Giggles" Should've led with that so I wouldn't have wasted 35 minutes listening to a hypocrite

[@darrenr9136]

The disingenuous comments against Singer's argument are very telling. Rather then using mental gymnastics just admit you are greedy pigs!

[@Gamikom]

My arguments: 1. It's morally better to invest most of your money so you can donate more later. This of course requires wise investing strategies. You could also start your own business and that requires a lot of money. 2. You must have money saved for yourself so you don't die when you lose your job for example. It does not even have to be money, it can be something that you can sell easily like gold bars or an expensive watch. 3. Donating all of your money most likely leads to losing most of your friends and family. You won't have money to participate in anything or help your friends or family. Your life will be lived 90% in solitude and that can be mentally devastating for many people and lead to suicide. 4. Singer says: You can't have kids. It's very expensive to raise kids so you can't have them because then you wouldn't be able to donate very much money. This Singer logic sounds a bit evil. 5. Singer says: Death is bad. Well according to who? Where in the universe is it written that death is bad? We don't know if death is bad or not. Actually death could be the greatest thing that happens to you. 6. Singer says: YOU MUST DONATE OR YOU ARE EVIL. Saying it like this has the opposite effect. Less people donate. So Singer is actually doing evil himself because his actions cause people to donate less. 7. Solving the famine problem leads to even worse overpopulation problem of our planet. Extreme overpopulation is arguably worse than famine because it kills the whole planet including all animals.

[@sorrells4389]

Did you watch the video? Singer addresses 1, 2 and 6 directly and 3 and 4 indirectly. As for the rest: 5: I don't think 'death is bad' was his main point, I think it was that suffering is bad, famine leads people to suffering. In any case the question whether or not death is bad for the individual is an unsolvable question, but for society as a whole; death is bad. 7: The world will not overpopulate, in fact it might decrease. It's seen that as living standards rise the population growth falls.

[@evila9076]

A lot of "cope" in the comments.

[@aleczachreson]

People seem to think that Singer's argument is to work your ass off and then give the money away, what he's really saying is: work less.

[@th3comb1ne13]

This will have disastrous consequences for the human race. The earth is not a perpetual motion machine, it will not provide infinite resources. Making everyone poor and less productive is planetary suicide.

[@swaroopboyina4236]

I don't understand the argument here....if I worked my ass off learning new skills for years and working hard in my job , why wouldn't I want to live as comfortably as possible...if I'm evil for that , so be it .. because I'm not going to work as hard as before if I'm giving the money to charity without any luxury for myself

[@joeblack4436]

When somebody lives instead of dies, because of something that you did, then you share responsibility in what they then do in life. If I save a man's life, and he goes on to murder a child, then causally that child died, because I saved the man's life. Unequivocally. This is a small rhetorical example. History is littered with cases studies, but ranging up to a monumental scale. Now of course we don't have the forward seeing causal perspective to make life and death decision in the present that take such hindsight judgements into accurate account. We are not gods. However dismissively stating that the moral choice is for the eventual murderer to make is hardly appropriate. That is simply moral delegation if we want to be utilitarian about the whole thing. In succinct terms... Moral cowardice. It might be different if at least you ensure that you're in a position to exact final justice. That's hardly the case when you go outside your national borders. Forcing somebody to save anybody's life makes you causally responsible. The power to declare that forced charitable giving to somebody on the other side of the planet, in a different culture, religion, legal framework, etc. is definitively right is also within the jurisdiction of gods. You have to have the power to make it so. And in the human context decisions by states with extranational impact must at the very least be open to democratic review. I have to mention this, because it is arguably a human necessity that states are able to make fairly impactful decision on extranational activities. Though never without any checks and balances. In any case singer assumed for himself the power of a god. Now, it cannot be denied that charitable giving is noble. And nobody should ever be held liable for the acts of somebody they save. However the choice must be for the individual. For, the individual is most assuredly in a better position to look into the person in need's eyes. It could reasonably be argued that it should be expected that the charitable giver must be able to at least do that or otherwise ascertain the righteousness of the cause through some other medium. For we are not omniscient through time and space, but we are also not powerless nor devoid of faculties of judgement. And the individual act must never be personally meaningless. Never mechanically predetermined. Of course decisions on what constitutes common good, and where mutual contribution to such is appropriate, is a matter for the political system you abide in. Where you do have a legal framework you can operate in and ensure eventual justice when neccesary.

