This recording is an absolute life saver. I struggle to read, and so having an auditory version was so so crucial for my assignments haha Thank you so much for recording it
I happen to be from this country[Bangladesh] that Sir Peter Singer is talking about. how strange it is that a person who doesn't relate to us in any useful sense cared for the people of this country. Thank you again for the audiobook
People do care. But did it change anything for your country? Did the help reach the people who needed it? I don't think so. P. Singer has to learn some of geo-politics and finance. To help anybody by giving money to a charity is laughable. Those charities (OXFAM, UNISEF, UN, Red Cross, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton AID Foundation, Soros Foundation etc...) are institutions which function is to tranfer money from the public to the private sector. To the hands of the private investors. Whoever doesn't understand this, doesn't understand the first thing about how the world works. Here's a good exemple of investigation of (only just) one of those "charity AID" foundations by independant media, that unmaks the modus operandi of those charities: ruclips.net/video/uR5vPjrHKOM/видео.html Does Peter Singer knows that? I wonder.
Sometimes its really difficult to know, if your intended help causes more or less problems or sufferings in the long run. If you feed a bunch of stray dogs on regular basis, you may just increase the problem with starving or dangerous stray dogs in the future. More genereally said - if you support a system, that somehow produces suffering or is a problem in itself, then you are in reality contributing to suffering in the world.
If you see a starving creature, you don't ask yourself this question. You feed the creature. The next step is to organise with your local community spay and neuter program, find the hospitals that'd do it as charity. THAT'S good palpable immediate charity, that is obviously good. Or, as people often do, crowdfund the program - the feeding, the spaying, the medical assistance, the sanctuary that can take in these dogs and keep the safe and fed, and ultimately, the adoption. I do donate to these programs locally, and I'm 100% sure my money is doing what it's suppossed to do. I KNOW these people. I VISIT these places. As to global official charities... well, it would've been funny if it wasn't so tragically sad. And here P. Singer has to learn some of geo-politics and finance. To help anybody by giving money to a charity is laughable. Those charities (OXFAM, UNISEF, UN, Red Cross, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton AID Foundation, Soros Foundation etc...) are institutions which function is to tranfer money from the public to the private sector. To the hands of the private investors. Whoever doesn't understand this, doesn't understand the first thing about how the world works. Here's a good exemple of investigation of (only just) one of those "charity AID" foundations by independant media, that unmaks the modus operandi of those charities: ruclips.net/video/uR5vPjrHKOM/видео.html Does Peter Singer knows that? I wonder.
It seems Peters world view is one of martyrdom. Why does he push the responsibility of ending famine onto individuals leading a frugal life and donating all their money to charities instead of tackling the real issue of why some countries suffer famine and poverty in the first place? Africa is very rich in mineral resources, famine occurs primarily due to western exploitation. Western govts economic policies and western corporations caused poverty and famine and they can also resolve it, trying to guilt individuals to live like monks is not practical and wont achieve real change
If the people of these west countries, who’s governments are exploiting, start to live more temperate lives then the demand for the resources that their governments are exploiting others for will drop. When its no longer as lucrative then those big industries and corporations who lobby and influence our governments to exploit others will no longer do so as there is not enough monetary gain. It’s your demand that fuels the exploiters. Another example is with latin American cartels. If Americans would stop buying their drugs then they would go out of business
I don’t read this as a judgement of people or the reader rather than a statement of “how it is” and the values people claim to have without praxis and what true praxis is. It’s ridiculous and that’s kind of the point. Ethics are messy, life isn’t a trolley problem
My question would be if morally you are put in a situation to where you would hurt the same amount of people equally then how do you make a distinguishment towards a decision
Hey Peter, what about the business that would fail if no consumers were to buy the products? What then would happen economically, globally and locally to our grocery stores, dilivered products, transport and trade? Would it hault or alter our 1st world privileges? Morally it could be said that it could not be justified if monetary gains are not reinvested rather than given - ie if you give a man a fish...
Ugh 33% is taken out for me for taxes. I live in California, USA. I don’t see where that money is going to besides food stamps and medical insurance for others though. I honestly think there’s corruption in the government because not too long ago, some California state workers got caught stealing millions of dollars from a single health program. They went and spent it on Disneyland vacations and birthday cruises. There’s no tracking and monitoring and those in charge of money at the government level can easily commit fraud for years 😩
Did Mr. Singer don't some or all of the profits from the sale of this book? Did he practice what he preached? Mr. singer seems to have overlook the fact that those who we entrust with the power to control the money we donated are less than honest in their handling of said funds. The fact that these famines are man made make it a very real possibility that they will or are created to transfer wealth to those creating the famine by intercepting the monies that should have gone to those in need. Mr. Singer's perception is very limited. The whole point of organized charities was to try and achieve what Mr. Singer suggests, to gather enough money at one time and teach men to fish as well as feeding them for the days until they learn enough about fishing to no longer need to be fed daily. But corruption has sidelined the long term goals of teaching people the skills to live independent of charity. All the people collecting exorbitant paychecks to "manage" the money, creating positions of employment for relatives. insane expense accounts etc. Fix all of those problems before passing moral judgement on how non-charitable people supposedly are.
