I find it interesting that the "self-motivated" donation of one kidney draws so much attention here, however, the almost risk-free ability to donate blood, platelets and plasma is overlooked. With little drawback to one's self (other than time needed), more people across all income ranges can be helped, but yet so few people give. Why do we think that is? Wouldn't that be a great "zero cost" start to getting people to think about "EA"?
Yeah, see a whole lot of virtue signaling these days, if we are all such great people then why are other still dying from kidney faliure. Once inquired of a urologist about donating one, "Why would you want to do that?" was the reply. Obvious why he went into medicine.
I think the moral imperative in question as it is dictated by pure reason is what distinguishes the theory in Mr. Singer’s paper from what we, as a society, experience in practical use. I believe there is a nebulous sphere related to our choice; the closer it is (in time and space) to us at the moment we are practicing the choice or the will to choose, the larger the effect we can provide. This could be a big reason why society as a whole does not participate in the idea that donating is obligatory and not doing so is evil. For example, the effect of saving a child that you witness getting into danger is a direct result of your choice to save the child. It is immediate and knowable (to the extent we can know). However, the farther away the results lie (again in time and space) the less your choice makes a direct effect. You donate to UNICEF to save a starving child in Uganda, but, you intrinsically know that your money is not going directly to that child. It may be going towards the gas to bring that food or toward maintenance of the plane that flies it there or the cost of the person doing the organizing. Reasons for not doing otherwise are subjective and less powerful as an ‘evil’ counterpoint to the ‘good’ of donating. Knowing that your choice makes very little difference is a powerful aspect to human nature. This is a very interesting topic with many legitimate points of view.
Greed will be the downfall of us all if something doesn’t change. There has to be a movement. We should all take what we need and give what we can. We are all connected. Your suffering is my suffering. Your success is my success.
Love this subject. On donations, how can we be 100% certain that our donations will be used appropriately? Instead of only 1% of the donation going to the people in need.
Look at the public records of salaries paid to these non profits like feeding children, I have. It's appalling to see low level scum making 300k, and executives over 500k a year. It's public records.
What matters for the effective altruist is how effective the charity is, e.g., how many quality-adjusted life-years the charity can "produce" per dollar. It might be the case that charities which only have employees with low or modest salaries tend to be ineffective/low-impact. @@gezin82
GiveDirectly gives the money directly to people in extreme poverty. I recommend them. GiveDirectly is also rated as one of the most effective charities.
Good thinking! This is exactly what Peter Singer is talking about. This is why "Effective Altruism" is a movement and not just people donating individually: Someone has to do the legwork. GiveWell is a very reputable source, but handle it like you would purchase a phone or car: Do your own research! And note: Don't think about "how much of the donation 'goes to people in need'", but think about "how much good does it do". Medical interventions don't give cash to the beneficiaries, but pay for research, testing, production and delivery. But they prevent the worst outcomes imaginable.
Really had me there until he began defending the ultra rich and condemning regular people for buying coffee. He makes some good point but overall I disagree with the rest of the video. If anyone is interested in reading further I’m gonna rant for a sec about how he contradicts his own philosophy . If a child is drowning half way across the world you can’t throw money at that and pretend that’s going to save a child’s life. There have to be responsible people around who have the capacity to actually pull that kid out of the water and that has nothing to do with money. But what if that child were drowning because of a flood that ravaged their city or village and the reason for the flood was a damn that broke. What if the damn broke because repair work for the damn was agreed on but infrastructure projects are neglected for years because officials instead decided to focus on lining their own pockets to pay for re-election campaigns. Now how is sending your money to that government (even if it’s to an organization that you trust and believe is trying to do good) how could anyone not consider the possibility that once those funds touch the pockets of that same government that they won’t just turn around, do the bare minimum they need for media coverage and go back to how things were. Fine let’s say that most of the money actually goes into fixing the damn and the rest of city after disaster, is that really the most efficient way to spend your energy helping others and being altruistic?? A preventative measure would be much more efficient! Making sure that money is not mishandled in the first place. That does not seem like a problem altruists (especially rich ones) want philosophize on because it means having to do real physical and community orientation work. It’s not as easy as throwing money at a problem or blaming people who buy 3 cups of coffee a week but i sure do think it’s a hell of a lot more effective.
Anyway I always love this channel and though this particular take rubbed be the wrong way I still respect Peter Singer and hope he sees this comment and doesn’t take it a dis but a critique in his philosophy and would be interested in hearing his thoughts.
True, the next step for effective altruism to be “effective”, is spreading global education and democratization. For long term results to ever happen, people need to be able to create better societies for themselves.
This is one of the reasons why I don't donate to charities. Because I don't think all the money will go to the cause. How I see it is less say give $20 dollars to them. How do I know all of it will go there? I think maybe $10 dollars will go there and the rest will go to them.
@@zyntkalla6761 But if you never find ways to get at least $10 to the cause, you’re doing worse than the charity. If you aren’t finding other ways to help other than a big charity(which is really only a small part of the way people need help), you’re just taking a lazy excuse to be greedy.
I work for a global nonprofit and have seen the type of help people receive and the life changing effects. Some problems can be fixed with money alone (like a well to provide fresh water) and other problems need much deeper intervention (like helping refugees). Charities must be vetted, scrutinized, and held accountable. 100% agreed! But if you give $10 and it costs $2 to get $8 to those in need, is that really a bad deal? A minimum level of overhead costs is necessary to make any operation run properly. People need to know that "effective" means giving support for immediate help while working towards more permanent solutions. And yes, the risk of mismanaged funds is a real problem, but that is the reality of the world and should not prevent us from giving what we can, because then we become bystanders and give nothing... and help no one.
I don't think you should give only to the most effective organisations. You can also give to organisations, who need it the most. Why just giving to those who already figured it out how to be most effective. People and organisations who try and maybe also fail also need help! It's about the helping - not too much about how I think.
That is called the marginal impact of your donation I think. Most of the charities which are considered the most effective also can reallocate more resources and doing more good. Small charities could be "needing more money" but could have negligible or even negative impact.
I remember all the bad he has enabled, by promoting this idea that some future altruism justifies the evil that is done now or not acted upon now. Billionaires love this while they exploit workers and pretend to help the world with grandiose long term projects while ignoring the people who are suffering and in need this very moment.
Everyone should be as charitable as possible. But that is a palliative to a world where inequality is rampant. If there were universal basic income that would be no one in poverty.
I am not disagreeing with helping or donating. But am I the only one who thinks that this view/movement is constructed wrongly on so many levels? So you would not donate to train dogs, or for blind people or to save animals because it is more "effective" to donate money to save somebody from losing their eyesight or hearing. Do you not see the problem with that logic? Who would decide what is "effective"? By that logic of "effectiveness," one should neither donate/give money to the poor, to a beggar, nor the animal shelters and various charities, for it is more "effective" if a person gives their money to a person who has lost their leg, etc. Do not get me wrong we should help everyone, blind people, deaf people, people who have lost their legs or other body parts. To all of them. But "effectiveness" is a wrong lens to look through. Also, do not forget your money might not be worth a lot in the U.S. or other developed nations, yet, in other developing countries it has a lot more buying power ergo effectiveness. Again, I am not saying we should not help people from other countries, we definitely should but not because it is "effective". Just help to anyone you can help. It is that simple. Also, Bill Gates and other elites usually do it for tax credits. Never forget that ever. But also, the GUY in the video does not want us to redistribute money from rich to poor because at some point it stops becoming effective and it also stifles research and technology. So in short, those who are barely making money and surviving should give to those below them. But THOSE WITH 500K TO 1MLN or MORE should not because it stifles future projects/research/science and technology which can help others and many more people in the future. Also, those barely making money and giving it to poor people can do it because there is a study that found a correlation between giving and feeling happy. It is not causation but mere correlation. please if you do not know the difference go search. But he does not tell you that if you start to have more and more money like Elon or Bill or maybe at least 1 MLn to 10 MLN at least, then that correlation does not necessarily correspond. By the way, why give money to poor or blind guys, you can donate your money instead to research and engineering/science and technology. YES, it will not help current poor people or blind guys, but think about it, in the future, it can save countless blind people and/or poor people or another group of people. It is more effective. He is basically killing 1 guy in the trolly problem and saving 5 because it is effective or brings more happiness or usefulness. It is a slightly different form of utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Please, if you wanna do good, just go outside and do something good, do not think if it is "effective" just do something good. It can be small or big does not matter, and if it is plausible to you to do that good, such as holding a door for somebody else or helping your old neighbor with the bags of groceries in their hand. And you can do it, then just do it. That's enough. Of course, you can donate money or other stuff, but donate to any charity or people, or places that you want. Just do a good thing for the sake of doing a good thing. Do not think about "effectiveness" just do good.
It is about weighing up counterfactuals. Every penny you donate goes towards only one thing. You can either do 1 unit or good or 5 units of good with that penny. The only logical argument I've heard with respect to this is the opportunity cost argument - that if you don't help that 1 unit of good nobody will. However this seems flawed because that same opportunity cost currently exists for that 5 units of good. Anyone who critiques this logic simply cannot use critical thinking. There is objective effectiveness, and people who ignore this are just being selfish and donating to wherever they feel they want to because it makes them happiest.
