Are we moral monsters? | Peter Singer on Charitable Giving
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Peter Singer argues that you are morally obliged to donate to charity even at considerable personal cost. Is he right?
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com...
RESOURCES
(1) Peter Singer's famous paper "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", originally published in 1972: personal.lse.a...
(2) Applied Ethics: An Impartial Introduction: www.amazon.com...
(3) My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com... (b) link.springer....
(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: www.amazon.com...
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.c...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majesty...
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org...
There's a crucial difference between those two scenarios, namely that in the "Shallow Pond Case" you are only required to save one child once, whereas in the case of charity you need to save children every single day for the rest of your life.
A more analagous thought experiment is rendered in this essay: "Sometimes there is nothing wrong with letting a child drown" by Travis Timmerman
This is a great comment, and I actually have some sympathies with Timmerman's point. Here are two replies from chapter 11 of the book I mentioned in the video, in case you're interested! From pp. 173-174:
"Objection 4. The principled argument implies that we have to donate to charity until doing so would cause us to sacrifice something almost as important as a child’s life. However, this conclusion is quite extreme: much more extreme than the conclusion that you ought to save a child drowning in front of you. In fact, it is more like a scenario where you encounter dozens of children drowning in ponds every day, and saving each one requires a serious sacrifice on your part. At a certain point, you might think, you can stop saving children and take just a few hours for yourself, especially if others know about the children and can save them as well (cf. Timmerman 2015).
Reply 1. You might think it is actually selfish and wrong to take a few hours to yourself. Can you really sit down and watch a TV show when children around you are dying? Further, at a certain point, given the progress that is being made helping those in need and preventing global poverty, you will stop encountering drowning children (as the analogy goes).
Reply 2. If the case resonates with you, you might think that Singer’s principle in (P2) is too extreme. However, even if we need a weaker principle, we still may have an obligation to donate quite a lot-in the same way the person encountering ponds should save many children, even if they need not spend every second of their time saving children. (And Timmerman agrees.) So accepting objection 4 is still consistent with an extreme version of the obligatory view-just maybe one slightly less extreme than Singer presents."
Actually, I'll pin your comment because Timmerman's objection and these two replies are helpful food for further thought!
the Timmermann paper is probably my favourite philosophy paper of all time. it certainly has the best title.
I think the way to think of this is, you wouldn't save the child every day? You pass the same pond on the way to work, and every day there's a new todler drowning. Maybe there's a daycare next to it that's allowing it by some means, maybe under staffed, maybe bad employees, etc. You wouldn't save this child daily?
Yes, we can and should blame the system that allows this to be the reality. Yes, we can and should be advocating for this system to be patched to solve the issue. In the meantime, the child is still in the pond drowning. So what do you do?
Further, if this was the reality you would expect to encounter the child and begin to adapt your life to this. You'd walk barefoot to the pond with shorts on and carry a change of clothes. Etc. Much in the same way that you would budget for charitable donations and so on.
The sister argument to this is you pass a pond, and there are 1,000s of drowning kids and you cannot save them all. The answer this is that you save as many as you can.
@@MajestyofReasonNothing to do with this video but with the previous one: I find the concept of "sin", "salvation" and "damnation" extremely problematic, but I find it even more problematic that "salvation" is subject to a specific set or combination of beliefs as christians claim . Why should we assume that if theism is true, so it is divine "judgment"? Why should we assume that a god is going to judge us ? ( as, for example, the spanish theistic philosopher Enric assumes ). ¿ What do you think Joe ?
This argument can be extended to say you have a moral obligation to pursue the highest paying (non-exploitative) job possible regardless of your talents or desires, because your own enjoyment of your job isn't worth anything to that of how many lives you could save by earning more.
RIP philosophy majors
You’re probably correct here, and I’m quite sympathetic to overdemandingness objections like this. (Although I also think most of us ought to donate considerably more than we do!)