Organized charity WAS thing before Singer.. Generalized human morality, however, maybe not so much? The world didn't have such free global communication (by today's standards) so it's fair to assume anything that was commonplace around the world but not documented may have also happened in other places of similar social makeups. Churches and Mosques have always been known to aid the sick and poor, as have many other religious places. - Selflessness is not a new thing, it's only new that the entire world is truly able to collaborate orate and make things happen. Singer speaks to things I've often thought about when I was in High-school, about 10 years ago - for example, if the combined excess wealth of allied (friendly) nations was able to eliminate starvation in a certain region of the world, why would they NOT make it happen? There shouldn't be any reason, unless the achievement of such a thing simple isn't important to whomever comes to mind. - How many nations spend how much on weapons and weapon research every year, for example, when we have already covered the surface of our planet with our species?..... What else are we trying to conquer? - I would absolutely agree the average person is selfish as fuck....but I would also agree there's no grounds for it. The term selfish is a negative one for a reason lol - tske csre and out yourself first by all means, but once you survive and thrive you have nothing to gain- nothing that will cstry beyond your grave - nothing that will be known to have been yours, in maybe 100 years.... If you're (un?)lucky, longer...
Your first question caught my eye, jane doe. And the answer is: yes. Since he published his paper, Mr Singer gives regularly and handsomely to charity, every penny that is beyond his "reasonable needs". He practises what he preaches, no question. He does not advocate that people should reduce themselves to penury. But that they think twice before indulging in luxury. It mostly falls on deaf ears, but some do take note. I am one. Corruption is an ever-present issue. In 1894, W.T. Stead wrote "Satan's Invisible World Displayed or, Despairing Democracy: A Study of Greater New York", in which he detailed how New York had been defrauded by members of the Tammany Society of over $160 million (that's the amount at the time, not now). It's not a problem of today but of all times, and is so endemic as to tempt the conclusion that it's not a problem, it's a fact of life. If I give protection money to the mafia, do I feed corruption? Yes, but I keep my store from being fire-bombed. I pay commission to an insurance agent, in order to get insurance: I pay a fraudster to get a fraudster for me. So, should we eschew every effort made to better the human condition because it benefits a middleman? Maybe. It's a view, but only if you know where all the middlemen are who take a slice of what you transact. And, they're everywhere. Corruption is a major stumbling block to development in Africa. There, the elite, who attain political clout, invariably use it to enrich themselves. I asked an expert once why The Gambia and Senegal abandoned their moves to unite in the 1980s. He replied, "Two countries can have two presidents." Zimbabwe makes a fortune on exporting gold, which it never mined. It's a money-laundering operation that reaps millions for criminals, including the president of Zimbabwe (see the Al Jazeera channel here). Should I therefore make a point of never donating to a cause that includes Zimbabwe as its beneficiaries? In "clean" countries, public services are offered by the government, for which taxes are paid. That means that, if I don't want a particular service, I still need to pay the taxes that go to providing it. It's called a "social contract". But, in other countries, public services can only be accessed by paying a "facilitation fee" (a meeting with Zimbabwe's president costs $200,000, for instance). But, if you're sure you need the service, then the facilitation fee effectively means that only those who need it will pay the fee. No one else does. Corruption can be an efficient means to ensure only those who receive a service need to pay for it. It would be nice to think that things are that well regulated, but, of course, they're not. Because everyone pays taxes, like it or not.