@@Wild4lon It is objectively more effective to donate research and science instead of anything else because it will help more people in the future based on your argument. And if I decide to help the homeless old guy, based on your view of objective effectiveness I am selfish because it is better to donate that money for the sake of science and research. After all, my donation to the homeless old guy at best could buy him food or save him from death or homelessness if it is a huge donation. Plus he is old, it is more effective to help young people than old guy, am I right? Because young people can do more good because they have purely objectively speaking more time and they can affect more people by expanding the effectiveness of my help/good. But I must choose to donate that money for the sake of science and research because as you have pointed out it will be "objectively effective". After all, it will help more amount of people over time. Do you still not see the problem with your argument? Or do you really think my helping/ donating to a homeless old guy is utterly selfish?
@@Wild4lon Also, my friend, life is not white and black as you consider now. It is sometimes so hard to decide what is "objective good/right" or "effective". Life is not math. Or shall I say, you cannot necessarily approach philosophy from a purely mathematical view which you are doing with your 1 unit of good and 5 units of good? You are approaching purely from a utilitarian view. In Trolly's problem, you can either save 1 guy or 5, and as per your argumentation, if I do not switch or interfere with Trolly and kill 5 guys for I am afraid or shocked by what is going on, I am selfish. But you who are switching and intentionally killing 1 guy by doing so saving 5 lives are not selfish. It is fucking utaliteainism. When you add "effectiveness " to the problem it creates more problems than it solves. Thus, one must do good for the sake of doing good without obsessing with their good's effectiveness. Also, it is deeply and I would say rather easily debatable if true altruism exists. But it is a problem for another discussion.
@@Photonetheous Exactly. This is not about effectiveness at all. It's about catering to the wealthy, who wish to justify their immoral practices now with larger than life projects for some long term while people suffer now.
I like effective altruism, and I really like all the things it has done for the world. I've been inspired by effective altruism to donate to effective charities. But Peter's apologism here for capitalism borders on the absurd. If it's good for wealthy people to spend their money on improving the welfare of the global poor (and it is), then the obvious implication of that is not to try and shame every individual rich person into giving away a portion of their money, it's to raise their fucking taxes. Governments already have a mechanism for distributing resources in an intentional way to address the enormous inequalities and artificial suffering created by capitalism. Why does he spend so much time supporting individual rich people giving away their money, but refuse the idea that ALL rich people should give away a portion of their money proportional to their income? His defense in this video is twofold: 1. It wouldn't make a big difference after you finished elevating the extremely poor out of poverty 2. Private entities are more efficient at using resources than government agencies are The first point is complete bullshit. It applies just as much to charity as it does to a welfare state. The second is understandable but makes a serious error. Are private entities really so much more efficient than government bureaucracies that it's not even worth it to raise taxes and implement such bureaucracies? Surely they're more efficient to some degree, since they're competing against other agencies, and also they're not as bogged down by the slow-moving bureaucratic culture that dominates in many governments. However, the degree to which government intervention can cause massive changes is orders of magnitude larger than that of private charities. A quick google search shows the top 1% of Americans controlled 41.52 trillion dollars two years ago. Say that the top 1% of Americans were taxed 1% of their total net worth, a change so minute they would hardly notice it. That would result in 415.2 billion dollars. That's almost a thousand times more than the against malaria foundation has raised in its entire existence. Even if 9/10 of the money were somehow lost by the government as a result of its comparative inefficiency, wealth redistribution would be a far, far more effective method of addressing global systemic issues than bullying individuals into spending money. This isn't even a hypothetical. In the past 40 years, 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. 600 million of those were the direct result of a state program by China to eliminate absolute poverty. And China is nowhere near as wealthy as many of the nations of the west, yet they still succeeded two years ago to eliminate absolute poverty. How did they accomplish this? Through charity? No. They did it through economics. Maybe you don't like the government of China because it's not a democracy, I don't either. But democratic governments can do exactly the same thing. Look at the social democracies of Northern Europe, or Mauritius, or even just at the social programs that have already successfully been implemented in countries like the USA and Canada. Charity is good. Economics is better. I suspect Peter Singer, having ingratiated himself with the international ruling class for so many years, feels a strong aversion to working class politics, automatically taking the viewpoint of the global elite even when it contradicts his own ethics, and coming up with post-hoc justifications for why an economy geared towards maximizing profit is more moral than an economy geared towards providing all people with what they need.
Absolutely, also at this point the Effective Altruism movement is hugely financed by the ultrarich so it will never turn against them. A new movement would be needed
The issue with taxes is that if you raise them in one country, the ultra-rich will just move to another country. It worked for China because capital is so tightly controlled there, but for example an American billionaire can easily shift their taxes to a tax haven like Panama or Dubai
Your point about taxing the rich more is so absurdly economically illiterate. You unironically believe we can just take all the rich peoples money and throw it at problems and the worlds problems would be fixed. I suggest you lookup how much money is spent yearly by JUST the US government. Now ask yourself what happens once the stolen money runs out? Your China poverty argument is equally absurd. China in the past 40 years switched to a CAPITALIST economy (albeit only sort of, It's actually Fascism, Since the state essentially controls the corporations) from a COMMUNIST one. THAT is why so many people were lifted out of poverty. The "state program totally did this" is just CCP/Mar*ist propaganda. Also what successful social programs? The only one I would agree with is MAYBE food stamps. Everything else has been a catastrophic failure. Many of which have made things worse. And did you know that the Nordic countries are moving away from social programs? Because they actually have surprisingly competent governments that steer away from things that have been demonstrated to not work. We don't live in a post scarcity world. People need to work to improve their lives. Capitalism has been demonstrated to be the most efficient economic system for Humans. Government regulations and social programs are what raise cost of living, which is the real cause of poverty (That and their being not enough supply of things, Which guess what? Capitalism and specifically rich people are the best at generating).
The "Financial DNA" concept and how our upbringing shapes our financial perspectives was a real eye-opener. The story of Zell and his kidney donation was both inspiring and thought-provoking. It's interesting how we scrutinize everyday purchases but often overlook the effectiveness of our charitable donations. The mention of Bill and Melinda Gates' impact was a testament to the power of thoughtful giving. This video really challenges us to rethink how we give and the impact we can make. It's not just about the amount, but the intention and effectiveness behind it. 🌍❤💡
Every charity considers those aspects. The innovation here is obtaining money by any means justified by the assumption of some future altruism. Plus of course ignoring present urgent needs in favor of some future altruism.
My aunt has a guide dog and couldn't live without him. She lost vision from waiting for a lung transplant. Money might be better spent on other procedures, but people still need dogs.
yes, but why should I care to do so? "you value your own life more than a strangers"... yes, I do, they arent my family or friend, there has been no investment
@@bhatkat I find the notion of effective altruism obvious. Who wants to practice ineffective altruism? I also question the means by which donations are achieved (see FTX). I’m hardly utopian having been raised in the hippie era and seen its failures up close, but I’m definitely capital l liberal.
It's easy to see why Peter Singer is such an influential philosopher. His arguments are clear, well reasoned and persuasive. Some philosophers live in ivory towers, but this philosopher lives in the real world. He cares deeply about it and he wants us to care too. Three cheers for Peter Singer!
I think true altruism is in not hurting others, through educating yourself and being more engaged in your local community, you start to unstand the people around you and "not hurt" effectively
Effective Altruism: "All this unchecked corporate capitalism at best and fraud at worst is going to be for the good of humanity bro, I promise after getting billions of dollars for myself under my name I will give it all back just trust me bro"
I call serious BS, Singer. Redistribution of wealth is the necessary first step. Your protection and justification of the super rich is unequivocally unethical. Please reconsider.
@@harshbuttYou won't "run out of other people's money" because the money will be spent and put right back into the economy where it will keep circulating. The system we have now is causing us to run out of money because the rich have more money than they will ever need and so they just hoard it, which takes it out of the economy and leads to a heavier burden being put on the bottom 99%.
@@ForAnAngel That's not how money works. It loses value. Even if you can "keep circulating" the money around in a perpetual cycle (you can't), it'll eventually be worthless. The initial handout will have to be increased at the very least in line with inflation to be helpful, and unless handing out free money will motivate people to work harder and generate more wealth (trials have shown that it doesn't) the supply of actual wealth, and therefore tax revenue, will decrease. This leaves the burden of funding your new underclass on fewer and fewer people. Those rich enough will take their wealth to a more sane economy to protect it and your pool of middle-class tax payers will dwindle down even further as you've been forced to increase their taxes to compensate for that loss. Increased taxes in cases like this means less tax income elsewhere in the economy because those high value luxury goods are no longer affordable to those who used to be in the market for them, and people further down the ladder need to tighten their belts on necessities / essentials. This decrease in demand also creates a decrease in supply - fewer and fewer are being produced locally due to the ever-increasing tax burden and you're forced to import more goods that a decreasing number of people can afford anyway. This means prices go up. But that's okay, we can increase that monthly cheque to compensate. Unfortunately, that'll just exacerbate the problem. Well done, you've completed the first few steps to crashing your economy. Unless you're going confiscate the means of production, and that's never worked.