[@SatyneStars]

First of all, no, you don't have any responsibility in what someone do in THEIR lives. That's all :)

[@joeblack4436]

@@SatyneStars If you read my comment, then you would see that I agree (start of 2nd paragraph). The main thrust of the philosophy being discussed is that it's appropriate to force people to be charitable. That is what I disagree with. Personal choice is an effective compromise between objective utilitarian considerations, which is what the philosophy in the video speaks to; And subjective humanitarianism. For example. What if the sympathy of the individual lies predominantly with single mothers in poor countries everywhere, and that is what they wish their charitable donations should be used for. But, the authorities which have claimed the right to decide for them chooses to only to fund tertiary education in allied nations? However many of those there might be?

[@yessir8089]

Absolute nonsense. It's like saying "give money to the homeless, it will solve the problem". Things are so much more complicated. Money cannot solve problems.

[@kooshanjazayeri]

well at least it would satiate their hunger for once.

[@finndaniels9139]

It’s not at all like saying that There’s quite a few NGOs with incredible efficiency and output, who take a very low admin share and who’s work has proper tangible impacts. A £7 net has a great chance at saving a life in Africa, and it is something that has traceable impacts through the correct foundations

[@yessir8089]

@@finndaniels9139 Give me some examples, names please. I do not believe famine is a natural disaster anymore, it is man-made, political, the result of conflictd and wars.

[@finndaniels9139]

@@yessir8089 the against malaria foundation is an example I’ve given a couple times in this thread, they’re excellent and consistently rate very highly at both administrative efficiency and actual tangible output. You can buy an anti malaria net for £7, and it gets given to a person needing it. That’s it. There’s loads of studies around the impact access to such nets has on mortality and malaria rates in the areas they’re distributed. This is just one such example, there’s quite a lot though just takes some research before blindly donating money And famine was just the event in the news when Dr Singer was writing it, it’s not specifically about famine but about changing the balance we’ve currently struck between altruism and egoism.

[@finndaniels9139]

@@yessir8089 another is heiffer international, which gives livestock along with education to some of the poorest families, with the teach a man to fish mantra behind it. They’re also consistently rate highly on transparency and admin fees etc. Or conversely you could give time, or you could give to smaller local charities over which you could provide much more oversight

[@JorgeIaniszewski2015]

We are not in 1971, and it was probed all along that charity doesn´t work. There you can see Africa, staying poor as an option as the rich countries gives their authorities millions. Only Free Market does the miracle and stops famine.

[@bc9866]

Rich countries don't give their authorities millions, most are loans and the few that are true donations are for opposition or for global causes like stopping pandemics before they spread. Botswana has a deb-to-GDP ratio of only 18.2% compared to the USA's 123% or Japan's 266%, yet pays far more in interest especially versus Japan that utilizes negative interest rates. On top of western powers still owning land and pushing some countries to function on western tender, most of Africa are the ones donating to rich countries.

[@th3comb1ne13]

He is essentially arguing in favour of socialism. Something that has failed countless times in history. Redistribution of wealth only temporarily solves the issue. In the long run it makes everyone poorer by taking the most wealth away from the most productive. Not only does this disincentivize the producers; it prevents the creation of wealth and innovative new products that good health and long life require. Famine will never ever go away as long as the earth has finite resources. Bringing everyone down to the same level will have disastrous consequences for the human race.

[@drivingdowneastbrainerd]

first, i appreciate your comment here and would like to add some comments myself for starters, this argument is most definitely in line with socialism, however i don’t think it should receive the same political side eye. this humanitarian crisis of being aware yet dismissive of tragedies across the globe is (according to singer at least) morally apprehensible. we can and do have the proper resources to end and prevent famines. without a doubt. we have a surplus of food on this planet; that’s to say there is no real reason that anyone should reasonably be able to die of hunger. however, overconsumerist nations like the United States contribute heavily to this issue. capitalist countries like our own incentivize selfishness for the individual and the nation alike. also i want to say, those who are the wealthiest are often times NOT the most productive. the common laborer i would say is more productive than the richest of folks who don’t even have to do real “work” anymore. those in the 1% certainly have more wealth than one human could spend in one lifetime even if they tried (see elon’s failed space missions as an example of what billionaires do with their money when bored). ultimately, i guess a world where people want to give and save lives more than they want to experience material luxury is but a fantasy.