Since Jeffry Kaplan turned comments off on his video titled “Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil” I came here to argue this premise: Singer argues that, “[1] if it is “in our power” to prevent something “very bad” from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral sognificance, then we must, morally, do it. [2] Hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering, disability, and death are “very bad” [3] The luxeries, on which we spend money, are not of moral significance. [4] By donating money to relief agencies, like Oxfam, we could prevent hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering, disability, and death. Therefore, we must, morally, donate the money that we spend on luxuries to relief agencies.” Sounds nice. But here is the hole in his premise’s 1-4. [1] It is NOT in our power to prevent starvation, disease, etc. just simply because we have money. I can sacrifice my money and give $20 to a transient or homeless person hoping that they buy food, but I do not know what they will spend it on, and they might go buy alcohol or drugs. That is not of moral significance. That is stupid. [2] Hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering are very bad, but what is the cause and source of those? Why would I throw money at the symptom of a problem rather than throw money at the cause, which is more accurately, corrupt governments, poverty driven by crime, corruption, gangs, and badly run countries based on bad policies. These institutions run by these people in real, actual power, are VERY BAD. So, I argue, why would I throw my money at starving and diseased people, when I can fund efforts to take down these dictatorships, terribly run countries, and brutal regimes? If I’m merely donating to a charity or relief organization, I’m not solving the problem, I’m only temporarily feeling better about myself, knowing I let someone live a little longer… however, I’d be naive to think that my never ending donations to charity would solve world hunger… [3] The luxuries, on which we spend money, are not of moral significance, but they are available in a free society, where people have the liberty to spend their money on whatever they choose. I was born in the USA, and I worked for all the money that I have. Why is an African entitled to that money? I was not born in Africa. I’m not morally obligated to help them. I didn’t vote for their leader, I didn’t create their customs or laws. I did not make their rules, or try to settle their lands. I didn’t choose to live where their ancestors chose to settle their communities, and establish their countries… so simply because some of us have money, isn’t justified that we have to give it to someone else, assuming they will help others with it. [4] Donating money to relief agencies COULD prevent hunger, disease, etc, but those are not the causes of the suffering. As already stated, the causes of the suffering are the corrupt institutions set up through greed by corrupt governments, military coups, dictators, revolutionary armies, religious zealots, dominant tribes, etc. These countries are inept at running a successful country, and they are failing their people for their own greed and aspirations. That, is the source of their suffering… the hunger, the disease, those are the symptoms. We ought not to put bandaids on a cut that is too deep to stop from bleeding. Those like Singer, would spend on his money on bandaids to cover up deep scars, and think that he is doing something moral and worthwhile. Money is not the answer. The people of these struggling nations need to overthrow their corrupt leaders, and figure out a way to prevent crime, and lift themselves out of poverty. Charities will not achieve this, and this is why “ordinary people” are not evil. It is not the ordinary man’s responsibility, who lives in another country, to topple corrupt governments. If you think you’re saving lives by slapping bandaids on a deep wound, then you are very naive.
I also think not giving to luxuries causes another problem of making more poor people. Like if every one stopped getting massages we now make more poor people who now need money donated. So this argument is almost to simplistic to take seriously.
It is clear to me that you didn't finish Jeffry Kaplan's video b/c a lot of your claims were touched upon. Just admit you want to remain a selfish prick.
I agree with you that the responsibility should be with govt and corporations, not the individual, however when you say you don't owe Africans anything you need to realize a LOT of poverty worldwide is due to US foreign policy, and US corporations behavior. The people need to mobilize and force their govts and corporations to end their exploitation. All of us wage slaves living like monks and giving all our paychecks to charities while corporations earn billions from mining and manufacturing in Africa is a futile gesture
@@realtruth4804 I’m sure the IMF and some US government policy has played a role, but currently China is the main country exploiting most of Africa, and the corruption in Africa is due to their own corrupt governments. You can’t force countries that are recognized at the United Nations to have election integrity and a working Democracy, or a Republic. You can help them see the benefits of Capitalism and the way of the Western world, but you can’t change cultures and worry about every other failing nation that made all those decisions decades and centuries ago that has left them behind in the modern world. Right now there are trade wars, economic sanctions, tech wars, cyber espionage, and ideological wars for world dominance. The US doesn’t have the same dominance it once had after World War 2. Russia has rebounded from the former failed state of the USSR, and China has emerged as a super power in the East. NATO is competing with BRICS, and BRICS has been predatory lending to desperate African nations, not so much the US… and as far as the older colonial days go, it was the European nations like France that exploited Africa, not the US. China is actually approving high risk loans that US run banks will not give these countries.
When you walk by an Earthworm drowning in a puddle without helping it you have to really think about where you stand with regards to a "Good Moral Foundation" i guess.
Acting on what we know is true now and disregarding future results because we can not really know the future could also be an arguenent to save all wealth for the future (it might be waaay more expensive than things are now) make provisions in your will, to give it all away upon death. Then you will know it is excess. You of course won't be around to know, but you will know before you go that something is being left behind as long as it has not yet been spent. You don't know how long you'll live and what the future will hold, so best to be overprepared. You don't know if your children, should you have them, will even be alive then. Maybe you leave the house, if you have one to leave them, should they be living upon your death, otherwise all to your chosen charities. We had a friend of the family die recently. She had no family and no will, so it will all go to the state. She gave to charity in life, but made no provisions upon her death. That's a shame. I doubt the government would use the money as she would have liked it to have been used. If you really believe in meritocracy, let those kids and grandkids make it all on their own efforts and merit. Give it all away to charity.
