ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Do the rich pay their fair share? Witness an exchange between Dr. Peter Singer (Con) and Dr. Bryan Caplan (Pro)!
The Life You Can Save (unaffiliated with me) is an organization deeply committed to reducing poverty and saving lives globally.
🔗 *Support the Cause:* Please consider contributing to [The Life You Can Save](www.thelifeyou....
Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe for more thought-provoking content. Your support means everything.
Dr. Peter Singer is one of the most influential philosophers of our time, best known for his groundbreaking work in applied ethics. Born in Melbourne, Australia, Singer's thought-provoking arguments have spanned topics from animal rights to global poverty, challenging prevailing norms and compelling us to reevaluate our moral perspectives. His seminal work, "Animal Liberation," is often credited with igniting the modern animal rights movement. Throughout his career, Singer has been a steadfast advocate for effective altruism, arguing that we have a moral duty to use our resources to help those in need in the most effective ways possible. His views, though sometimes controversial, have consistently pushed the boundaries of philosophical discourse and have instigated significant real-world change.
Dr. Bryan Caplan is a New York Times Best Selling Author and economist at George Mason University. A prominent voice in political economy and labor economics, Bryan has won critical acclaim for his books "Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration," "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," and "The Case Against Education." Caplan combines rigorous economic analysis with accessible prose, providing readers with fresh insights into everyday dilemmas and public policies. He writes at betonit.substack.com and is well worth reading!
Wow, two of my favourite intellectuals. I feel like this needs a part 2, Singer and Caplan in conversation!
Dang, how do you get so fire guests.
Point I didn't see: Singer's thought experiment takes a rare case in which we do feel it morally reproachable to not save someone. The more normal case is that we consider it morally neutral to not save someone and morally praiseworthy to save him or her.
Singer extrapolates from the exception to argue that the rule is wrong. Why not instead argue from the more common scenario that we are mistaken in the exception?
Agreed
The real social issue is whether one's income is earned producing goods and services of DERIVED on the basis of legal privileges under law that reward "rent-seeking" behavior that results in the redistribution of income and wealth from producers to non-producing rentier interests. The ideal source of revenue with which to pay for public goods and services is the monetary value of that portion of tangible wealth produced that comes from either natural or societally-created advantage. One professor of economics, Fred Foldvary, some years ago estimated that societally-created rent is as much as 30 to 50 percent of gross domestic product.
I generally agree more with Peter Singer than with Bryan Caplan, but I've always found Singer's attitude to immigration hard to reconcile with the rest of his philosophy. He has said that there is no chance of people in rich countries accepting large-scale immigration (not open borders here but even the periods when Australia were open to boats of refugees), but I don't see why that's any less likely than some of the other things that he advocates. Is it less likely than everyone in the rich world donating a tenth of their income? Is it less likely that everyone going vegetarian? And so on.
He is old and biased. What did you expect ?
@@yashpatel261 Older people are less likely to be vegetarian (at least in countries such as Australia and America). If he can go against his generational norm on that, why not on immigration?
Everyone is biased one way or another. Unless you're doing mathematics, bias comes in.
Excellent discussion!
This was phenomenal.
This was terrible can Peter answer to me why do those people still have thatch roofs. Harves clay, build a fire and make a roof. Are there countries truly so resource poor they cant do more?
When you spend your money on frivolous things aren't you helping others who earn a living from your frivolity? I think those working in boat yards building yachts, the tailors making tuxedos, and those working in vineyards making Champaign would say so.
*Pre-Debate Poll:*
Q: "Do the rich pay their fair share?"
A: Yes (60%) No (40%)
*After-Debate Poll:*
A: Yes (49%) No (51%)
Buy Dr. Singer's latest book here: Animal Liberation Now www.amazon.com/Audible-Animal-Liberation-Now/dp/B0C1ZYN3B8/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1697832614&refinements=p_27%3APeter+Singer&s=books&sr=1-1
Buy Dr. Caplan's latest book here: Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2VEBUBL2INX3Y&keywords=open+borders+the+science+and+ethics+of+immigration&qid=1697832678&s=audible&sprefix=open+borders+%2Caudible%2C134&sr=1-1-catcorr
Thank you for watching!
Are you a vegan Percy?
You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Percy, this off-topic from the discussion, but since you have Peter on, are you vegan?
I'd suggest not putting philosophers with non-philosophers, non-philosophers can't seem to be able to stick to a specific claim and instead ramble on about the general topic and their grivences.
Should we measure as a percent of consumption rather than income of wealth?
Does everything have to come back to open borders Bryan? It really seems tangential to the question at hand.
He literally explained the relevance in his opening statement.