Big suffering can not be addreseed by one or two big philanthropists. All philanthropy is optional too, you could end it at your own whim and fancy. What if the surplus is held by institution and group who are duty bound by law to serve the inadequate? We need the accountability and stabilty as opposed to random giving. We need to make philanthropy compulsory not optional.
That is how charity is (apart from some money grabs). The innovation here is not that, but the catering to the wealthy with ideas such as earning (by any means) to give (eventually), with big sounding projects that put excessive focus on long term (in detriment of what is urgent).
I thought this was interesting "you might still say well we could make those who are worse off better off by redistributing the wealth of those who are very wealthy, that probably wouldn't make much difference anymore once you've got people above those levels of serious poverty"
@@danidelcastillo it is, except not everything is justifiable just because you plan on doing something charitable later. And that's where all this breaks down.
@@technolus5742 One of his conditions was 'nobody is dying from a lack of basic healthcare,' which means the floor would also have to be raised in many wealthy countries.
@@meatisomalley while still saying it's not worth redistributing cause nobody is bellow those levels of poverty... when again there are still people who can't pay for basic medical care.
He only touched on the subject, but altruism needs to be voluntary and not forced. Governmental redistribution of wealth has rarely been effective as he defines it. More so today than in the past. Government forced altruism tends to spend money lining pockets of politicians instead of actually doing any good. That's not to say that inefficiencies don't happen at the private level. Just that private charity tends to be more effective than government run charity. Voluntary altruism does mean that your neighbor may not do with his money that you would. That's their choice to make, not yours.
Correct. Forced altruism breeds resentment; that's also human nature. That's especially the case when it's inefficient and wasteful, which, as you point out, government almost by its very nature is.
And volunteer altruism is nothing but an oxymoron that makes people feel better about having more luxuries than basically anyone else in human history, and still watching people in your community starve and die in the street. Also, corruption ruins any good standard. You don't get to discredit a philosophy based on corruption. It's a problem when your thought process is not address corruption and instead say that any government based system to help the less fortunate shouldn't exist. You could frame the issue around: government shouldn't be corrupt enough to skim from charity; but that requires an actual solution and effort. Instead, we blame the people who want to help for being stupid enough to try.
@@dogleggedhades0 "And volunteer altruism is nothing but an oxymoron that makes people feel better about having more luxuries than basically anyone else in human history, and still watching people in your community starve and die in the street." Just to be clear, your premise, then, is that the only reason anyone helps anyone else out voluntarily-that is, voluntary altruism-is to feel better about having more luxuries than those they're helping?
@texvanwinkle no. My premise is that the only reason people are voluntarily altruistic is because we advance in luxury while our communities still struggle with relatable survival issues. It's not altruism on the basis of having more luxaries than them; it's altruism on the basis of coping with others struggling or dying while we strive to have more than we need. It is generally true that as time passes, humanity gains access to greater luxuries. As we gain greater access to luxuries, we still see people who have problems way worse than ours. Being voluntarily altruistic is how we justify our greed. We wanted more than we had, and we are aware people don't have what they need. We need some way to justify our actions so we donate to causes that we deem important enough.
@@dogleggedhades0Okay. I think your premise is incorrect and fundamentally misreads human nature. There are innumerable examples of people of limited means being voluntarily altruistic to people of equally or more limited means simply because they want to be. I believe people are altruistic not to justify their greed, but because we are inherently social creatures that, absent force or cause for fear or resentment, like to help. I'm not hoping to persuade you. I do believe more people, high and low on the income and luxuries scale, would agree with my perspective about it than yours, though.
Incredibly elitist philosophy that happens to think the best way to care for those in need is to be an oligarch and enact your will onto others. The fundamental assumption "You know best" as an individual donating to charity leads to all sorts of systemic and ethical flaws. In my personal experience this thinking is used by people I know to justify their selfish narcissism through "charity". (In quotes because many of the projects they fund are not charities. They are nonprofits with business goals.)
Exactly correct. Most recent obvious example is the BLM charity. Collected 6 million dollars... and spent it all on mansions for 3 families. Donations are dangerous unless your directly controlling it. Just handing money to x charity is no better than throwing the money in the trash...
The thing he's missing is psychology: We primarily give away to make us feel good, and thinking about that lovely dog you funded brings you more joy than thinking about that cataract surgery.
"We primarily give away to make us feel good" This is what liberals wants you to think but it's wrong. We intrinsically are altruistic as a species, "feeling good" is a reward reinforcing altruism.
@@alexalke1417 We are 'intrinsically' altruistic, only because we get the feel-good reward reinforcing it. As an ant researcher, I can attest that humans are *not* intrinsically altruistic. Otherwise we'd se a lot more self-sacrifice.
@@stefan_popp Maybe you should read Tomasello's lastest research to change your mind. Intra-specific altruism is one the key characteristic which makes our species so unique.
@@alexalke1417 a) never tell someone to change their mind, as it just makes them defensive and less likely to change their mind. b) Even if your statement were true, it doesn't say anything about _why_ we help out conspecifics without direct return. My argument is that it is emotional and not based on calculations.
Oh of course, let's ignore the pursue of a more just economic model and continue with increased inequality, while hoping the super rich will work on altruistic skills and feel good about 'helping to just lift the poor' to a mininum acceptable living standard. Oh this philosopher is a genius! I wonder why his brilliant idea is just not.working?🤔
I don't believe the kidney example is appropriate in the context of charity. I doubt the 1 : 4000 chance of death included complications in surgery given his specific circumstances. It's common for people to misapply group/population statistics to their individual circumstances. We all do it occasionally and sometimes with dire results. Additionally, did he bother to quantify the pain he experienced, how much longer the person lived that received the donation, or the relative quality of their life afterwards. Doubtful. To say not donating that kidney means that individual values themselves 4000x greater than another is absurd logic and honestly deplorable coming from someone with a background in philosophy. Black and white thinking like this is often times not the right way of thinking.
@@afiamanuwats It draws away attention from what should be the focus here. The focus isn't to blindly give one's excess away. That's foolish in my opinion. Real useful charity is difficult and time consuming. Anyone with excess can blindly give it away without a second thought. It takes true temperament and focus to do the most good with excess. Making people feel bad about not giving up excess is unacceptable and leads to outrageous claims such as are given in kidney example.
@nemo-studios never once did the man say that one should blindly give away. He actually made an effort to say that research/education is needed on the part of the affluent who are giving. It looks to me like you are projecting your own biases against giving. If giving a kidney doesn't make sense, then give for another cause. If ur too lazy to research a good organization to help because its time consuming, then just say that. I just find it very interesting that ppl are making an "argument" against the topic of performing altruism 😅
@@afiamanuwats I agree. It's not like there was a scarcity of recipients. The demand for organs is way larger than the supply for it. And talking about the pain when donating kidney is silly in the age of anesthetics.
Sure, let's defend and praise billionaires, who are directly aggravating the quality of life of people in "poor countries" with modern colonialism. Let's not consider the direct and indirect harm that corporations' owners cause to the "global south", which is thousands of times bigger than any aid they will ever provide. Their aid budget is ridiculous compared to the structural losses for "poor countries" they cause. Does this "philosopher" really try to put the responsibility of reducing poverty on average citizens by limiting their daily coffee drinks? "Make yourself happy by helping" and just ignore the global economic oppressive system that was created by the c*nts he's defending. Outrageous bigotry and hypocrisy.
But why is the person who's already blind less valuable or worthy than the person who hasn't gone blind? I have no doubt that the companionship, affection, joy and comfort a guide dog brings to a blind person is well worth 40,000 dollars. The dogs work for around 8 years, so if we round up to 3,000 days service on average, they cost about 13 dollars a day - the price of a movie ticket or a bottle of wine.
@@Ajhrvje but who’s to say that numbers automatically trump an individual’s quality of life… the £40k spent on research might only end up proving that a promising looking blindness prevention pill does not work. In which case most of mankind would be helped but in such a negligible way they would never feel the benefit. In which case the guide dog has way more impact and enables the blind person to partake in society, form positive relationships with others, spend money in a cafe, use public transport, add tangible benefits to society
Quite nice of him. Thing being is that if we all did this the economy would collapse around us and we would all be needy. Simple answers in a complex world are seldom sufficient.
Folks, SBF was highly aligned with "Effective Altruism". So you have to look past the happy talk title to figure out what it really is. We know what altruism is. No debate about that. So why not just call themselves "Applied Altruism"? That's because Effective Altruism is not the same as Applied Altruism. Thanos was an Effective Altruist. His thesis was that there is a resource crunch and that higher populations are a strain on that so half the universe must die so that the remaining people would have better lives. Thus, he was not the worst piece of crap in history but rather the savior of the universe in his own eyes. GW Bush was an effective altruist for markets when he said "I've abandoned free market principles in order to save free markets". It's lying, Satanic global elite speak for others must die so we can have more. And you are a damned fool if you think it is something else.
@@technolus5742what's your reasoning other than hating what is different? It only makes two assumptions: - Giving is good because I value people other than me - I can help more people if I give to the very worst off, per unit of money I spend The second is objectively true and the first is basic morality. Maybe it's you that's justifying your unjust hatred for your amoral greed.