Ought we to be heaping upon the back the care responsibility of those who caused the flight from war? Do we support these people fighting for control of a land by doing nothing to hold them to account? Have we taken their side by doing nothing about their criminality in in fact ourselves caused the suffering by failing to suffer the perpetrators for their crimes?
Agreed. This is a bad way to approach the problem. Starting off with East Bengal of all places, where Churchill himself created a famine. It's the approach of a privileged white man who has never confronted a structure of power and carries the cultural baggage of self defeating individualism.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 All interference with peaceful non-fraudulent exchange between emancipated adults is immoral. It always results in reducing efficiencies, often death, always a decrease in wealth. A prime example is the reduced wealth, increased costs and ongoing deaths as a result of interfering with people during the pandemic. Could anything else in history have created as much reduction in access to goods and services this universal objection to Liberty? I doubt any greater example of deleterious effects could be found.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 I like your comment: not because I think you're right in where you go with it, but because it provokes thought. I like Singer, but am I indulging in "self-defeating individualism" as a result? Mr Singer is white, and he may be privileged, I don't know. But he is exhorting privileged white men, amongst others, to think differently about their duty to unprivileged non-white men, and I think that should garner praise more than condemnation, don't you? In fact, I think Singer's philosophy is better received precisely because he asks his own sort to change their ways, rather than the request coming from the beneficiaries themselves. Churchill is dead. He was great. He was dreadful. He was a politician. He was. Others are. Others are living and need help. We cannot refuse help to the living on the basis of the greatness, or dreadfulness, or whatever, of a man who died 60 years ago. If anything, if he had failings, that's all the more reason to make up for them. Today's politicians also have their failings - should the world then abandon the people whom they fail? If that were so, I fear that we would offer help to nobody, for all politicians fail in one way or another. That's perhaps why people need help.
@Graham Vincent I disagree that Singer is thinking differently about charity. We see it everywhere that charity is good and that we can make a difference. The TV adverts, the donation jars at the grocery store, etc. Corporations and governments adopt this position mostly to wash their hands of the need to offer any systemic change so they can continue their robbery of the third world and blame us for it. We can give our life savings to charity and it won't fix anything. The real solution is to collectively confront and rethink institutions that create poverty in the first place.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 I think it's the first time I ever heard "Singer is not thinking differently about charity". I won't deny that it is a good thing to be aware of the full consequences of what we do. So, don't fly, because the pollution it creates makes airlines rich and the rich are doing untold damage to justice by greasing the palms of Clarence Thomas, which is playing into the hands of right-wing extremists, and etc. etc. If I knew every last consequence of every last breath I take, then my wisdom would be without end. I don't intend to be cynical but, perhaps you're different to me, maybe you are far more circumspect about the chains of reactions that permeate and criss-cross the globe. I'm not trying to be funny, and I don't want any arguments. But you seem to say that if everyone gave to charity as Singer advocates, the governments that we elect to office would simply wrap up any notion of international aid that they currently engage in and the givers of money to charity would be lambasted by the Third World for causing them a sharp decline in their living standards. I think that's the causal chain you identify, yes? The US's GDP is $26.14 trillion at the present time. The US donates aid (it's hard to quantify, especially in terms of lent manpower and military training and such like, but in pure money terms) in an amount of $49 billion. A trillion is 12 zeros, and a billion is 9. So, cancelling a few zeros for comprehensibility's sake: the US earns in one year $2,614.00, of which it spends in total aid, all countries, all agencies included: $4.90. In percentage terms, that is 0,187%. Take-home pay in the US varies from state to state, but is at around $40,000 after tax, free disposable income. If each wage-earner in the US donated 0,187% of that take-home pay to charity, they would be donating annually a sum of $74,98. Your posit suggests that working Americans do not have funds in excess of $75 that they spend on luxuries in a year. I don't know what people spend their money on, but I think I can safely venture a guess that their spending on luxuries, over and beyond their necessities, is way beyond $75 a year and probably is more like $75 a week. But that is not your issue. Your issue is that if the Americans and everyone else on the wealthy side of the globe gave $75 or more to charity, then, as a result of that, the US and every other government in the world would at a stroke abrogate their responsibilities for international aid, thus plummeting the third world into bottomless penury, for which you believe a finger would be pointed at you, among others. First, there would be no penury in the third world: there would be boundless rejoicing. Because, by exceeding the figure of $74,98, no one would need international aid. And, supposing I'm right and people donated not $75 a year but per week, then the amount of charity flowing to the Third World would multiply by a factor of 52. In real terms, instead of the US spending 49 billion, it would spend $2.55 trillion. In one year, a single country's population, the US's, could wipe out poverty. But, and it is a MEGA-but: you are right in one thing: actions do have consequences. And aid has consequences as well. Because most of it never gets to where it's intended. It is purloined, stolen, embezzled, theived, and most of that is done by the very people into whose hands it is entrusted and who have