[@th3comb1ne13]

@@drivingdowneastbrainerd The issue is that redistributing resources as a method of ending poverty only creates dependency. It is a band aid solution that will not permanently solve the problem. Solving the problem entails that the poor become able to provide for themselves. If they choose to remain dependent they do not deserve our help. Comparing work done by a CEO and the common worker is like comparing the sun to a lighter. The CEO not only has more responsibility, they also have a completely different and more impactful skillset. The sun and a lighter both have their place. The only difference being that the sun (the CEO) is far more impactful.

[@drivingdowneastbrainerd]

@@th3comb1ne13 lots to say here. to your first point, i just can’t agree with the notion that impoverished / starving nations don’t “deserve” our help. it’s true that affluent nations, like the United States in particular, are a big reason why some nations have been destabilized and starved of resources, economic power, etc. we go in and do our classic imperialist stuff and make sure we get a big portion of the pie (oils, factory labor, etc.) while people work for pennies and dimes to survive. if anything, we should use our wealth as a nation to try and right the wrongs, if you will. and besides, i don’t think that would result in dependency. if anything, it could get a nation on stable ground, and allow it to actually flourish independently. this selfish mentality of keeping all the wealth for ourselves because we “deserve it” is exactly what capitalism drives into all of our brains. and to your CEO / worker analogy, please. There would be no such thing as a CEO if it weren’t for the WORKERS. Nepotism and luck absolutely play a part as to who makes it to the top of the economic ladder, and the rich can sit pretty while the working class does the real labor. The building that the upper class owns would not exist if it weren’t for the worker. that “impactful skillset” that you claim all CEOs possess could be nothing more than holding stake and moving numbers on a spreadsheet. I don’t see how that’s any more impactful than a teacher, a firefighter, or even just your common construction worker that paves the roads we drive on. it’s the “big man” that gets the recognition for things like that. remember that the CEOs biggest fear is becoming a real worker once again, because they themselves are highly aware of the bullshit that workers face (wage theft, union busting, etc.)

[@th3comb1ne13]

@@drivingdowneastbrainerd Even if larger nations are part of the problem, that doesn’t give impoverished nations the right to willingly remain dependent indefinitely. If impoverished nations don’t want to help themselves they do not deserve the help of others. With that being said, larger nations are only part of the the problem. The underlying problem is that impoverished nations cannot provide for themselves. Constant aid will never solve this. A better solution is to help them build the required infrastructure and systems to provide for themselves. Now this brings up the question of capitalism and imperialism. Without a doubt capitalism and imperialism has its problems but it’s the lesser of several evils. Conquest creates competition and competition creates innovation. Capitalism and imperialism fan the flames of competition. While these things are detrimental to some individuals, we owe allot of humanity’s advancement to capitalism and imperialism. Without the CEO the workers efforts will not be directed effectively. While luck and nepotism play a part in competition, competition is still competition. As Machiavelli wrote, relying on the the good will of others to keep your position of power is unreliable. If you are not an effective leader you will not keep your seat. Saying a CEO is just “moving numbers on a spreadsheet” is like saying chess is just “moving pieces on a board”. It looks simple on the surface but it’s not. At the end of the day being a CEO is a leadership role, and leadership requires skill.

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

It’s not inline with socialism. He makes no arguments about the ownership of the means of production, no arguments about a capitalist class. Marx makes some moral claims but they’re largely centered around who owns the value created by doing some bit of labor. Singer’s argument is that if you can save a life at a cost to you of some luxury, then you are morally obligated to do so. These are completely different arguments.