One of the true perks of a philosophy degree is that you don’t have to worry about left over money😎
Edit: Someone could formulate a somewhat plausible argument that obligates people not to pursue a career in philosophy. They could argue that, if we are morally obligated to give money to charity organizations, then surely we ought to pursue careers that generate a larger salary, thus more money to be donated. If so, then philosophy, a relatively lower income field, should be avoided.
However, I wouldn’t know about my obligation to give to the poor had I not been informed by people who pursue philosophy
Even on TH-cam, I can't escape from you
I mean… the average professor of philosophy makes over $100,000. But that’s a perk of a PhD, not a BA lol.
Yup that’s basically what the people at 80,000 hours say.
@@benbockelman6125 bro what😭
One could also argue to the contrary and say that while the individual who delves into philosophy won't have the disposable income, they could have been the next Singer to propose this very argument which can prod many people who are very wealthy, like Bill Gates, to donate a considerable amount. This, in turn, radically overcompensates for their personal lack of income.
I'm sure a cost benefit analysis could be done.
i'll save the child, but a literal endless stream of children drowning is too much. I would eventually stop saving them. Im fact i have to deal with this IRL daily with the snails and mice at my work. I save what i can, but i cannot spend the rest of my life tending to snails. I gotta prioritize myself eventually.
There's no donation link on the video so i must conclude you've determined that we are not monsters.
Was introduced to this argument by alex O'Connor on "Should we sell all our possessions?". Good structure of video Joe, enjoyed it
Coming from someone who considers Peter Singer one of his least favorite philosophers, I still think that trying to quibble with the details of the thought experiment, or justify oneself as a good person despite not donating “x”% of one’s income more or less misses a much more important point.
The reality is, the average first-world citizen has some incredible opportunities, due to technological and economic factors, to do some tremendous good by making sacrifices of our money and time to help others. I’m definitely not perfect, and struggle to work my way towards sacrificing more. This doesn’t look the same for everyone because people have different duties and gifts, but what a wonderful opportunity to love your neighbor.
Haven't watched the whole video yet. Interesting topic. I ask myself this question so often. Though tbh I don't have much money. So, how to reconcile this thought with yourself. Looking forward to watch.
If you have access to electricity and a house then you do have a lot of money, at least compared to the rest of the world
@@benjamingurevitch4097 true.
I do agree with Singer, but I also think we need to factor in wealth's ability to generate additional wealth that can be used to make greater future donations.
We should also factor in wealth's ability to allow us to become influential in making systematic changes politically or socially.
maybe i missed a video, but have you ever made a video on anti-natalism ? i'm looking for your view on it and perhaps if you checked out the debate between David Benataar and Jordan Peterson, what do you think about Peterson's critique of it? i'm not sure is peterson made good points or just didn't understand the argument :'D
Thanks
I like the transition from the bugatti to the trolley problem. 😂
the ending was cute, I enjoyed it
A really interesting and challenging argument
Thanks, Joe. Keep up the great work.
A few of my objections have been mentioned, but I’m not sure this one has: if it’s one, maybe two kids, fine. But after like 20 kids drowning in the same pond, do t you think someone should build a damn fence? Like, why are we okay with the extremely poor popping out kids like a PEZ dispenser? When should they be forced to take responsibility for the suffering they cause?
Besides, I thought they were all against the “white savior” motif these days.
i usually like Peter Singers practical ethical arguments, even though i dont share his utilitarian views, but i must say some of the stuff he wrote basically in support on the Israeli assault at least early on in the conflict was morally abhorrent, Ben Burgis wrote a good substack article on it titled "Peter Singer, Palestine, and the Professional Perils of Philosophy "
But I’m a simple man! All i need is food, water, internet, and MOR uploads.
Another point I’d like to offer: Moral Luck. Sure, the kids starving are unlucky to be born in such circumstances. But it seems I happen to be born with the drive, intelligence and ability to make more than I minimally need at the moment. So I’m unlucky as well to be such that I have this obligation to give. It seems it would be better for me if I was only smart enough or able enough to squeak by, but not make enough to save up.