stated a case to receive it in the first place - they are the governments, administrators and even presidents of Africa's ailing third world. UNICEF puts to work 20% of what is donated to it, with 80% going on administration; and that's before it seeps into the back-hands of officials, of administrators, of people who collect 200 sacks of rice and deliver 150. The government of Uganda, which languishes low down the transparency index at place 142 (joint), is a member of the United Nations, which states in its charter that its purpose includes "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women". Uganda joined the UN in 1962 and has been party to the Vienna Declaration and the institution of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Uganda has also just enacted legislation by which homosexuals can be sentenced to death for being gay. Persons who flee Uganda because of persecution for their orientation may seek refuge at Kakuma, a UNHCR camp in Kenya, with a population of 300,000. But, anyone wanting resettlement out of Kakuma, a right enshrined in the charter by which the UNHCR was created and which is its very aim and purpose, must pay a bribe to the UN official who offers them a new life in, say, Canada or the US or wherever. 70,000 shillings, which is around $517.18. That's how public services are administered there: by paying bribes. Duff, do you think that, because corruption and bribery are rife in Africa, that we should not help those who get but the basic framework of what aid is intended to help, but without ever solving the issues? Just leave the corrupt officials to take everything and leave the people hungry and hopeless? No country will ever stop paying aid to the Third World. Not even if we gave 75 bucks a week to it. Because aid is not for the poor. So, who is it for? It's for the very people who receive it now: it's for the rich. It goes mainly to the rich in Africa and it's a bribe, to ask them not to incite revolution against our industries or rise up in a war against their neighbours and cause us difficulties. We, the west, the old and new worlds, pay them, the third world, aid in order to keep the peace, get rich, and leave office so that someone else gets a turn a being rich for a while, thus making it look as if there is democracy there. The only good thing I can say is that, at least charity gets help to those who need it more directly, but there is much more that makes Africa poor than just poverty. The laws against homosexuality are put there, not because the governments are anti-gay but because, whilst they steal money from their own people, they use the quasi-religious fervour behind persecution of gays to unite their people in one voice, and sing in so loud a throng that they quite forget they're being fleeced by their own leaders. They're a distraction, like a conjuror would use. Sorry to to take so much of your time, assuming you're still reading here.
The wealthy can never have enough. Considering the wealth of many countries why is there children starving and living in deplorable conditions. I tire of this materialistic society where the wealthy are admired and put on pedestals. This is only how i feel and i know others will disagree and thats their right.
Give that which enables you to not become in need of charity yourself. To live is not to live comfortably. Comfort can only come in a moral sense when everyone has an equal sense of their needs met. Starving people and drowning children are the same calamity, can you live with yourself next time you get a new phone and a family dies from hunger?
Ryan, hi. Your comment is light-hearted and, dare I say, superficial. And yet it's not, not by any means. It goes to the very heart of what Singer says. The prime argument against Singer is the unforeseeability of our futures, and those who dismiss Singer will cite your argument one way or another. However, if making reasonable provision for future needs is a hard and fast component of your current budget, then that certainly does not constitute "luxury" as Singer defines it. And, in fact, it isn't Singer who needs to define it at all: it's you. Nor does he need to define the morality which speaks to you to define your excess spending as luxuries: although he takes examples that might be understood as "commonly held ideas of what is right" in order to illustrate his thinking, if that suggests to you a "set of rules" then it must be a set of rules that you adhere to, and not that are imposed by society or Mr Singer. Singer is often misrepresented as advocating that each one of us should become poor in order to help the poor. Your comment, to return to where I started, is precisely what runs through most people's heads when they read Singer, so you're not out of line. But, just as it would be foolish to splash out on a gold ring or expensive car and leave your debts unpaid, your rent unpaid or your family hungry, it would likewise be foolish to give to charity money that you need for those necessities. It is when you're able to even consider an expenditure that would not affect your ability to pay your necessities that Singer asks you to consider a charitable donation instead. That's all he does. Try it. Next flag day. Give a pound. It could change you.
More like: Live simply so others may simply live. Live. That is that is the key. Live and provide for your continued existence, and when there is something leftover, use that excess to keep others alive.
What Singer proposes is quite extreme and unrealistic for the majority of people. He doesn’t take all other variables into consideration, as if morality were, by far, the most essential pillar in human existence. Also, if all people did this, we would be living in a highly dysfunctional society, as people would constantly base their lives around giving what they have in excess. Rich people, by giving away, would become poor compared to the people they’re helping, while poor people would become rich in comparison and would need to take the same approach in the cycle. Morality would almost completely replace the idea of money, which I think would transform it eventually into something similar to religion throughout history. Such excess of morality will make it lose its essence and turn it into the most egotistical behavior you can get. I understand the point Singer makes, but it cannot be stated that it would produce a better outcome for humanity. It is too simplistic and extreme, and what we need are more balanced approaches.
