Bob's Bugatti (Peter Singer - Utilitarianism and Poverty)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2024
- Bob's Bugatti - Peter Singer - Utilitarianism and Poverty
A brief overview the Bob's Bugatti thought experiment and of Singer's views on poverty as expressed in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The article can be found here: www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/ma...
Some concepts from this video come from two other works by Singer:
"Famine, Affluence, and Morality" - www.utilitarian.net/singer/by...
"The Life You Can Save" - www.thelifeyoucansave.org/the...
The Impact Calculator mentioned can be found here: www.thelifeyoucansave.org/imp...
0:00 Introduction
2:17 We are all in Bob's situation
3:10 Singer's Central Claim
4:46 Singer's Core Argument
6:55 Something is better than nothing
9:24 Group Discussion
10:47 How much do you think an average family spends on luxuries a year?
Thank you for this video. I recently started "downgrading" my life or using the minimalistic principles of being surrounded by objects that I truly need and bring me happiness. This video comes just in time in my life. I am in the process of selling "luxury items" or items which I acquired in the past but I do not actually need. So far I have made nearly 2000 $ in sales and I continue. Now the longterm change requires not purchasing anything insignificant in the first place; as well as donating to effective charities (As suggested by this amazing presentation). Wonderful, thanks for the video and the charities link! Sharing!
You have motivated me to give a monthly contribution to Doctors Without Borders. Been meaning to but kept putting it off. Just thought you would appreciate the feedback.
There is something obvious that is being overlooked. Bob knows that if he saves his car, society will condemn him. He also knows that if he doesn't give to a charity, no one will condemn him. Furthermore, it is correct for Bob to value his own life over that of this child on the tracks. If a lion was hungry, but could only eat one person, you don't need to offer yourself up as a potential meal to save someone else. Your obligations are first to yourself, your family, your friends, your community, etc. Therefore it is both right and morale for Bob to value his own life over that of both the child on the train tracks and the child in Africa. The morale condemnation of leaving the child to die on the tracks would negatively impact Bob and his family. The same is not true of the child in Africa.
Ack, I feel called out. I'm kind of poor myself compared to others in the place I live, but I'm obviously much much richer than some poor kid in a third world country. I've given to Fred Hollows foundation and Amnesty International in the past, but really, not enough.
If it is any consolation, Singer's current recommendation for those making less that $80k a year is giving just 1% of income to highly effective charities.
If find his reasoning behind his current recommendations fascinating and will probably do a video on that chapter of The Life You Can Save some day.
@@PhilosopherGames Well, I did take that into account, I think I have donated less than 1%. I need to lift my game.
Colin! We are in the same philosophy group.
I would enjoy having you as my english teacher
Not to be overly political but if we lived in a society where those in positions of power spent significantly more of their wealth on helping others, then it would sort of become a moot point.
For example, often I'll purchase games off of the Humble Bundle. The money I spend on those games goes directly towards (afaik, reasonably effective) charities. If we demanded a higher level of responcibility from the luxury goods producers in our society, than effectively every purchase could be considered akin to donating a portion of that money on charity.
Tldr if some of the profits that were made from selling the bugatti to bob were spent on taking children off the tracks, then we wouldn't be here in the first place.
In a way this is a good argument, I agree that companies should be more responsible. But in the same time it is not enough for consumers to transfer all the responsibilities to big corporations, hence avoiding the personal responsibility (donating in this case).
@@kameliadeleva I disagree that we are "transferring personal responsibility to big corporations" when we "demand a higher level of responsibility" from them. Firstly, big corporations already have an inherently larger responsibility based on their proportionally larger financial power and ability to save lives. We are not "transferring" any responsibility, we are merely demanding accountability to existing responsibility. Secondly, why are big corporations exempt from the same argument that Peter Singer expects individuals to abide by? Yes it sounds like we are trying to conveniently shirk our own personal responsibility by drawing attention to the responsibility of big corporations, and I can admit that it is true to some extent. It is a human response or reflex when being called out and given personal responsibility. However, it does not change the fact that big corporations can and must be put in Bob's shoes, and held be responsible for the pulling the lever.
If you send your money to charities rather than spend it back into the economy dominated by corporations and the wealthy few, that is less money that will make it back to them. At least directly. It is kind of a global economy, so all the money will wind up back with the 1% eventually. The argument came to my mind as well, and I dismissed it as a red herring. While some have a LOT more than me, that does not invalidate the good I can do, and the choice I can make to do so.
That's how moral question choices makes us worse moral choices.Only for getting applouse from crowd.
Well, this mostly concerns itself with Americans, living in a country with a good social safety net, paid for by "my" taxes, I feel like I've already given way more than 1%.
But I still find this argument flawed, not because I disagree with the conclusion all that much, but rather because I don't like how it's reached. You can't really make an "ought" from "is". Just because I can save someone doesn't mean I should.
The argument based on "egoistic altruism" feels much more reasonable to me, I live in a society, and I don't want this to be a society of rampant poverty, needless death and suffering, so it's reasonable I would help as much as I feel I can to prevent that. Plus there's a personal benefit in that should I ever be in need of help, I can rest assured that I will most likely get it.
No moral theory has ever truly bridged the is-ought gap. But utilitarianism seems to at least jump over it by connecting good to pleasure/happiness and bad to pain/suffering. If you agree that pain is really bad and that pleasure is really good then you should have no problem with Singer’s argument.
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” The is/ought gap doesn’t matter all that much.
@@onace8863 Tbh four months later, I barely remember what this was originally about.
But here's the deal, pleasure good, pain bad really isn't a good model for ethics, even worse so apparently a whole lot of people think hedonism is a moral framework.
But I'm not even sure why you would bring that up, a certain degree of charity is required or at least considered to be the right thing to in almost every moral framework. Not like we need utilitarianism.
Also if the is-ought gap can't be bridged, maybe just don't start with an is.
@@JanVerny can you elaborate on why you think that pleasure and pain can’t be used for a moral theory?
@@onace8863 because there are things that cause pain that can be intrinsically good. A good example is exercising or lifting weights. The action of lifting weights can be a painful one yet the outcome is positive. In a framework of Pain=bad working out would be considered a bad thing.
@@rudy4380 I don’t think that is the pain being referred to by the argument. When they say pain and suffering they are referring to involuntary and destructive events. The working out argument (or climbing a mountain I believe Epicurus used as an example) doesn’t really count as pain as the ability to sacrifice your comfort during the process is a form of value you are spending in order to achieve a level of pleasure or happiness. The pain they refer to is the pain of loss, natural disaster, etc
Bob had no duty to save the child. Doing so would be considered supererogatory. Bob can enjoy his car and sleep well.
What if Bob knew with very high probability, let's say 90%, that if the child is saved now, in 15 years the child (now grown up) will (intentionally or not) tie 3-5 other children in front of a similar trolley?
That’s the problem with consequentialism. You can’t predict the future and that’s why I don’t disagree with Bobs Decision. Since Bob knows the value of the Bugatti but not the value of the child, deciding to save the Bugatti is a reasonable one
@@rudy4380 oh men. You've made such a compelling argument. Now I'm wondering how do we evaluate the value of a person/child? What do you think?
I don't feel Bob had a duty to save anyone. Doing so would be supererogatory.