Suppose you are heading to a charity event with celebrity intellectual Joe Schmid in the back seat, and you know that Joe being there will raise heaps and heaps of cash for the event. It is during this travel that you come across the child in the shallow pond (only this time you know saving the child will take an amount of time which will prevent you from bringing Joe to the charity event).
I have a strong intuition that you should save the child even in this case. Am I a moral monster for prioritizing the kid in the shallow pond over the many many children that the charity event would have saved had Joe Schmid been there?
What do you make of the leftist criticism of charity (and the effective altruism movement) that giving donations does nothing to address the root cause of issues like poverty (namely capitalism)? That charity is a way for the wealthy to appear virtuous while maintaining the structures of power that benefit themselves at the cost of causing poverty in the first place?
I am agnostic on this question, but I'm wondering what other people think about it.
This argument is one that, in a sense, almost everyone has considered to one degree or another. However, one possible road to go down as far as an objection goes is people’s decisions about how they spend their money might seem capricious and careless, but I have doubts this is the case. Even if we aren’t always aware of the reasons, the good reasons may be underlying the decisions.
Financial decisions are incremental, not categorically bad or good. For example, we might choose to buy a nice house as opposed to living in a cheap apartment. Will this mindset affect their incentives in which job they choose or how hard they work? I think this is likely the case. And your decision affects far more people than you might realize. Your job can affect the well being of countless people.
Also, will your choice to live in an apartment affect your safety or the safety of your children or the long term well being of your children? I think this is likely the case.
Examples like this could be brought up in far more cases than one might first realize. I think a lot of this confusion stems from the idea that wealth is a zero sum game. But quite literally billions of people are making billions and billions and trillions of incremental decisions. And the point is, they might not always seem worthwhile, but I contend they are far more rational than they first appear.
What is a moral monster such that I should be concerned about not being one?
Can we put conditions on the obligation to save lives. Why is this obligation absolute and unconditional.
Hi joe, I am Mohammed Saif and I am a agnostic, why is diversity in religious experience considered a defeater, but not in ethics and political philosophy because these areas also bottom out in seemings and intuition which are also diverse among people?
Problem of evil: It depends on how you treat evil. If you treat it as a general opposite for good, then it is opposed to good not God and in here God acts like the distinguisher of good from evil. If you treat it as specific examples like pain, death etc. then there is a separate answer for each of them (for example pain is a reaction to tissue damage that helps us to avoid it, death helps us avoid overpopulation on earth, extinction opens the path for newer species, fossil energy is the remains if previous deaths, etc.)
The double standard of atheists here is that when they ask a question about specific evils, they expect a general answer for all and when they ask a question about general evil, they expect a specific answer for it.
1:05 I think this part is innacurate by 3 orders of magnitude, the cheapest way you can save a life is by donating to anti malaria charities, but that costs around 4000-5000 dollars. I think the exact amount is very relevant, if it cost 1 million dollars to save a life then I dont think most people would be obligated to save up their entire lives and donate all of it just to save 1 life.
I think it just depends on how we're understanding 'can save a life'. For instance, by buying one mosquito net for a few dollars, it is entirely possible that your action prevented a case of malaria that would have taken someone's life. In that sense, a few dollars really can save a life. But in terms of *likelihood* that may not be super likely. You're very likely to have actually saved a life if you donate around the magnitude you mentioned.
@@MajestyofReason Sure but I think expected value is what should really count. Maybe things get trickier if you're thinking of actions that have a super low chance of saving billions of people, but in regular situations I think expected value matters more than just any chance of something happening
I honestly don't feel like there is a moral obligation for the average person to save a child drowning in the pond. But switch out the person for an Michael Phelps, I do feel like the obligation is there.