Agreed, it is quite extreme. But it's not unrealistic: remember, what Singer advocates is not absolute; it is relative to him or her who decides to undertake the philosophy. It's not a set of hard rules, it is an exhortation: simply to think twice before indulging in luxury. So, if I believe that I have £100 spare each month, which is not otherwise allocated to my current and foreseeable future needs, the education of my children and possible rises in the price of petrol or food, then the question for me is: what to do with the £100? I can save it, invest it, buy a trinket, or I can give it. The choice rests on MY morality, not yours, and not anyone else's, Dan. The £100 is lawfully mine and I may lawfully decide which option to choose. As may you. As may everyone. Dramatist Edward Bond wrote once about airmen who drop bombs on enemy countries and return to their families to be embraced by their own children, whereas they've just bombed other people's children to hell. "How can they live with themselves?" he asks. Well, they live with themselves because they are able to invent a morality that suits them. Perhaps several moralities. Moralities are cheap, and malleable, dispensable even, like fashion clothing. Except that, when they get altered to suit circumstances or dropped due to their inconvenience, they are no longer like fashion clothing; instead they ARE fashion clothing. Morality is not the product of being told what to do; it is the product of an intense conversation that an individual engages in with his or her own conscience. When the conscience tells you not to care about others, then that is your morality, and no one can take that away from you. Only you can. Singer is more balanced than you perhaps appreciate: please, read him again, for his philosophy is not like Marxism or capitalism, which advocate systems of national application; his philosophy is a system of individual application and, whether one adopts it or not, or adopts it only in part, or to a certain degree, is always within the giver's power. The only factor that exercises any duress in its whole operation is you, and your conscience. That is all. It is answerable and accountable to no one, unless there is a deity which you believe you serve in opting for Singer's way. Singer takes conceivable situations and translates them into what he believes would be commonly held emotions. Clearly, he selects his examples carefully, so as to reach a common denominator that he reasonably thinks will be shared by most, if not all, of his readers. But, he will miss his mark with some folk, inevitably. From his examples, he extrapolates a general sense of right, which he calls morality, but which is individual to each of us. And, from that, he exhorts us to act appropriately, in line with the morality that we have concluded is ours, and nobody else's. Your dysfunctionality argument attracts me. I do wonder, however, whether it will ever be put to the test.
@@grahamvincent6977 Thank you for your in-depth explanation, you presented some interesting points. Still, I think it’s unrealistic for most people for long periods of time. I don’t see many adopting this as a life philosophy and romanticizing the idea of morality this way. Where I believe Singer was wrong is that he tried using the same tools to create a different system. His way of thinking will never make an impactful change, because the tools being used are too shallow for the individual and collective consciousness. I’ll tell you how I would constantly give away some of my my hard-earned: I need to know exactly what happens with it. What was bought with it, down to the last penny. What family/people benefited from it and what is their full-name. What is their financial situation and what are their opportunities in terms of work and education. How do they take advantage of these opportunities, if any? Where can I invest a % of that money to create opportunities, if none? How can these opportunities be directly linked to the people I’m helping? How can we setup a way for us to communicate with each other, if none? As well as many other approaches that would create a direct connection between me and the people I’m helping. I would pay separately for this system to be setup, just like you pay the fees for using an investing platform. Even if I paid 25% of that money for such system to be setup, I bet it would be much more effective in helping people. If I create within myself the belief of a long-term close relationship with the people I’m helping, chances are I won’t give up on them. I don’t want to just give money to an external entity that creates a link between me and people I will never know anything about. You might get a few dollars out of me each month, if you’re lucky, but that’s about it. As an individual, I need within myself the rightly balanced illusion betwen selfishness and selflessness. I want to help create opportunities for people in need, just like I did for myself my whole life, or for my children’s future. At the same time, treat me like a pawn with my money, regardless of what you say you represent, and you won’t get far with me.