@@Wild4lon Wrong. It also promotes earning as much as possible to later give as much as possible. Which is a principle that attempts to justify and incentivize actions of people such as Bankman-Fried. "Hating what's different" what a load of bull.
but charity or donating to the people will couse that money flaying back to the rich, why? think who produce the sell any food or goods in the market, who produce phone, electronics, utencils, clotches, etc? people will keep give the maoney back to them no matter what, then how we can fix this? what if instead just donating money we provide them a comunity owned company that can produce something can be sell on the market. why not give them the fishing equipment instead of always giving them raw fish?
Collective altruism could help avoid self glorification tendencies. All poor guys are as gracious if they had much more than what they need. Insisting poor people are intrinsically insensitive is one wishful misrepresentation. What we do for our kid or brother in most constrained circumstance is as grand, there is glory in small remote corners of our world, giving when you are not constrained is not as difficult or heroic. I am not against self glorification, it needs to be valid. After tying up the kind people of our world into minor spaces and holes the guys go on to become kind heart super star. 😊😊
@@prithvib8662because that's what this ideology promotes: that anything is justifiable cause you're really a great guy who is somehow with with twisted logic doing it all for the good of mankind.
@@technolus5742 you completely missed the point. Intentions aren't important in Effective Altruism, it's just about making the most effective use of your money when donating. And the richest people have the most to give.
People misuse ideology and philosophy all the time. This is perhaps the least dangerous philosophy if followed to its logical conclusions, so no need to fear monger.
@@prithvib8662 I did not. The issue here is the notion that everything is permitted for some supposed greater good. It's It's same idea that justified evil doing in communism. What's a limited number of deaths now in CO prison to an eternity of bliss? Obviously that led to pretty shotty actions.
I never want to be a millionaire or billionaire. I will never selfishly hoard money/resources. I can’t understand how anyone could aspire to be so greedy.
You are just saying that altruism is means by how many people you can reach. So a banker is always going to be more altruist, based on the rule you describe, than a common individual. What you describe is more likely to be the influence and reputation more than the altruism itself and your underlying philosophy is "give your money to rich people because they are more effective". You made a confusion between material and physical capabilities and the altruism philosophy itself. Effective is not belong to the understanding of philosophy, it' is out of the subject of etude of philosophy, philosophy dont care about effectivess, if so, you are not a philosopher anymore but an accountant, a banker, or a salesman.
He said there is a strong correlation between charity and happyness, then immediately claimed that therefore charitable acts make you happy ... Please stop messing up correlation with causation if you want to at least look like an actual researcher. (Anecdotal example: When I was depressed, I hated giving things, and being pressured to give things made me angry and not happy at all even if I did give someting.)
Peter Singer is correct to encourage altruism. Who couldn't agree? But there are misunderstandings here about the nature of how the world works and basic economics. Ethically, you could indeed better spend your $5 on a donation to charity than buying a coffee. But if no one ever buys that coffee the outlet will close and the staff become unemployed and in need of...charity. Any given $5 sum is spent not only on the coffee, but also again by the recipient. This process continues as the $5 note changes hands many times -and as a result the amount of money in circulation expands. So the economy grows, as does the prosperity of the entire system. Now I know many will say this is rubbish, sounding like Reaganite style trickle down economics that has been discredited, but nevertheless it is a fact that economic activity is the basis of the prosperity that allows some to give to charity. It is no surprise that China has transformed its economy since embracing this reality 30 years ago - despite receiving little from the rich West in the form of aid. .
Money spent on charity still ends up in the economy. If you give money to say, the against malaria foundation, that money will go to the foundation, who will then spend it on paying producers of anti-malarial nets. The producer of those nets distributes the money to its employees, who spend it on their necessities of life. It's not like the money doesn't exist anymore just because it's in a third world country.
This is incorrect on at least two accounts and fault logic on a third. Incorrect points: - China lifting out of poverty is an incredibly complex process that no other country has replicated to that scale because of its unique global positioning and population dynamics. In particular, the population boom in created a huge working force bulge in the 80s and 90s, allowing them to become the world's factory. Many other countries are also capitalist and yet failed to replicate. Whether capitalist or communist or socialist, as long as you get an increased output of value, GDP will grow. Value occurs from time: and in particular, working time spent producing things that others are willing to trade their working time for. - $5 on coffee is not the same as $5 on charity. We look here at the effectiveness of that $5. It's literally in the first word! I'll eat my right shoe if $5 on a coffee does as much good as a malaria net. The Pareto principle and diminishing returns apply here. - Faulty logic: you said yourself trickle down economics doesn't work. So how do you acknowledge this and then go on to justify your entire claim with trickle down economics and 'we all know X'. No we don't. Do you even know it to be true?
What causes poverty? The rich. Not only because they're rich but because they set the rules for the rich all across society. I give to environmental/wild life organsations and Amnesty. Then I care for my Chinese partner after she fell into madness. I think this guy is also a little bit mad for he dosn't see the world as it is.
This is WEF but instead of right wingers going crazy about it, it's left wingers lol. Tbh, i'd much rather have these guys then WEF pulling strings, because at least these guys are getting to the brass tax and really thinking about how rich people morals are supposed to work. WEF just panders and speaks a bunch of vague emotional nonsense. Nothing they ever talk about is actually relevant to the people who show up and it's all just another way super rich people meet up. Effective altruism on the other hand does actually generate new political theory and is currently shaping the political ecosphere of AI tech bros. So they're getting something done at least. Also effective altruism envisions a future where i get a brain implant that let's me trade and invest 500 stocks per second while getting it on, and WEF's future is just modern day san Francisco but in stasis. Even if the effective altruism's cyberpunk dystopia is worse, I don't care because that's infinitely more cool than an embarrassing psuedo socialist hipster world where we all love pod hotels and wework style offices.
Just because he was doesn't mean all EA associates with him and his mindset. FWIW he did it terribly. I never understand why the go to logical fallacy is 'person X in this group did random unrelated thing so you must all do it too'
@@Wild4lon Except he is not a bad example of this, that is precisely the philosophy: anything is permitted for a supposed the greater good down the line. It's the same notion that justified atrocities in the pursuit of communist ideals.
Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and capturesthe essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms. Greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge. Has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words,will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioningcorporation called the USA. Thank you very much.
Greed, wonderful greed, nothing it can't accomplish eh? Actually I agree with you a bit, it's not entirely bad and demonizing it is a dead end. It's not greed in itself, great that folks are so industrious and productive and expecting this from altruistic motives is for fools. Problem being that when, like other emotions, people let it own them when they are actualy better off taking charge and owning it.
Or you believe in archaic legends and not giving a damn about the consequences of our actions just leads to screwing up our future by our own exclusive fault.
I find it interesting that the "self-motivated" donation of one kidney draws so much attention here, however, the almost risk-free ability to donate blood, platelets and plasma is overlooked. With little drawback to one's self (other than time needed), more people across all income ranges can be helped, but yet so few people give. Why do we think that is? Wouldn't that be a great "zero cost" start to getting people to think about "EA"?
Yeah, see a whole lot of virtue signaling these days, if we are all such great people then why are other still dying from kidney faliure. Once inquired of a urologist about donating one, "Why would you want to do that?" was the reply. Obvious why he went into medicine.
Can’t recommend the book 80000 Hours enough. It goes into way more detail on how you can help other than drinking your coffee at home.
But I like drinking my coffee at home. Especially when it's quiet!
I think the moral imperative in question as it is dictated by pure reason is what distinguishes the theory in Mr. Singer’s paper from what we, as a society, experience in practical use. I believe there is a nebulous sphere related to our choice; the closer it is (in time and space) to us at the moment we are practicing the choice or the will to choose, the larger the effect we can provide. This could be a big reason why society as a whole does not participate in the idea that donating is obligatory and not doing so is evil. For example, the effect of saving a child that you witness getting into danger is a direct result of your choice to save the child. It is immediate and knowable (to the extent we can know). However, the farther away the results lie (again in time and space) the less your choice makes a direct effect. You donate to UNICEF to save a starving child in Uganda, but, you intrinsically know that your money is not going directly to that child. It may be going towards the gas to bring that food or toward maintenance of the plane that flies it there or the cost of the person doing the organizing. Reasons for not doing otherwise are subjective and less powerful as an ‘evil’ counterpoint to the ‘good’ of donating. Knowing that your choice makes very little difference is a powerful aspect to human nature. This is a very interesting topic with many legitimate points of view.
Greed will be the downfall of us all if something doesn’t change. There has to be a movement. We should all take what we need and give what we can. We are all connected. Your suffering is my suffering. Your success is my success.
👍
💯
Have you heard of Giving What We Can?
I recommend donating 10%+ of you income, it have been a joy for me😃
Get out of your bubble. 😂
Love this subject. On donations, how can we be 100% certain that our donations will be used appropriately? Instead of only 1% of the donation going to the people in need.
Look at the public records of salaries paid to these non profits like feeding children, I have. It's appalling to see low level scum making 300k, and executives over 500k a year. It's public records.
What matters for the effective altruist is how effective the charity is, e.g., how many quality-adjusted life-years the charity can "produce" per dollar. It might be the case that charities which only have employees with low or modest salaries tend to be ineffective/low-impact. @@gezin82
GiveDirectly gives the money directly to people in extreme poverty.