The argument is indeed very interesting, and I'm inclined to think that it's successful to some extent. However, the transition from (1) to (2) in the case of Shallow Pond isn't clear to me. In this scenario, you're faced with the choice of saving a life (something very precious) at the cost of something almost trivial (your shoes and clothes) or not saving the life. It seems to me that this is why we intuitively feel morally obligated to save the child; you can perform a great deed at a small price. However, (2) adds the clause "even at considerable personal cost," which is slightly different and I think it could affect the argument's conclusion. My objection (or more of a question) is precisely how we define "considerable personal cost" here.
To see why this is important, let's change the example a bit. Instead of wetting my shoes and clothes, my daughter will die if I save the child. Plausibly, Singer doesn't want to include cases like these in the "considerable personal cost" clause (because if he did, (2) would obviously become false). However, how does he distinguish between this case and other cases where there are significant personal costs (perhaps slightly less, but still significant)? Initially, you referred to Singer's idea that we shouldn't donate only when necessary to have a "minimally decent" life. The problem is that in this case, the above example would fall within the clause. Perhaps there are some ways to specify this notion more carefully, but to evaluate the argument, we would need that. I understand that this is just a video presenting the argument, but I think these considerations are important. I would greatly appreciate your interaction here. Much love❤
@MajestyofReason what are your views on peter singers argument and why (just wondering)
Although on the surface, this appears to be a question of ethics, I think this question also involves political philosophy. For example, within utilitarian ethics, you would have to somehow show that you spending your time and effort earning money to donate to charity will result in greater happiness than any other action... is that actually true, given that we have things such as governments and international organizations that can address issues such as starvation or sickness to a far greater extent than any individual? And if that's the case, wouldn't the time and effort be better spent to convince one of these giants to use their resources to promote human happiness rather than to engage in an individually herculean effort?
Imagine if a Superman existed that is able to save every drowning/starving child on the planet, if a few philosophers are able to convince him to do so. Would it really be more ethical to spend our time & effort & money trying to save the children, rather than spend our time & effort & money for convincing Superman to go save them?
A government isnt Superman, but i think it's clear that governments can sometimes do things better than individually (would Singer make his argument saying that individuals have a responsibility to all become commandos and rescue children in the Holocaust? It seems more efficient to utilize collective decision-making to organize an Army to liberate the Nazi death camps...) the question here is, what moral distinction is between a child suffering from natural causes (such as hunger due to lack of food sources) as opposed to human causes (hunger due to intentional deprivation of resources by other humans)? I would say that for a utilitarian, that distinction shouldn't matter since suffering is suffering and should be alleviated regardless of the cause.
If so, then we have to answer the question of how to make decisions in a collective and organized manner... thus political philosophy.
Good video. It's an almost unsolvable problem. I would add my biggest concern. Would a consequent implementation of this ethical standard not mean, that I almost can not buy and do anything anymore, if it has to be compared and reconciled with the interests of dying and ill people. Lets face it. There is always someone who needs the money much more urgently. It would then even include not to buy shoes nor school books, not even to invest money for research or defence or good streets and so on. Things we know we need in order to have a future at all. What would our future look like under these new moral standards and also: wouldnt we all pretty soon become insane?? Also isnt self interest the bigger and longer lasting impetus and drive to go to work, raise children and to fight than atruism could ever be. I am thinking of the theories of Adam Smith 🎉 Thank you!💕
It's funny how some people define the word Obliged.
seems wrong, seems like the care of all humanity does not rest on the shoulders of every individual, however care for those under his care does rest on each individual. thus under whose care is the child in question. the true monster of the drowning child is the moral guardian of the child. so the question of who is responsible for helping the child is who is responsible for the child. am i responsible for the fish at the bottom of the ocean? the means to care for them is secondary to the responsibility.
in short "How is responsibility determined?"
in the case of Majesty of Reason:
1. Am I responsible for him?
Cain you understand that not all people have "moral guardians"? Morality is about how a society should function. If you want to live in a society where strangers save you from drowning, then you should save the drowning child. If you want to live in a society where hungry children are fed by charities, they you should give to charity. You are responsible for behaving in the manner that you want other people in your society to behave. You are not your brother's keeper, you are the emissary of your own morality.