@@danpirau3969 Dan, I would like to also thank you for coming back in such good detail and with so many constructive ideas and, when I read these, I can assure you that you and I are singing from the same hymn sheet. In the end, whatever we think about Singer's philosophy, those who are intrigued by or dismissive of his ideas all want one thing: to help; it's the helping that's important. I myself know a family in The Gambia, a country in western Africa. I met this chap on a business-people's website and we clicked, exchanged views in our posts and got to know each other. I never offered and he never asked for money and our exchanges concentrated mainly on possibilities for getting work in The Gambia. However, the point arose when his sister was very sick at home, suffering from malaria: it's a very common disease in Africa and not everyone there can afford the precautions against getting it or afford the cure medication. He fielded a request with nothing more than: was there anything I could do to help? The question arose in my mind: was I being scammed? When I went to a payment agency to make a modest payment of 100 euros to him, I was just at the point of pressing “approved” when there flashed onto the screen a message about being sure it wasn’t a scam. I hesitated and for a while didn't really know what to do. Thing was that I trusted the man and yet it seems that scams are all too common: how could I be sure? I asked a contact of mine in Asia and he put me onto a website which is called baluwo.com which, on your behalf, will provide groceries, telephone call credit or pay an electric bill or organise construction materials on your behalf: you pay them and they will provide the services or the goods to the people in question. It's used often by expatriate Africans to send money home to their families, but who don't want to go through the rigmarole of using a bank transfer (but it's not a money transfer: you in fact pay for something that they can use.) I suggested this to my contact in The Gambia and he was delighted. I ended up spending 134 euros. The family in The Gambia were profuse in their thanks and gratitude: it's a good solution for me. They were then able to allocate funds to get medication for their ill relative. I'm not tremendously well off myself and I don't have that much to spare but every now and then I'm able to make a small contribution to these people I know. I get nothing in return, except for thanks. However you really need to know who you are going to be making such a transfer to, so how do you come into contact with the needy? My contact was by chance, but I don't think that you would have difficulty in ascertaining who you might sponsor. It seems very direct and in fact limited in scope. Does it do any permanent good? I think every good does some permanent good, even if it's not to put on a balance sheet: I always ask the family to spread kindness, and to help those who are around them, the way I have helped them. That way some kind of fellowship can be created. But I can't control that, I don't really want to either. I don't feel particularly good about myself when doing it but I'm happy that, in some small way, I'm able to make some difference. You seem so full of determination: I'm sure that you will find your way too, to make a difference.
One of the first things he said was “it is your duty to give if it does nothing to harm you” basically would cost nothing for you to give away, so if a rich person abides by this logic they will not become poor. He also made the argument several times that simply doing nothing because other factors in the world could be doing more is wrong because less is being done. people should take responsibility for the society and mentality they are creating. It’s up to everyone. You don’t have to feel shamed by it but it’s not fair isn’t a real argument. Also if someone Abides by their own virtues, not the norm, it will not lead to religious mentality. Also money is evil
People are ethnocentric. They will help those within their ethnos. Starting with their children. Ethnic groups are at best competing with each other and at worst openly hostile to each other. So why would an ethic group help a competitor. Trying to remove peoples ethic preference is very arbitrary. Why just save people. Why not save all mammals or all living entities. I do agree that limiting suffering is a good goal. But this can only work within each ethic group.
I agree, up to a point. I knew racists in my youth (yes, probably even now) (I'm white) who had black friends. I think it's easier to be a racist or to hate an ethnic group when you don't know them. And even to love them: we romanticise them, absent hard annoying habits. It helps if one has a friend in another ethnic group, especially if you're "introduced", to be more accepting and less hostile; but, as long as they are "faceless", it's easier to deal with them as a commodity. The same way that cold callers tell you their name: it's easier to hang up on someone whose name you don't know. Some complained when sympathy was expressed to Ukraine by Europeans that we'd had little sympathy for Syria etc. Your point says it quite succinctly: the Middle East will care for Syrians; for Ukrainians, there are Europeans. They're more "us", more relatable to. There's much in what you say. Can one really relate "globally" though? I smile: I think you'd be surprised. 🙂
Your premise is that all people are inatly racist. I disagree with that premise. I think you are racist and are assuming that we all think like you. We do not.
They only see you as a competitor because you see them as a competitor. Australia should allow unconditional immigration from overcrowded Asian countries, as the natural resources should be equally available to all.
People will do more for people the closer they are to them... affluent countries being able to help third world countries us a different thing all together... first world countriedhold massive debts over third world countries as well as plundering their natural resources.
Peter does not understand that we are a social species, not a solitary one. Like Aynn Rand, his morality concept is constructed for a solitary species, which they both seem to mistakenly think humans are. Morality for a social species MUST include the interdependance intrinsic to a successful social species. We are all single consciences...but we are ALL wired to be part of a whole, whether we like it or not. Morally, we serve two masters...setting the stage for eternal conflict. Because of that, a healthy democracy will ALWAYS BE MESSY. It will always be a conflict between self and others. Empathy is the mechanism our DNA provides to conduct that balance. Empathy IS what makes us a social species. Empathy is what makes us humans...not animals.