I recommend them. GiveDirectly is also rated as one of the most effective charities.
Good thinking! This is exactly what Peter Singer is talking about. This is why "Effective Altruism" is a movement and not just people donating individually: Someone has to do the legwork. GiveWell is a very reputable source, but handle it like you would purchase a phone or car: Do your own research!
And note: Don't think about "how much of the donation 'goes to people in need'", but think about "how much good does it do". Medical interventions don't give cash to the beneficiaries, but pay for research, testing, production and delivery. But they prevent the worst outcomes imaginable.
@@TrueMilli muh sam bankman fried movement
Really had me there until he began defending the ultra rich and condemning regular people for buying coffee.
He makes some good point but overall I disagree with the rest of the video.
If anyone is interested in reading further I’m gonna rant for a sec about how he contradicts his own philosophy .
If a child is drowning half way across the world you can’t throw money at that and pretend that’s going to save a child’s life. There have to be responsible people around who have the capacity to actually pull that kid out of the water and that has nothing to do with money.
But what if that child were drowning because of a flood that ravaged their city or village and the reason for the flood was a damn that broke. What if the damn broke because repair work for the damn was agreed on but infrastructure projects are neglected for years because officials instead decided to focus on lining their own pockets to pay for re-election campaigns.
Now how is sending your money to that government (even if it’s to an organization that you trust and believe is trying to do good) how could anyone not consider the possibility that once those funds touch the pockets of that same government that they won’t just turn around, do the bare minimum they need for media coverage and go back to how things were.
Fine let’s say that most of the money actually goes into fixing the damn and the rest of city after disaster, is that really the most efficient way to spend your energy helping others and being altruistic?? A preventative measure would be much more efficient! Making sure that money is not mishandled in the first place.
That does not seem like a problem altruists (especially rich ones) want philosophize on because it means having to do real physical and community orientation work.
It’s not as easy as throwing money at a problem or blaming people who buy 3 cups of coffee a week but i sure do think it’s a hell of a lot more effective.
Anyway I always love this channel and though this particular take rubbed be the wrong way I still respect Peter Singer and hope he sees this comment and doesn’t take it a dis but a critique in his philosophy and would be interested in hearing his thoughts.
True, the next step for effective altruism to be “effective”, is spreading global education and democratization. For long term results to ever happen, people need to be able to create better societies for themselves.
This is one of the reasons why I don't donate to charities. Because I don't think all the money will go to the cause. How I see it is less say give $20 dollars to them. How do I know all of it will go there? I think maybe $10 dollars will go there and the rest will go to them.
@@zyntkalla6761 But if you never find ways to get at least $10 to the cause, you’re doing worse than the charity. If you aren’t finding other ways to help other than a big charity(which is really only a small part of the way people need help), you’re just taking a lazy excuse to be greedy.
I work for a global nonprofit and have seen the type of help people receive and the life changing effects. Some problems can be fixed with money alone (like a well to provide fresh water) and other problems need much deeper intervention (like helping refugees). Charities must be vetted, scrutinized, and held accountable. 100% agreed! But if you give $10 and it costs $2 to get $8 to those in need, is that really a bad deal? A minimum level of overhead costs is necessary to make any operation run properly. People need to know that "effective" means giving support for immediate help while working towards more permanent solutions. And yes, the risk of mismanaged funds is a real problem, but that is the reality of the world and should not prevent us from giving what we can, because then we become bystanders and give nothing... and help no one.
I don't think you should give only to the most effective organisations. You can also give to organisations, who need it the most. Why just giving to those who already figured it out how to be most effective. People and organisations who try and maybe also fail also need help! It's about the helping - not too much about how I think.
That is called the marginal impact of your donation I think. Most of the charities which are considered the most effective also can reallocate more resources and doing more good. Small charities could be "needing more money" but could have negligible or even negative impact.
I remember Peter Singer once saying that he donates 30% of his income to charity.
I remember all the bad he has enabled, by promoting this idea that some future altruism justifies the evil that is done now or not acted upon now. Billionaires love this while they exploit workers and pretend to help the world with grandiose long term projects while ignoring the people who are suffering and in need this very moment.
Everyone should be as charitable as possible. But that is a palliative to a world where inequality is rampant. If there were universal basic income that would be no one in poverty.
I am not disagreeing with helping or donating. But am I the only one who thinks that this view/movement is constructed wrongly on so many levels?
So you would not donate to train dogs, or for blind people or to save animals because it is more "effective" to donate money to save somebody from losing their eyesight or hearing.
Do you not see the problem with that logic?
Who would decide what is "effective"?
By that logic of "effectiveness," one should neither donate/give money to the poor, to a beggar, nor the animal shelters and various charities, for it is more "effective" if a person gives their money to a person who has lost their leg, etc.
Do not get me wrong we should help everyone, blind people, deaf people, people who have lost their legs or other body parts. To all of them. But "effectiveness" is a wrong lens to look through.
Also, do not forget your money might not be worth a lot in the U.S. or other developed nations, yet, in other developing countries it has a lot more buying power ergo effectiveness. Again, I am not saying we should not help people from other countries, we definitely should but not because it is "effective". Just help to anyone you can help. It is that simple.
Also, Bill Gates and other elites usually do it for tax credits. Never forget that ever.
But also, the GUY in the video does not want us to redistribute money from rich to poor because at some point it stops becoming effective and it also stifles research and technology.
So in short, those who are barely making money and surviving should give to those below them. But THOSE WITH 500K TO 1MLN or MORE should not because it stifles future projects/research/science and technology which can help others and many more people in the future.
Also, those barely making money and giving it to poor people can do it because there is a study that found a correlation between giving and feeling happy. It is not causation but mere correlation. please if you do not know the difference go search.
But he does not tell you that if you start to have more and more money like Elon or Bill or maybe at least 1 MLn to 10 MLN at least, then that correlation does not necessarily correspond.
By the way, why give money to poor or blind guys, you can donate your money instead to research and engineering/science and technology.
YES, it will not help current poor people or blind guys, but think about it, in the future, it can save countless blind people and/or poor people or another group of people. It is more effective.
He is basically killing 1 guy in the trolly problem and saving 5 because it is effective or brings more happiness or usefulness. It is a slightly different form of utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham.
Please, if you wanna do good, just go outside and do something good, do not think if it is "effective" just do something good. It can be small or big does not matter, and if it is plausible to you to do that good, such as holding a door for somebody else or helping your old neighbor with the bags of groceries in their hand. And you can do it, then just do it. That's enough. Of course, you can donate money or other stuff, but donate to any charity or people, or places that you want. Just do a good thing for the sake of doing a good thing. Do not think about "effectiveness" just do good.
It is about weighing up counterfactuals. Every penny you donate goes towards only one thing. You can either do 1 unit or good or 5 units of good with that penny.
The only logical argument I've heard with respect to this is the opportunity cost argument - that if you don't help that 1 unit of good nobody will. However this seems flawed because that same opportunity cost currently exists for that 5 units of good. Anyone who critiques this logic simply cannot use critical thinking.
There is objective effectiveness, and people who ignore this are just being selfish and donating to wherever they feel they want to because it makes them happiest.
@@Wild4lon
It is objectively more effective to donate research and science instead of anything else because it will help more people in the future based on your argument. And if I decide to help the homeless old guy, based on your view of objective effectiveness I am selfish because it is better to donate that money for the sake of science and research. After all, my donation to the homeless old guy at best could buy him food or save him from death or homelessness if it is a huge donation. Plus he is old, it is more effective to help young people than old guy, am I right? Because young people can do more good because they have purely objectively speaking more time and they can affect more people by expanding the effectiveness of my help/good. But I must choose to donate that money for the sake of science and research because as you have pointed out it will be "objectively effective". After all, it will help more amount of people over time. Do you still not see the problem with your argument? Or do you really think my helping/ donating to a homeless old guy is utterly selfish?
@@Wild4lon
Also, my friend, life is not white and black as you consider now. It is sometimes so hard to decide what is "objective good/right" or "effective". Life is not math. Or shall I say, you cannot necessarily approach philosophy from a purely mathematical view which you are doing with your 1 unit of good and 5 units of good? You are approaching purely from a utilitarian view. In Trolly's problem, you can either save 1 guy or 5, and as per your argumentation, if I do not switch or interfere with Trolly and kill 5 guys for I am afraid or shocked by what is going on, I am selfish. But you who are switching and intentionally killing 1 guy by doing so saving 5 lives are not selfish. It is fucking utaliteainism. When you add "effectiveness " to the problem it creates more problems than it solves. Thus, one must do good for the sake of doing good without obsessing with their good's effectiveness. Also, it is deeply and I would say rather easily debatable if true altruism exists. But it is a problem for another discussion.
@@Photonetheous Exactly. This is not about effectiveness at all.
It's about catering to the wealthy, who wish to justify their immoral practices now with larger than life projects for some long term while people suffer now.
I like effective altruism, and I really like all the things it has done for the world. I've been inspired by effective altruism to donate to effective charities.