3:44 I'm that odd person who thinks you have no more responsibility at the same that person. I know it's going to make me sound like an evil person but I just don't see the obligation as regards to morality that I need to save this person.
Damn I hope noone has a heart attack around you
Loved the his video.❤
I'm kinda new to this channel and didn't watch the whole video.
My answer would be there is a distinction between personal responsibility and communal responsibility.
In the first scenario, the hidden premise seems to be that you are the only one aware or capable of saving the child from drowning. So there is a personal responsibility. If however, there were a 100 people nearby the pond, you would not necessarily have the obligation to go in and dive, you could perhaps play a much smaller role, like exclaiming "Help! The kid is drowning!".
Whereas in the case of charity, there is a much wider communal responsibility, so it gets divided into a much fractional size. So while I would agree that we have a responsibility to give to charity, I would disagree that it is as high as what mr singer lays out and given the wider awareness and number of people that are available the responsibility gets split up.
While I may concede that the community may be indifferent, I don't think it follows that an individual should be held morally responsible for what the community failed to do as a collective. That would be to be unjust. Furthermore, I would argue that it is somewhat vague and arbitrary what minimal living is, and perhaps one could argue that it is selfish and arbitrary to prioritise yourself over others and hence that too is morally wrong. So mr singer is wrong also regarding where he ends. In theory, he should go all the way and say one should be willing to lose his own shelter and sacrifice hygiene in order to save innocent lives.
The final way I would counter this argument is that I see no reason to follow these "alleged moral obligations" unless they of course from God, or simply that moral obligations of this complexity don't exist or they exist in a different way. It is much more simpler, like stay out of each other's way or obey your conscience. Your conscience does not act up every second regarding charitable donating, but it does if a child was drowning.
Those are my thoughts. (:
6:11 I'd argue that premise one would be challenged.
A case for donating to your patreon:
While poverty and animal agriculture are significant issues of our time, there is an even more significant issue which leads to us not addressing these issues. That is irrationality. The reason we do not donate or refrain from meat is likely due to our thinking irrationally about these issues. If people thought more rationally about these topics then we would be actively contributing to ending these problems. Your channel encourages people to think more rationally and thus addresses the meta problem of irrationality.
Reply:
While your channel does improve rationality there are more effective programs for improving rational thinking. For example 80,000 hours actively researches high impact problems and creates content to improve rational thinking.
Reply 2: While irrationality is an important issue you should donate directly to these problems because it is unclear if improving rationality actually would improve people’s actions. There needs to be empirical research proving this.
Reply to reply: diversify your investments.
Irrefutable
My rule of thumb: charity begins at home. See to it that you do have a functional roof over your head, that your family is well-housed, well-fed, in good health, safe and taken care of. When that's settled, you can begin to look more outward at the local community and work your way up from there. But then again, everyone's approach to charity will be different. So...
One thought that comes to mind is opportunity costs. When I spend my money, even for luxury items, I help employ people and thereby help them feed their families.
Every dollar I give to charity is a dollar that I can't exchange in trade and by giving to charity I may in fact be creating more poor, dependent people. In other words, trade is largely positive sum and charity is largely zero-sum.
The video refers to the hypothetical rich person who might be sitting on 'trillions of dollars', but that's not how it works. Wealthy people aren't 'sitting on' their money like Scrooge McDuck. Instead it is invested, which helps create businesses and jobs.
This isn't to argue that trade always results in optimal outcomes and it is certainly not intended to support the exploitation of people. Only that opportunity costs are real.
There is also the argument that trade and the expansion of markets is what leads to dramatic reductions in extreme poverty. That the opportunity costs of charity outweigh whatever gains in utility it may provide. In most developmental economics courses it is stressed that aid can only go so far and that empowering choice for individuals is paramount. Mosquito nets or vaccines can go a long way but their impact is relatively minimal compared to infrastructure or less corrupt governments in reducing poverty.