[@44hawk28]

I remember reading this treatise several decades ago, and I feel about it exactly the same now as I did at that time. Anybody who cannot see the glaring flaw in the premise and conclusion of this treatise, is either glaringly ignorant, which means they just don't know any better, or they're stupid. There are people who run these organizations the vast majority of which make millions off of these higher-end organizations because up to 95% 96% at the worst one I ever saw, went to the people running the operation, to the people they were helping. Most of them are in the 80 percentile category money that they keep as opposed to money that actually goes to help somebody. And that's just one glaring example of the problem with the examples as quoted from 1972 all the way up to today. The other problem is to pick on capitalism primarily. And capitalism is the one mechanism which is the most colorblind because no trucker knows the color or national origin or religion of the person who put together the engine that is in his truck. Who handled the eggs he had for breakfast. It also has brought people for the first time in history, to a generalized income level greater than what people were still making for the last five thousand years in general. That's just two points violate his overall premise. If you want to help more, you eradicate those government systems that are causing more famine and slavery and Evil then others like communism which is killed 130 million people just since 1917. Not even the Nazis were able to do any worse than that and they were socialists as well. They just didn't like socialism the way that Communists were applying it. And there has yet to be a democracy that has lasted longer than about two generations. Which is why the United States is not a democracy it is a constitutional republic where certain things are right and certain things are wrong it doesn't matter how many people want to do the wrong things, it's still wrong. At least that's the way the Constitution outlines it to work. That however does not work when those who have gotten into office frequently disregard it entirely. Beginning with the American Indian Removal Act of 1830 was probably the most egregious example of that. But that's what happens when you let somebody who's clearly a psychopathic murderous bastard become president. The only good thing that Jackson was ever good for is he wouldn't allow European Banks to take over our country yet.

[@richardkennedy8481]

God lets children drown etc. all the time.

[@firstal3799]

If I am so well dressed and going to meet someone to impress. I will immediately save the child. When I show up at the meet with my dirty clothes and tell the story. The girl will be immediately impressed. They dig things like that

[@breadwinningbiscuit1086]

H Agarwal true. But if that’s the reason u saved the child ur action shouldn’t be commended.

[@kanatsizkanatli]

@@breadwinningbiscuit1086 true but if you have an ego (if not totally consumed by it), all 'your' actions are in fact the action of ego by virtue signalling.

[@mypetclone]

Great. Now tell her that your charitable actions have (example from the talk) prevented EIGHTY THOUSAND people from going blind.

[@ohausk]

completely missed the point ina really fun way though

[@firstal3799]

That will only be inside my head, of course.

[@johnact9134]

If I give all my excess wealth today likely I will be the one in need tomorrow. Teaching one to fish is better than giving them all your fish. The more helpless you help today the sooner the next famine comes. Is their not an evil component to chairity ? Might you be laying the ground for a larger catastrophe next time ? The helpless will always be in trouble. The industrious, resourceful will have their ups and downs but when they are in need they turn to themselves to find a way out. I have always depended on myself to dig my way out even when broke and hungry I refused to take any sort of government handout. Might I add since reaching the age of receiving a Social Security check each months slowly over a period of years I have become just another helpless urchin. Like most other Marxist Mr. Singer thinks we must not have anything which everyone else does not have. The flaw in Capitalism is wealth gets distributed unevenly while the flaw in Marxism is no one works hard because it is very hard to work when so many are riding on your back. So no one has any excess wealth to give away.

[@badasszen7189]

Wow amazing. Very nice way to see it

[@marialuzras8743]

Extremes and their premises are always twisted truths These are times of reckoning for so many arguments based on "moral" grounds. I mistrust terminology like moral blindness moral significance , its hardly scientific but then again everything has to sound scientific nowadays. I mistrust the ideological use manipulating moral responsability and guilt . There sure is lot of competitive marketing to obtain economical assistance lately

[@aliceinwonder8978]

this is some class-A nonsense. if someone is drowning will you refuse to save them because they should learn to fish on their own? what the hell kind of platitude is that? you could literally save a life and you are saying that you refuse to because you shouldnt have to because they should help themself. you show no evidence how helping someone today means more people will be in danger sooner. not everyone can dig their way out. can slaves dig their way out? people who are trafficked? should we not help them because they have to help themselves? this is just blaming the victim and refusing to help out of selfishness. maybe the best part of your argument is that you yourself have become a useless urchin

[@Lexrezende]

@@marialuzras8743 Philosophy isn't science as competitive markets and other mainstream economic theories also aren't science. The difference is that philosophy don't pretend to be science (philosophy is bigger and defines what is science).