But Peter's apologism here for capitalism borders on the absurd. If it's good for wealthy people to spend their money on improving the welfare of the global poor (and it is), then the obvious implication of that is not to try and shame every individual rich person into giving away a portion of their money, it's to raise their fucking taxes. Governments already have a mechanism for distributing resources in an intentional way to address the enormous inequalities and artificial suffering created by capitalism. Why does he spend so much time supporting individual rich people giving away their money, but refuse the idea that ALL rich people should give away a portion of their money proportional to their income? His defense in this video is twofold:
1. It wouldn't make a big difference after you finished elevating the extremely poor out of poverty
2. Private entities are more efficient at using resources than government agencies are
The first point is complete bullshit. It applies just as much to charity as it does to a welfare state. The second is understandable but makes a serious error. Are private entities really so much more efficient than government bureaucracies that it's not even worth it to raise taxes and implement such bureaucracies? Surely they're more efficient to some degree, since they're competing against other agencies, and also they're not as bogged down by the slow-moving bureaucratic culture that dominates in many governments. However, the degree to which government intervention can cause massive changes is orders of magnitude larger than that of private charities. A quick google search shows the top 1% of Americans controlled 41.52 trillion dollars two years ago. Say that the top 1% of Americans were taxed 1% of their total net worth, a change so minute they would hardly notice it. That would result in 415.2 billion dollars. That's almost a thousand times more than the against malaria foundation has raised in its entire existence. Even if 9/10 of the money were somehow lost by the government as a result of its comparative inefficiency, wealth redistribution would be a far, far more effective method of addressing global systemic issues than bullying individuals into spending money. This isn't even a hypothetical. In the past 40 years, 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty. 600 million of those were the direct result of a state program by China to eliminate absolute poverty. And China is nowhere near as wealthy as many of the nations of the west, yet they still succeeded two years ago to eliminate absolute poverty. How did they accomplish this? Through charity? No. They did it through economics. Maybe you don't like the government of China because it's not a democracy, I don't either. But democratic governments can do exactly the same thing. Look at the social democracies of Northern Europe, or Mauritius, or even just at the social programs that have already successfully been implemented in countries like the USA and Canada.
Charity is good. Economics is better.
I suspect Peter Singer, having ingratiated himself with the international ruling class for so many years, feels a strong aversion to working class politics, automatically taking the viewpoint of the global elite even when it contradicts his own ethics, and coming up with post-hoc justifications for why an economy geared towards maximizing profit is more moral than an economy geared towards providing all people with what they need.
Absolutely, also at this point the Effective Altruism movement is hugely financed by the ultrarich so it will never turn against them. A new movement would be needed
Incredible comment! I hope a few other people take the time to read it aswell.
The issue with taxes is that if you raise them in one country, the ultra-rich will just move to another country. It worked for China because capital is so tightly controlled there, but for example an American billionaire can easily shift their taxes to a tax haven like Panama or Dubai
Your point about taxing the rich more is so absurdly economically illiterate. You unironically believe we can just take all the rich peoples money and throw it at problems and the worlds problems would be fixed. I suggest you lookup how much money is spent yearly by JUST the US government. Now ask yourself what happens once the stolen money runs out?
Your China poverty argument is equally absurd. China in the past 40 years switched to a CAPITALIST economy (albeit only sort of, It's actually Fascism, Since the state essentially controls the corporations) from a COMMUNIST one. THAT is why so many people were lifted out of poverty. The "state program totally did this" is just CCP/Mar*ist propaganda.
Also what successful social programs? The only one I would agree with is MAYBE food stamps. Everything else has been a catastrophic failure. Many of which have made things worse. And did you know that the Nordic countries are moving away from social programs? Because they actually have surprisingly competent governments that steer away from things that have been demonstrated to not work.
We don't live in a post scarcity world. People need to work to improve their lives. Capitalism has been demonstrated to be the most efficient economic system for Humans. Government regulations and social programs are what raise cost of living, which is the real cause of poverty (That and their being not enough supply of things, Which guess what? Capitalism and specifically rich people are the best at generating).
The "Financial DNA" concept and how our upbringing shapes our financial perspectives was a real eye-opener. The story of Zell and his kidney donation was both inspiring and thought-provoking. It's interesting how we scrutinize everyday purchases but often overlook the effectiveness of our charitable donations. The mention of Bill and Melinda Gates' impact was a testament to the power of thoughtful giving. This video really challenges us to rethink how we give and the impact we can make. It's not just about the amount, but the intention and effectiveness behind it. 🌍❤💡
Every charity considers those aspects. The innovation here is obtaining money by any means justified by the assumption of some future altruism. Plus of course ignoring present urgent needs in favor of some future altruism.
My aunt has a guide dog and couldn't live without him. She lost vision from waiting for a lung transplant. Money might be better spent on other procedures, but people still need dogs.
yes, but why should I care to do so? "you value your own life more than a strangers"... yes, I do, they arent my family or friend, there has been no investment
An egalitarian society doesn't need charity, philanthropists or effective altruism.
A utopia then? The latin term for No Where.
@@bhatkat I find the notion of effective altruism obvious. Who wants to practice ineffective altruism? I also question the means by which donations are achieved (see FTX). I’m hardly utopian having been raised in the hippie era and seen its failures up close, but I’m definitely capital l liberal.
It's easy to see why Peter Singer is such an influential philosopher. His arguments are clear, well reasoned and persuasive. Some philosophers live in ivory towers, but this philosopher lives in the real world. He cares deeply about it and he wants us to care too. Three cheers for Peter Singer!
I think true altruism is in not hurting others, through educating yourself and being more engaged in your local community, you start to unstand the people around you and "not hurt" effectively
Effective Altruism: "All this unchecked corporate capitalism at best and fraud at worst is going to be for the good of humanity bro, I promise after getting billions of dollars for myself under my name I will give it all back just trust me bro"
I call serious BS, Singer. Redistribution of wealth is the necessary first step. Your protection and justification of the super rich is unequivocally unethical. Please reconsider.
People are too greedy to realize that one person in poverty is all people in poverty as a choice, not ignorance but greed may end the US.
👏🏻👏🏻
👍👍👍
I care for the poor as well we do need to do more as a people
UBI would solve all of our problems
Until you run out of other people's money.
@@harshbuttYou won't "run out of other people's money" because the money will be spent and put right back into the economy where it will keep circulating. The system we have now is causing us to run out of money because the rich have more money than they will ever need and so they just hoard it, which takes it out of the economy and leads to a heavier burden being put on the bottom 99%.
@@ForAnAngel That's not how money works. It loses value. Even if you can "keep circulating" the money around in a perpetual cycle (you can't), it'll eventually be worthless. The initial handout will have to be increased at the very least in line with inflation to be helpful, and unless handing out free money will motivate people to work harder and generate more wealth (trials have shown that it doesn't) the supply of actual wealth, and therefore tax revenue, will decrease.
This leaves the burden of funding your new underclass on fewer and fewer people. Those rich enough will take their wealth to a more sane economy to protect it and your pool of middle-class tax payers will dwindle down even further as you've been forced to increase their taxes to compensate for that loss. Increased taxes in cases like this means less tax income elsewhere in the economy because those high value luxury goods are no longer affordable to those who used to be in the market for them, and people further down the ladder need to tighten their belts on necessities / essentials.
This decrease in demand also creates a decrease in supply - fewer and fewer are being produced locally due to the ever-increasing tax burden and you're forced to import more goods that a decreasing number of people can afford anyway. This means prices go up. But that's okay, we can increase that monthly cheque to compensate. Unfortunately, that'll just exacerbate the problem.
Well done, you've completed the first few steps to crashing your economy. Unless you're going confiscate the means of production, and that's never worked.
I like it but worry about its effect on inflation.
Big suffering can not be addreseed by one or two big philanthropists. All philanthropy is optional too, you could end it at your own whim and fancy. What if the surplus is held by institution and group who are duty bound by law to serve the inadequate? We need the accountability and stabilty as opposed to random giving. We need to make philanthropy compulsory not optional.
Have a video also for Effective Accelerationism
Yes it has to be effective/efficient otherwise it’s just for your own gratification which then turns it into exploitation of the people in need.
That is how charity is (apart from some money grabs). The innovation here is not that, but the catering to the wealthy with ideas such as earning (by any means) to give (eventually), with big sounding projects that put excessive focus on long term (in detriment of what is urgent).
I thought this was interesting
"you might still say well we could make those who are worse off better off by
redistributing the wealth of those who are very wealthy, that probably wouldn't make much
difference anymore once you've got people above those levels of serious poverty"
Yeah, I sure don't see all of those gofundmes for life medical care 🙈
I found it interesting too. Like if helping millions out of "serious poverty" isn't an incredible milestone to aim for??
@@danidelcastillo it is, except not everything is justifiable just because you plan on doing something charitable later. And that's where all this breaks down.
@@technolus5742 One of his conditions was 'nobody is dying from a lack of basic healthcare,' which means the floor would also have to be raised in many wealthy countries.
@@meatisomalley while still saying it's not worth redistributing cause nobody is bellow those levels of poverty... when again there are still people who can't pay for basic medical care.
Effective altruism just reminds me of Sam Bankman Fried
Then don’t fall for that false association. He failed at doing it and obviously exploited the idea.
A real thief that SBF guy is.