Interesting video.
Lots of commenters feeling very convicted by this argument 🌶️😹🌶️
Hello, does anyone know if Joe has made any videos on Alvin Plantinga's EAAN?
Fine, I'll donate to charity, sheesh, you could have just asked nicely lol
Ive heard this argument before but im confused how he calculates how each donation will help and how do i know that? Like in the example I see the child there infront of me. But in the charity example im looking at a webpage and a bunch of claims of people who are operating without my knowledge. I think it moves me more to donate but to what? If I give my local homeless person money and I also give money to a homeless shelter and walk away how do I know which is more affective? You can poke my example but I think the idea I give money therefore I save a life is the real question.
11:10 there's the moral difference
Ask : Are Neoplatonism and Naturalism compatible?
Let's save a child who will grow up and make 10 more children drowning, and then let's save those 10... This is how Africa's population increased from 400 million to 1,4 billion in 50 years.
No one donation to dying children is guaranteed to save a dying child, but, you know, fungibility of money.
What is this "INCOME" of which you speak, Mr. Schmid?
Me watching the whole video waiting to find out that it's ok for me to go to nice restaurants sometimes, leaving disappointed.
Joe, when is your debate with Matthew Adelstein? I believe you heard that he became a theist.
What consequentialism does to a mf
Christ died (FOR YOUR SINS)
Was buried
Rose again (the third day)
Accept this truth and you shall not perish but have everlasting life by he who is The Life, Jesus The Christ!
“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
John 11:25-26 NKJV
Peter Singer is the moral monster. Why does he think his misguided morality applies to everyone? Who made him the Grand PuuBaugh?
The biggest problem with the argument is knowledge about how economics works. But there are way more problems.
I suggest reading the book: Poor Economics. They suggest there is some clear low hanging fruit which can help improve lives without significant adverse effects like iron fortified flour or malaria nets or even breast feeding. Many of these low hanging fruit are so cheap that the poor can in fact afford them. The issue is many poor people don’t really know what actually works. A visceral example they give is a “doctor” showing how clean he is by washing his needles in a bucket of water in front of the clinic. However people can be incentivized to get their children vaccinated and the results are very remarkable. Infrastructure can be improved by providing chlorine dispensers at wells and more can be done. In short while it is complicated things can be done to improve lives of poor people by improving the infrastructure and increasing awareness.
Nothing makes you more of a moral monster than believing that private charity is a viable alternative to civic and political engagement.
Note that his argument does not assume that it's an *alternative* to civic and political engagement; in fact, he participates in precisely that sort of engagement in addition to giving to charity. This is not an either/or; it can be a both/and.
Yup. Singers reasoning is sound if we all have same definition of Morality.
But there are other problems. What's the limit? Majority of income is 51% or 99%? Why earn more than what you need? Family first or World first?
In any case, Singer is correct about donating almost everything. And I've decided to let go of Morality. My income is modest but multifold my meager expenses, so I can afford to donate most of my modest income, but I don't want to work. Never wanted to work. Still working.
Singer is pretty clearly wrong about donating. Why are the good charities unwilling to save lives without your money? If they were actually good charities, then they would save the lives of children even if you refuse to donate. They are just extorting you by saying they will let children die without your money.
@@wwickeddogg Donating to charity is just a more convenient way. You can bypass the charity and donate your money directly to those in need. It doesn't even have to be money. You can donate things or even time. The point is, except those actions/things you do/use for your survival, everything else should be in service of those who need it. Given the definition of Morality we have (greater good), there's no escape from Singer's conclusion.
@@mitesh8utube >Donating to charity is just a more convenient way.
Either you have a moral obligation to donate or you don't, you can' argue both. There's a fundamental axiom of logic called the law of excluded middle.
@@wwickeddogg I don't see where am I arguing both ways. Clarify your objection.
