The Life You Can Save | Peter Singer | Talks at Google
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.พ. 2013
- Peter Singer is recognized as one of the most influential philosophers alive. He is the author of Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics, and has motivated countless people to give more to charity. His most recent book is The Life You Can Save, and he has recently set up an organization of the same name. In this talk he speaks about the ethical argument for charitable giving and steps we can take to have a positive impact.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I admire Peters ability to react to the questions. I had to think for a minute before I was ready to answer some of the questions even though I have read a substantial amount of litterature on the subject. If I had his speaking abilitys I would be able to spread some of his and my own reasoning on the subject to my rich fellow citizens in Denmark.
I love the guy at the end in the red shirt. I agree completely with him.
I love the man that brought up the Starfish Story at the end - that story has inspired me for a long time (not quite as much as Peter Singer himself though!)
Hmm never heard of him and I've been studying philosophy for six years. I learnt about Peter Singer within the first month of studying philosophy ;)
Going vegan and donated to this cause is very satisfying
Great talk. I don't know what the deal was with the first question asker and his obsession with owning a fancy suit but he needs some help. What I like best about Peter Singer is his Phil
Singer starts at 1:17
...Philosophical arguments can be applied to real life.
So the simple solution is to increase taxes and use that money to grow more healthy humans in areas where humans currently suffer. I am sceptic to charity, that would mean good-hearted people would end up with less money than the evil bastards, so essentially promoting evil.
It would be nice if you can possibly communicate in anything other than assertions.
Ah, there we go - no, I have not begun studying continental philosophy! The three institutions I've studied at have all been very focused on the Western tradition. Yes, heard of Kripke.
I've been studying it for 12 years with advance degrees. Smiley face person. If you don't know who Jurgen Habermas is you haven't begun studying continental philosophy. You have heard of Saul Kripke?
Did you even watch the video?
Mostly water. Some sugar and salt, too, I think.
It saves lives where plain water would not.
Maybe, but if your subjective view is that it is immoral to let a child drown in front of you, then it is logically inconsistent not to also believe that you should donate money to save children abroad. And if it is also the case in your subjective view that you ought to be logically consistent, then you have reasons to donate to charity.
well the truth of the matter is that where ever folks like singer get their way and "help" the populations you have entrenched poverty like in africa.
asian countries like taiwan/south korea even bombed out japan were poor, and without the meddling of people like singer now out compete us in many industries. so draw your own conclusions i guess.
Not unrealistic in the least & I suspect you're restricted by your worldview and walled paradigm(s). When 5 members of the Walton family are worth more than the poorest 110,000,000 Americans combined..while refusing to pay a living wage..intuitively one must know something is wrong.
it's an issue of societal equity and fairness - a moral responsibility. And, if one cannot bring themselves to acknowledge morality...well then...it makes economic sense to reign in vast inequalities.
So you would let the baby drown?
Go vegan. And consider promoting the idea of a pollution fee. That would make meat and other things that are harmful to the environment cost more. People would change habits toward more environmentally-friendly practices.
We need to understand our duty to bring an end to those corrupt governments that Singer mentioned. Public funds should ONLY be used in ways that most people feel promotes the public good. Share proceeds of pollution fees among all people. No one need live in extreme poverty.
Glad I missed your childish retort and introject into a reply to someone else. Missing your comment saved having to swim upstream against a torrent of intellectual dishonesty masked as 'i demand foundation!'. You never did address my earlier comments - again expected. Rather comical in that at some deep reaches of your own brain I"m certain you take your intellect seriously. Keep chasing after windmills & GL!
In terms of helping non-human animals effectively people may like to check out: effective animal activism . org
Charitable giving is fine, but it doesn't seem like the real answer. Economy should be designed to meet human needs globally & nothing less than that is good enough. A world without poverty or "charity cases" - that's not too much to ask is it?
well its more like he's unrealistic, i'm sure utilitarian thinking would mean you'd take your childs college fund and send it to africa to feed starving children because judged from cold statistics they need it more than your kid needs a college education right. furthermore he feels people should be forced to do what he thinks is right, its fine if he chooses, but when your advocating governments do this, you are spending other peoples money.
Defend your claims. It's a simple request. Yet you have thus far not done so. Your attempt to obfuscate my critique of your response to franicis chow is bad form on your part. Of course, English may not be your first language, so I can understand your possible confusion. If language isn't the problem, to deride a critque by calling it "prattle" and my "discourse laughable" does nothing to support your position, and is not a rational critique of my response. It's pure evasion on your part.
Oral rehydration therapy... sounds like drinking water to me...
is it, but with salt and sugar.
Not a response to Peter Singer's views. Life is evil. Redemption can't be found by charitable deeds. Stop being evil!
He is not the most influential philosopher alive. In fact, not even close. Jurgen Habermas is the most influential living philosopher. Just ask Peter Singer.
I am sorry to say but this guy is disgusting. Saying that it is okay to kill living children who are unwanted.
And what of your own restricted worldview and "walled paradigm(s)"?
Firstly, you make claims as to "living wage" and then state a conclusion of morality from intuitiveness, yet you provide absolutely no rational argument. You make mere assertions. Your conclusion does not follow your claims: non sequitur.
Secondly, you claim that "societal equity" and "fairness" are a moral responsibility. Again you only assert. You give no valid argument. You define no terms. You apply no stepwise logic.
I don't think he talked about any such thing in this speech. Do you agree with him about reducing poverty, or not? If you don't disagree, why are you trying to use those other views (which are simple consequences of utilitarian thinking, they don't have anything to do with him in particular) as a reason not to save lives in the developing world?
Nah
We should treat animals as well as possible while they're living and not cause unnecessary suffering, but animals don't have the same value as human beings.
Hahahahah.
Most ridiculous comment i've ever seen.
Every life has the same value, beyond its owner
An elephant, a human, a mouth or a pigeon.
This charming dude thinks that zoophilia is okay, as long as it's pleasant for both sides, have just read on Wikipedia.
Well done you have managed to distill a concept and miss the point.
Tomek Samcik Firstly "advice" is a noun, "advise" is a verb. You have jumped to Hitler pretty quickly there and like most people who make nazi comparisons it is poorly judged. I would say if you need to understand Peter Singer's philosophy I think it would probably be best if you decided to read his books. They are a series of logical arguments that may help you understand his views.They will definitely be more enlightening that a wikipedia entry. You may want to read "On Liberty" as well it may help you understand the many differences between Nazism and Utilitarianism. But I can assure you they are very different, both in theory and in practice.
Not all non sequiturs are invalid arguments nor are all invalid arguments non sequiturs. But, nice usage for the sake of usage I guess. lol. "What of your own restricted worldview and walled paradigm" and?? or was that rhetorical & you leave w/ out a position as to the query via some sort of genetic fallacy...who knows /shrug. No rational argument for what? What is it you wish for me to defend? Be clear (if possible) - as your prattle becomes tiresome and to try and engage in discourse laughable