He only touched on the subject, but altruism needs to be voluntary and not forced. Governmental redistribution of wealth has rarely been effective as he defines it. More so today than in the past. Government forced altruism tends to spend money lining pockets of politicians instead of actually doing any good. That's not to say that inefficiencies don't happen at the private level. Just that private charity tends to be more effective than government run charity. Voluntary altruism does mean that your neighbor may not do with his money that you would. That's their choice to make, not yours.
Correct. Forced altruism breeds resentment; that's also human nature. That's especially the case when it's inefficient and wasteful, which, as you point out, government almost by its very nature is.
And volunteer altruism is nothing but an oxymoron that makes people feel better about having more luxuries than basically anyone else in human history, and still watching people in your community starve and die in the street.
Also, corruption ruins any good standard. You don't get to discredit a philosophy based on corruption. It's a problem when your thought process is not address corruption and instead say that any government based system to help the less fortunate shouldn't exist. You could frame the issue around: government shouldn't be corrupt enough to skim from charity; but that requires an actual solution and effort. Instead, we blame the people who want to help for being stupid enough to try.
@@dogleggedhades0 "And volunteer altruism is nothing but an oxymoron that makes people feel better about having more luxuries than basically anyone else in human history, and still watching people in your community starve and die in the street."
Just to be clear, your premise, then, is that the only reason anyone helps anyone else out voluntarily-that is, voluntary altruism-is to feel better about having more luxuries than those they're helping?
@texvanwinkle no. My premise is that the only reason people are voluntarily altruistic is because we advance in luxury while our communities still struggle with relatable survival issues.
It's not altruism on the basis of having more luxaries than them; it's altruism on the basis of coping with others struggling or dying while we strive to have more than we need.
It is generally true that as time passes, humanity gains access to greater luxuries. As we gain greater access to luxuries, we still see people who have problems way worse than ours. Being voluntarily altruistic is how we justify our greed. We wanted more than we had, and we are aware people don't have what they need. We need some way to justify our actions so we donate to causes that we deem important enough.
@@dogleggedhades0Okay. I think your premise is incorrect and fundamentally misreads human nature. There are innumerable examples of people of limited means being voluntarily altruistic to people of equally or more limited means simply because they want to be. I believe people are altruistic not to justify their greed, but because we are inherently social creatures that, absent force or cause for fear or resentment, like to help. I'm not hoping to persuade you. I do believe more people, high and low on the income and luxuries scale, would agree with my perspective about it than yours, though.
Incredibly elitist philosophy that happens to think the best way to care for those in need is to be an oligarch and enact your will onto others. The fundamental assumption "You know best" as an individual donating to charity leads to all sorts of systemic and ethical flaws. In my personal experience this thinking is used by people I know to justify their selfish narcissism through "charity". (In quotes because many of the projects they fund are not charities. They are nonprofits with business goals.)
Amen. Peter Singer is a liberal ideologist praising charity (which is not altruism), a very useful fool for liberalism/capitalism.
Thank you for saying this!
Exactly correct. Most recent obvious example is the BLM charity. Collected 6 million dollars... and spent it all on mansions for 3 families.
Donations are dangerous unless your directly controlling it. Just handing money to x charity is no better than throwing the money in the trash...
Yes, I agree. Let’s give our money to other people. You go first.
@@tommyh.8391 many people do go first. Just because you don't doesn't make it true
The thing he's missing is psychology: We primarily give away to make us feel good, and thinking about that lovely dog you funded brings you more joy than thinking about that cataract surgery.
"We primarily give away to make us feel good"
This is what liberals wants you to think but it's wrong. We intrinsically are altruistic as a species, "feeling good" is a reward reinforcing altruism.
@@alexalke1417 We are 'intrinsically' altruistic, only because we get the feel-good reward reinforcing it.
As an ant researcher, I can attest that humans are *not* intrinsically altruistic. Otherwise we'd se a lot more self-sacrifice.
@@stefan_popp Maybe you should read Tomasello's lastest research to change your mind. Intra-specific altruism is one the key characteristic which makes our species so unique.
@@alexalke1417Hi, can you suggest me a paper of his?
@@alexalke1417 a) never tell someone to change their mind, as it just makes them defensive and less likely to change their mind. b) Even if your statement were true, it doesn't say anything about _why_ we help out conspecifics without direct return. My argument is that it is emotional and not based on calculations.
"safe water in the tap"
Please convey this to Mr. Stinger if you can:
"Effective altruism is not just about AI and Tech."
🙏
I always feel a bit more like a person after listening to Singer.
My late brother left me with too much money. So, I gave to PBS Hawaii, Hawaii Public Radio, Institute For Human Services, Hawaii Food Bank.
So this is what SBF was trying to do with all the money he was hoarding in the Bahamas... right?
Some charities have been going for decades with no improvements to the cause
Let’s continue doing everything for the humans, the greatest of all animals on this planet.
It’s all good and well telling people to give to charity until you see how much the ceos are raking in!
Oh of course, let's ignore the pursue of a more just economic model and continue with increased inequality, while hoping the super rich will work on altruistic skills and feel good about 'helping to just lift the poor' to a mininum acceptable living standard. Oh this philosopher is a genius! I wonder why his brilliant idea is just not.working?🤔
I don't believe the kidney example is appropriate in the context of charity.
I doubt the 1 : 4000 chance of death included complications in surgery given his specific circumstances. It's common for people to misapply group/population statistics to their individual circumstances. We all do it occasionally and sometimes with dire results.
Additionally, did he bother to quantify the pain he experienced, how much longer the person lived that received the donation, or the relative quality of their life afterwards. Doubtful.
To say not donating that kidney means that individual values themselves 4000x greater than another is absurd logic and honestly deplorable coming from someone with a background in philosophy.
Black and white thinking like this is often times not the right way of thinking.
Do you think the kidney example undermines the validity of the message being shared here?
@@afiamanuwats It draws away attention from what should be the focus here. The focus isn't to blindly give one's excess away. That's foolish in my opinion.
Real useful charity is difficult and time consuming. Anyone with excess can blindly give it away without a second thought. It takes true temperament and focus to do the most good with excess.
Making people feel bad about not giving up excess is unacceptable and leads to outrageous claims such as are given in kidney example.
@nemo-studios never once did the man say that one should blindly give away. He actually made an effort to say that research/education is needed on the part of the affluent who are giving.
It looks to me like you are projecting your own biases against giving. If giving a kidney doesn't make sense, then give for another cause. If ur too lazy to research a good organization to help because its time consuming, then just say that. I just find it very interesting that ppl are making an "argument" against the topic of performing altruism 😅
@@afiamanuwats I agree. It's not like there was a scarcity of recipients. The demand for organs is way larger than the supply for it. And talking about the pain when donating kidney is silly in the age of anesthetics.
Sure, let's defend and praise billionaires, who are directly aggravating the quality of life of people in "poor countries" with modern colonialism.
Let's not consider the direct and indirect harm that corporations' owners cause to the "global south", which is thousands of times bigger than any aid they will ever provide. Their aid budget is ridiculous compared to the structural losses for "poor countries" they cause.
Does this "philosopher" really try to put the responsibility of reducing poverty on average citizens by limiting their daily coffee drinks?
"Make yourself happy by helping" and just ignore the global economic oppressive system that was created by the c*nts he's defending.
Outrageous bigotry and hypocrisy.
But why is the person who's already blind less valuable or worthy than the person who hasn't gone blind? I have no doubt that the companionship, affection, joy and comfort a guide dog brings to a blind person is well worth 40,000 dollars. The dogs work for around 8 years, so if we round up to 3,000 days service on average, they cost about 13 dollars a day - the price of a movie ticket or a bottle of wine.
Yeah but you’d be helping 1 person as opposed to 23+
In that vein you could ask why is that person more valuable than those 23 combined?
@@Ajhrvje but who’s to say that numbers automatically trump an individual’s quality of life… the £40k spent on research might only end up proving that a promising looking blindness prevention pill does not work. In which case most of mankind would be helped but in such a negligible way they would never feel the benefit. In which case the guide dog has way more impact and enables the blind person to partake in society, form positive relationships with others, spend money in a cafe, use public transport, add tangible benefits to society
Who’s here because of SBF?
I believe Dr. Singer donates more than half his income and lives quite frugally.
Quite nice of him. Thing being is that if we all did this the economy would collapse around us and we would all be needy. Simple answers in a complex world are seldom sufficient.
Not the peta guy?
I really admire Peter Singer. Thanks for featuring him!
More like effective hypocrisy.
You do not need immersive wealth to do good for people around you .
Yeah I would give, if my time here wasn't disrespected.
Folks, SBF was highly aligned with "Effective Altruism". So you have to look past the happy talk title to figure out what it really is. We know what altruism is. No debate about that. So why not just call themselves "Applied Altruism"? That's because Effective Altruism is not the same as Applied Altruism. Thanos was an Effective Altruist. His thesis was that there is a resource crunch and that higher populations are a strain on that so half the universe must die so that the remaining people would have better lives. Thus, he was not the worst piece of crap in history but rather the savior of the universe in his own eyes.
GW Bush was an effective altruist for markets when he said "I've abandoned free market principles in order to save free markets". It's lying, Satanic global elite speak for others must die so we can have more. And you are a damned fool if you think it is something else.
Had me in the first half, lost me in the second half on the notion of income inequality.
Thank you for poking a new hole in my logic.