@@mitesh8utube Suppose I spend all of my time helping other people. A wealthy relative dies and leaves money to me in a will. Do I have a moral obligation to donate that money even if I already spend all my time helping others?
reject Singer's soy nonsense, embrace Max Stirner's chad egoism
THIS. Stirner was BASED.
Singer’s morality is a spook.
@@noonesomeone669why is that?
how about instead of trying to find differences between the two cases you just outright deny the first one in true edge lord fashion? it *seems* morally intuitive to save the drowning child, but for the same reasons that make our moral seemings irrelevant in the second case, they really shouldn't be applied to the first one either. especially in the case of two children drowning and you only being able to save one at random it feels quite counter intuitive actually to do it, as we can assume there's two equally save-worthy children with two equally loving families that would miss them etc we might actually be hurting the one even more by saving the other. maybe unless we can actually save them all, we don't have to save any of them? the family of the drowned child would rightfully argue why wasn't *their* child saved. to make the point perhaps a bit clearer: imagine there's two children drowning and you can *try* to save one or both and you know for some reason that you can only save one and if you tried to save both they'd both die because you're not a lifeguard. so the only way to save one of the children is to not even try to save the other - despite you being able to at least try. "obviously" it'd be wrong to not try, and similarly "obviously" it'd be wrong to try. if one of them is obligatory, both of them become obligatory and they're contradictory, so the only conclusion you're really left with is that none of them were obligatory to begin with.
It's not wrong to try in your example
Yeah, in your dreams, Peterpie. I used to be a caring person always putting needs of others ahead of mine, but when the tables have turned and I were the one needing some actual help (which is still the case), there was NO ONE. Not a single person, and all I heard was moralistic self-righteous babbling, hypocrisy and double standards. I will never help anyone again, even if by some magical spell things get better. This society can die in its own rot, hopefully sooner than later.
This video makes me want to get extremely rich and greedy
"Should you donate most of your income to charity?"
I would be forced to live on the street if I would do that.
Peter Singer can go ... himself.
Singer doesn't argue that one should donate so much that one is forced to live on the street. As explained in the video, he thinks one should donate as much as feasible consistent with living a minimally decent life. Living on the streets is not living a minimally decent life, however. The title of the video is not indicative of a claim, on Singer's part, that everyone everywhere should always give a majority of their income to charity. Singer allows that not everyone should donate that much; for some people, that would not be consistent with living a minimally decent life.
No.
Yes.
@@logicalliberty132 Then do it yourself first.
@@missk1697 What an amazing rebuttal!
@@alexmeyer794 It's literally just common sense, not a "rebuttal". If dude believes we should just give (almost) everything away - then start with yourself, see how well it goes! Otherwise it's just a moralistic clownery.
@@missk1697 Pointing to common sense won't stop the debate. Singer's rescue principle sounds as common sense to me as anything: if you haven't got to sacrifice something of moral worth, you should try to prevent something morally horrible. What he does is point out that this contradicts another common sense claim: we are not normally failing in our moral duties when we buy relatively luxury goods. His very point is common sense is a mess in this regard. We have to give up some common sense claim. He, I think rightly, gives up the presumption that we are living morally okay lives.
I don't see why someone who won't stick to his pronouncements shouldn't be listened to. Would you not listen to the alcoholic never to drink alcohol, even if you know he will fail in a week's time? Are you going to say - start with yourself, don't preach to me. As a matter of fact, this is not the case with Singer. I have met him and have had a lovely chat with him - he TRULY lives by his preaching. We invited him to a student society which included a fancy dinner, during which we are normally asked to wear fancy clothing. He asked to borrow a tie from me, since he said he doesn't own any. I gladly obliged. He simply stopped buying ties after getting to a certain age - it's a really useless luxury (no one actually likes wearing ties) that we all waste money on. I think many of the things we buy and consume are similar. Granted, he doesn't live like a monk, and he doesn't think you should - but maybe if you think about it, there are lots of things in your life that you really don't need.
shit didn't drop yesterday, talk about responses instead of giving a strawman shower