[@Lexrezende]

All this comon sense bullshit about teaching to fish and be industrious, resourceful and heroic has any conection to science or reality. It ignores the effects of poverty, inequality and starvation on mental and physical health of adults, how they affect mental, social and physical development of children and how the lack of energy, health and physical and cognitive skills that starvation creates drastically reduces the capability of an individual to "fish" and be "resourceful", "industrious" and "heroic". A Ferrari can't win a race against a Beetle without gas, new parts and maintenance.

[@devd_rx]

Imagine you work hard your whole life trying to reach a point of modest comfortable life, and then because of someone else's fault, you are morally irresponsible for someone dying because of famine Sure, i would wish badly that someone would just come give me food while i am almost dying, but if it was my own fault that led that to me being turned into a lifeless state, isn't it morally irresponsible for me to expect those in power to somehow save me?

[@bc9866]

You have access to internet. You most likely live in a society that directly benefits from slave or highly encourage child labor and the resources stolen from ravaged countries your society or your society's allies caused. Unless you live on some remote island, you're partially responsible.

[@dingobat2389]

Wow. Cold dude

[@9e7exkbzvwpf7c]

How do you contend with the child drowning in the pond? Is it the child’s fault? If not, and you agree that you’re morally obligated to save the child in the pond why aren’t you morally obligated to save the child experiencing famine?

[@andytheaardvark1]

assuming you live in a developed nation and are of able body and mind, I can see how you think famine is a choice. When you have the tools to provide for yourself, that is, a stable job, food, shelter, you can be deemed responsible for your situation, at least to a certain extent. Now, do you think that same logic applies to someone born into a country with minimal to no infrastructure, no food security and no prospects outside immediate survival? Unfortunately that is the norm for a significant portion of the world. It's rather easy to forget how different the human experience is around the world. Those people did not choose to be like that. We are all humans, so let's not lose our humanity.

[@NWinnVR]

Once upon a time, there was this foolish traveler who had gone to a journey. Why was it foolish? Well because he was fooled by everyone he met. “I need money for medicine” Everywhere he went people made all sorts of sad stories to tell him, and the traveler fell for everyone of them. “I have a sick younger sister” “I don’t have money to buy seeds to plant in my field” Pretty soon the traveler’s money, his clothes, and even his shoes had been cheated away from him. But the foolish traveler was always glad to help. He always told people the same thing. He said, “I wish you happiness” But by this point though, the traveler was completely naked and with nothing left to cover himself. He decided to leave the main road and travel through the dense forest, where no one could see him. However, soon he was discovered by the goblins that lived in the woods. The goblins wanted to eat the traveler’s body. They begged him, pleaded, and used kind words to try to trick him. And of course the traveler was fooled. First he let them eat one of his leg, them one arm, then more and more. Before it was over, all the traveler had left was his head. He even had given his eyes away to the last of the goblins. And as this last goblin was eating the traveler’s eyes, he turned and said “thank you traveler.” In return, I leave you this present. What the goblin left was a piece of paper with the word “fool” written on it. The traveler couldn’t see it. He didn’t know what it was. Even so, tears began to flow down his face “thank you” the traveler said. “This is the first present anyone has ever given me, I am so happy, I am so happy, thank you.” Even without his eyes, he cried and he cried, great tears of joy. Then the traveler died, the smile still on his face.

[@gardenjoy5223]

You are comparing apples to pears. Real needs do occur in the world. This message is about giving to real needs. Not about people lying about needs. The fact that you come up with this absurdity here, makes a good case for you to indeed be evil. You'd go to such lengths just to avoid responsibility for REAL needs. You are the fool.

[@yessir8089]

Where is this story from? Very interesting, and so very true. Ill-thought compassion, empathy and agreeableness are NOT good.