Probably think again. This movement is highly flawed and translates to nothing but the worst kind of amoral greed.
@@technolus5742 oh i agree 100%
@@technolus5742what's your reasoning other than hating what is different? It only makes two assumptions:
- Giving is good because I value people other than me
- I can help more people if I give to the very worst off, per unit of money I spend
The second is objectively true and the first is basic morality. Maybe it's you that's justifying your unjust hatred for your amoral greed.
@@Wild4lon Wrong. It also promotes earning as much as possible to later give as much as possible. Which is a principle that attempts to justify and incentivize actions of people such as Bankman-Fried.
"Hating what's different" what a load of bull.
but charity or donating to the people will couse that money flaying back to the rich, why? think who produce the sell any food or goods in the market, who produce phone, electronics, utencils, clotches, etc? people will keep give the maoney back to them no matter what, then how we can fix this? what if instead just donating money we provide them a comunity owned company that can produce something can be sell on the market. why not give them the fishing equipment instead of always giving them raw fish?
Collective altruism is the next step. Watch the world understand soon.
Big movements start underground.
Also, with His name. 🤙
Collective altruism could help avoid self glorification tendencies. All poor guys are as gracious if they had much more than what they need. Insisting poor people are intrinsically insensitive is one wishful misrepresentation. What we do for our kid or brother in most constrained circumstance is as grand, there is glory in small remote corners of our world, giving when you are not constrained is not as difficult or heroic.
I am not against self glorification, it needs to be valid. After tying up the kind people of our world into minor spaces and holes the guys go on to become kind heart super star. 😊😊
SBF believes in this, but look what happened. This means only the rich benefit and the rest don't.
How does SBF disprove EA? It's one person who decided to scam people.
@@prithvib8662because that's what this ideology promotes: that anything is justifiable cause you're really a great guy who is somehow with with twisted logic doing it all for the good of mankind.
@@technolus5742 you completely missed the point. Intentions aren't important in Effective Altruism, it's just about making the most effective use of your money when donating. And the richest people have the most to give.
People misuse ideology and philosophy all the time. This is perhaps the least dangerous philosophy if followed to its logical conclusions, so no need to fear monger.
@@prithvib8662 I did not. The issue here is the notion that everything is permitted for some supposed greater good. It's It's same idea that justified evil doing in communism. What's a limited number of deaths now in CO prison to an eternity of bliss? Obviously that led to pretty shotty actions.
Wait, isn't giving to charities encouraging tax evasion from the owners of the important charities, which are big companies usually
I never want to be a millionaire or billionaire. I will never selfishly hoard money/resources. I can’t understand how anyone could aspire to be so greedy.
👍
This philosophy gives people a tool to justify their greed, as if it was for the greater good.
@@technolus5742 you don't get it.
Perhaps, because they are looking out for their descendants and their descendants only-That’s it.
@@alanl9497 perhaps, that's the case.
Don’t be a greedy and don’t try to monopolize things😉
There will always be greedy people.
Always and forever. Human nature will never change.
We need a system that discourages greed.
You are just saying that altruism is means by how many people you can reach. So a banker is always going to be more altruist, based on the rule you describe, than a common individual. What you describe is more likely to be the influence and reputation more than the altruism itself and your underlying philosophy is "give your money to rich people because they are more effective". You made a confusion between material and physical capabilities and the altruism philosophy itself. Effective is not belong to the understanding of philosophy, it' is out of the subject of etude of philosophy, philosophy dont care about effectivess, if so, you are not a philosopher anymore but an accountant, a banker, or a salesman.
Odd that you don't mention one of the most notable effective altruists of our day, Sam Bankman-Fried
😲 what a get ,ty!
He said there is a strong correlation between charity and happyness, then immediately claimed that therefore charitable acts make you happy ... Please stop messing up correlation with causation if you want to at least look like an actual researcher.
(Anecdotal example: When I was depressed, I hated giving things, and being pressured to give things made me angry and not happy at all even if I did give someting.)
Singer is a mad thinker.
He's for PETA and ecologism.
Peter Singer is correct to encourage altruism. Who couldn't agree? But there are misunderstandings here about the nature of how the world works and basic economics. Ethically, you could indeed better spend your $5 on a donation to charity than buying a coffee. But if no one ever buys that coffee the outlet will close and the staff become unemployed and in need of...charity. Any given $5 sum is spent not only on the coffee, but also again by the recipient. This process continues as the $5 note changes hands many times -and as a result the amount of money in circulation expands. So the economy grows, as does the prosperity of the entire system. Now I know many will say this is rubbish, sounding like Reaganite style trickle down economics that has been discredited, but nevertheless it is a fact that economic activity is the basis of the prosperity that allows some to give to charity. It is no surprise that China has transformed its economy since embracing this reality 30 years ago - despite receiving little from the rich West in the form of aid. .
Money spent on charity still ends up in the economy. If you give money to say, the against malaria foundation, that money will go to the foundation, who will then spend it on paying producers of anti-malarial nets. The producer of those nets distributes the money to its employees, who spend it on their necessities of life. It's not like the money doesn't exist anymore just because it's in a third world country.
Idiotic comment
This is incorrect on at least two accounts and fault logic on a third.
Incorrect points:
- China lifting out of poverty is an incredibly complex process that no other country has replicated to that scale because of its unique global positioning and population dynamics. In particular, the population boom in created a huge working force bulge in the 80s and 90s, allowing them to become the world's factory. Many other countries are also capitalist and yet failed to replicate. Whether capitalist or communist or socialist, as long as you get an increased output of value, GDP will grow. Value occurs from time: and in particular, working time spent producing things that others are willing to trade their working time for.
- $5 on coffee is not the same as $5 on charity. We look here at the effectiveness of that $5. It's literally in the first word! I'll eat my right shoe if $5 on a coffee does as much good as a malaria net. The Pareto principle and diminishing returns apply here.
- Faulty logic: you said yourself trickle down economics doesn't work. So how do you acknowledge this and then go on to justify your entire claim with trickle down economics and 'we all know X'. No we don't. Do you even know it to be true?
❤❤
Ask ftx sbf 🌚
What causes poverty? The rich. Not only because they're rich but because they set the rules for the rich all across society. I give to environmental/wild life organsations and Amnesty. Then I care for my Chinese partner after she fell into madness. I think this guy is also a little bit mad for he dosn't see the world as it is.
If rich people are the main problem then stop making them rich by buying all their products...oh wait, you cant.
❤
10/10 content
Y'all are salty af
This is WEF but instead of right wingers going crazy about it, it's left wingers lol. Tbh, i'd much rather have these guys then WEF pulling strings, because at least these guys are getting to the brass tax and really thinking about how rich people morals are supposed to work. WEF just panders and speaks a bunch of vague emotional nonsense. Nothing they ever talk about is actually relevant to the people who show up and it's all just another way super rich people meet up. Effective altruism on the other hand does actually generate new political theory and is currently shaping the political ecosphere of AI tech bros. So they're getting something done at least.
Also effective altruism envisions a future where i get a brain implant that let's me trade and invest 500 stocks per second while getting it on, and WEF's future is just modern day san Francisco but in stasis. Even if the effective altruism's cyberpunk dystopia is worse, I don't care because that's infinitely more cool than an embarrassing psuedo socialist hipster world where we all love pod hotels and wework style offices.
A scam
One good move Melinda did was ditch the alleged pedo Bill.
Oof tell me you dont live in america without telling me you dont
Doing "good" is so boring.
But suffering is so much worse than boring, isn’t it? (Also being good isn’t boring.)
@@djpokeeffe8019 To be forced into do something boring slavishly isn't suffering, isn't it?
sbf
Australian Jew
FTX guy was into this. Screw people over as hard as you can and pledge to help later. Awesome philosophy! Not.
Just because he was doesn't mean all EA associates with him and his mindset. FWIW he did it terribly.
I never understand why the go to logical fallacy is 'person X in this group did random unrelated thing so you must all do it too'
@@Wild4lon Except he is not a bad example of this, that is precisely the philosophy: anything is permitted for a supposed the greater good down the line.
It's the same notion that justified atrocities in the pursuit of communist ideals.
Rogan said it best. We need less losers
sometimes children grow up to be terrible people...what if your donation keeps alive some assh0le kid who go on to become a serial killer..?
So what if no one ever took that chance?
Greed is good.
Greed is right. Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through and capturesthe essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms. Greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge. Has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed, you mark my words,will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioningcorporation called the USA.
Thank you very much.
Greed, wonderful greed, nothing it can't accomplish eh? Actually I agree with you a bit, it's not entirely bad and demonizing it is a dead end. It's not greed in itself, great that folks are so industrious and productive and expecting this from altruistic motives is for fools. Problem being that when, like other emotions, people let it own them when they are actualy better off taking charge and owning it.
Greed and profil WILL end ALL life on earth. GOD will start over.
Or you believe in archaic legends and not giving a damn about the consequences of our actions just leads to screwing up our future by our own exclusive fault.
First
You finally accomplished something 🎉
@@gezin82you live to accomplish sth lol!
@osamaqtaitat4184 It probably boosts you low self esteem to be first at anything. Keep trying, you'll be a man oneday
Plz pin me❤
No