[@kooshanjazayeri]

nothing is good in excess. that's basic knowledge, what's hard is to keep the balance in every situation.

[@williamwhitten7820]

*Peter Singer net worth and salary: Peter Singer is a Philosopher who has a net worth of $9 million. Therefore Peter Singer is a hypocrite; if he practiced what he preached he would have no more than $1 million.*

[@tarumakela5075]

he literally does. he donates a big part of his income

[@williamwhitten7820]

@@tarumakela5075 *You did not grasp the point of my comment.*

[@kooshanjazayeri]

even if he is a hypocrite that wouldn't mean we don't have some responsibility in helping others.

[@williamwhitten7820]

@@kooshanjazayeri *I never said that we have no resposibility to help others.*

[@kooshanjazayeri]

@@williamwhitten7820 no you didn't. but his argument basically is only that. and you only cared to point out he is hypocrite because he didn't give up everything he had. which is not a helpful reaction.

[@CarnevalOne]

This dude wants to push an objective morality without telling us where this objective morality comes from in the first place. Many people believe morality is subjective, as I am sure Singer does as well. You have to settle this problem first, otherwise you cannot make moral claims and pretend to be credible.

[@Elephantinred]

Oh, look, a moral relativist.

[@Gimpactx]

@Omar Aziz Right? quite the opposite. Sounds like a moral "absolutist". Some guy who can't prove what he claims and there thinks he can make moral claims because other intellectually honest people acknowledge the epistemological limitations of proving morality is not subjective.

[@veganworldorder9394]

@@Elephantinred Lol I don't agree with the stupid initial comment made by Carneval but explain to me how is morality not relative ?

[@veganworldorder9394]

Nowhere he tries to push an objective morality lmao. At no point in this video Singer pretends/needs to pretend that morality is obiective. He even says at the beginning that you use your own standard to evaluate premise 2. You are a clown

[@jlayman89]

You understand that he sets forth the example of the child drowning right? Then if you conclude that allowing the child to drown is wrong, he argues you are committed to the rest of this. Nowhere does he say allowing the child to drown is objectively immoral. You're free to take that out if you wish. His point is that most people won't and are doing essentially the same thing when they spend frivolously. He critiques the morality of the holder by posing a test, like the trolley problem, then the resulting answer is what determines how most proceed. You can even frame it in terms of the trolley because it is just that. There's a trolley headed for a kid. On the other side of a mud puddle is the lever to divert the trolley and save the kid, but it ruins your shoes. Should you pull the lever? If you think you should, then His arguments bite. If you think it's fine to let the trolley hit the kid, or let the child drown, then you aren't committed to the rest of his arguments.

[@philiplindecker6628]

I just don't understand this. I mean, I understand what he's saying, in the context of real life it makes no sense.

[@mateukole5660]

What do you mean by 'it makes no sense'?

[@MegaMementoMori]

He means that giving a large amount of your money to people in Africa is simply crazy.

[@JenniferM.5387]

Give philanthropy a try. It will make sense.

[@veganworldorder9394]

@@MegaMementoMori what premise of Singer argument do you reject ?

[@MegaMementoMori]

@@veganworldorder9394 I reject the premise that after your second or third saved kid you would not seek reimbursement for laundry fees from the parents of further kids that you saved jumping in ponds. I don't think that many people would argue that such a claim would be immoral in any way, so the conclusion that you should be forced to save foreign kids by loosing most of your money breaks down.

[@muhammadsubhan9318]

Mr.Singer is talking Quran .. word for word ... such people are Muslims but they couldn't tell that they are because they don't see Muslims doing it ..

[@gardenjoy5223]

Was about to give this a thumbs up, until he made the silly and quite nasty joke about the conservative Republican. There are bad apples everywhere. There are bad apples in the Democratic party as well as in the Republican party. I'm sorry to see how acceptable it has become to speak with such disdain about a decent fellow American. There are conservative Republicans right now who fight for the life of a very 'liberal' Democratic party voter. I almost got sick to the stomach, hearing such an evil joke, coming from this unexpected perpetrator. Doing good at one point, doesn't allow for doing bad at another point.

[@ramoncotta1264]

If one examines the message, and truly thinks it through, one may find it is not so good, not so kind, and not so generous. The problem with ethics is that it is dependent on context. What is good for who? Who is in a position to determine what is good? In business for example, anything that enhances the bottom line but does not risk the company by being illegal, is fair game. In law, use of legalities to attain property that one did not earn is ethical. In police work, it is ethical to lie to someone in order to get a confession. In medicine it is ethical to give a medication that has serious side effects so long as it is approved by a government agency. In war it is ethical to kill another human being in order to reach the stated objective. All is fair in love and war. If you lie about your political opponent, it is nothing personal. See? The evil ones are the ones who tell you how to live. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, all telling the world what is righteous and good, what to do, and who to do it to. Singer is no different.

[@gardenjoy5223]

@@ramoncotta1264 Seems you are just trying to justify things, that you would experience as 'not good' to even 'evil', if you were on the receiving end. Humans may say, that all is fair in love and war, but of course it is not. You might want to think that through. That was the big problem of Nazi-Germany, when the people just did as they were told and gladly believed they were Übermenschen (better than others), when in fact they totally behaved like Untermenschen (worse than others). When it is Your kid, drowning in the pool, and you have his limp body in your arms, you will find all, who didn't want to rescue him, monsters. And rightfully so.

[@claudesylvanshine6551]

How did he get to this google talk? For consistency's sake, one would think he now does everything virtually, otherwise he's a giant hypocrite.

[@auliaaliyev4759]

Good point. Perhaps he was offered a sum of money for attending the talk in person and plans to donate it?

[@georgiadixon3046]

@@auliaaliyev4759😂

[@aliceinwonder8978]

he gives away all his money. how about you?

[@georgiadixon3046]

@@aliceinwonder8978 all his money? How does he live? He’s worth about 9million.

[@claudesylvanshine6551]

@@aliceinwonder8978 I'm not the one making claims such as his. If all of his money is given away, how is he able to travel and get food?

[@johnhodge6610]

The survival of me and my progeny is my only moral goal. Gifts to others without something in return is moral corruption.

[@hashtag3073]

when john talks everybody rolls their eyes

[@gardenjoy5223]

So, basically, you are advocating the entire world to let you and your progeny rot, when calamity comes your way. It's not our child, that dies in the pond. It's only Your child. So why would I risk wet shoes to save someone, who means the world to you? Right... Let's see how you react when you hold the limp body of your child in your arms, because others weren't willing to live in 'moral corruption'.

[@andytheaardvark1]

Isn't that what distinguishes humans from other animals? As a species, we have other aspirations aside from mere self preservation. We experience empathy and live in complex communities. No wonder we still have wars in the 21st century... Do you not expect the same courtesy from others, and assuming you don't, for what reason other than selfishness or stubbornness?

[@factual6591]

A Communist posterboy

[@th3comb1ne13]

Im glad I’m not the only one who noticed this.

[@PBrofaith]

haha Bill Gates, he is not interested in peoples well being. what a very sick joke Mr Singer

[@jammydodger9402]

Could you elaborate on this? Why do you say Gates is not interested in people's wellbeing?

[@PBrofaith]

Alex Haydn Going by what he has said in other talks he clearly has no interest in peoples well being. However I could understand why people would assume that he does.

[@zidapplip]

What does he say? Please elaborate.

[@SamMcinturff]

It seems to me that giving billions of dollars to charity is good evidence that he cares about the well being of others.

[@LoL12kricki]

@@SamMcinturff Bill Gates cares about his image, before he decided to become "the nice altruist billionaire" he was extremely disliked and seen as the tech-monopolist he is. (There's a reason he got a pie to the face). That's not very good when branding has become so important though, so he had to change his reputation by pledging to give away all his money. Since then he has however actually MADE more money than what he has given away. His entire wealth also stems from exploiting the very same people in the third world he claims to "help", the minerals and metals in the tech he sells come from slavery and child labor, no matter how much he gives away for PR that won't change. Gates is a capitalist, and profit is and always will be his main motif.

[@palavpalavets5911]

What a nonsense is all this mental gymnastic...

[@gardenjoy5223]

Not if it is your child, dying in that pond...