Society only exists for the benefit of the individual. The second society stops benefiting the majority of people, or a minority of powerful people. That society collapses and a new one is formed. When society crumbles the focus becomes survival of the individual. Society only exists so long as it benefits the individual, the second it does not we tear it up and burn it down. You only make and keep friends because they give u a benefit. Interesting how those who give no benefit or are a detriment aren't your friends. Humans are an evil myopic individualistic species, the world would not be the way it is now if that were not the case. Seriously 2023 you look around this world and all the suffering there is. We are not an empathetic species, if we were... The world would not be the way it is now. U got emerald glasses on kiddo
@@asull06 Of course we are animals...but we are a PARTICULAR kind of animal, a SOCIAL SPECIES, and our morality is generated by the DNA of that species, in the same way as the behavior (morality) of a horse is generated; it is experienced by horses in the same way as in ALL social animals...as "feeling/emotion". That is how God talks to all animals, including humans.
I've found that if you email the author of a paper, they're usually more than happy to send you a copy for free. Usually, the paywalls are put up by the journals.
![Willard Van Orman Quine - On What There Is [Philosophy Audiobook]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Wx9RJFBcb00/mqdefault.jpg)
![Charles S. Peirce - How to Make Our Ideas Clear [Philosophy Audiobook]](/img/1.gif)
This recording is an absolute life saver. I struggle to read, and so having an auditory version was so so crucial for my assignments haha Thank you so much for recording it
I happen to be from this country[Bangladesh] that Sir Peter Singer is talking about. how strange it is that a person who doesn't relate to us in any useful sense cared for the people of this country. Thank you again for the audiobook
People do care. But did it change anything for your country? Did the help reach the people who needed it? I don't think so.
P. Singer has to learn some of geo-politics and finance. To help anybody by giving money to a charity is laughable. Those charities (OXFAM, UNISEF, UN, Red Cross, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton AID Foundation, Soros Foundation etc...) are institutions which function is to tranfer money from the public to the private sector. To the hands of the private investors. Whoever doesn't understand this, doesn't understand the first thing about how the world works.
Here's a good exemple of investigation of (only just) one of those "charity AID" foundations by independant media, that unmaks the modus operandi of those charities:
ruclips.net/video/uR5vPjrHKOM/видео.html
Does Peter Singer knows that? I wonder.
@@tatianaabramovskaya8765 Yeah, i agree. Capitalism has ruined everything really. "Every man for himself"
Thanks for this audio
Sometimes its really difficult to know, if your intended help causes more or less problems or sufferings in the long run. If you feed a bunch of stray dogs on regular basis, you may just increase the problem with starving or dangerous stray dogs in the future. More genereally said - if you support a system, that somehow produces suffering or is a problem in itself, then you are in reality contributing to suffering in the world.
How many times have you wanted to starve?
I think you are missing the point.
It's all perspective also to one group a thing could be good but to another is may be bad
If you see a starving creature, you don't ask yourself this question. You feed the creature. The next step is to organise with your local community spay and neuter program, find the hospitals that'd do it as charity. THAT'S good palpable immediate charity, that is obviously good. Or, as people often do, crowdfund the program - the feeding, the spaying, the medical assistance, the sanctuary that can take in these dogs and keep the safe and fed, and ultimately, the adoption. I do donate to these programs locally, and I'm 100% sure my money is doing what it's suppossed to do. I KNOW these people. I VISIT these places.
As to global official charities... well, it would've been funny if it wasn't so tragically sad.
And here P. Singer has to learn some of geo-politics and finance. To help anybody by giving money to a charity is laughable. Those charities (OXFAM, UNISEF, UN, Red Cross, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Clinton AID Foundation, Soros Foundation etc...) are institutions which function is to tranfer money from the public to the private sector. To the hands of the private investors. Whoever doesn't understand this, doesn't understand the first thing about how the world works.
Here's a good exemple of investigation of (only just) one of those "charity AID" foundations by independant media, that unmaks the modus operandi of those charities:
ruclips.net/video/uR5vPjrHKOM/видео.html
Does Peter Singer knows that? I wonder.
Very well read. Thanks
Thanks for saving me $57 dollars for the opportunity to read it
This saved me! Thank you!
It seems Peters world view is one of martyrdom. Why does he push the responsibility of ending famine onto individuals leading a frugal life and donating all their money to charities instead of tackling the real issue of why some countries suffer famine and poverty in the first place?
Africa is very rich in mineral resources, famine occurs primarily due to western exploitation. Western govts economic policies and western corporations caused poverty and famine and they can also resolve it, trying to guilt individuals to live like monks is not practical and wont achieve real change
If the people of these west countries, who’s governments are exploiting, start to live more temperate lives then the demand for the resources that their governments are exploiting others for will drop. When its no longer as lucrative then those big industries and corporations who lobby and influence our governments to exploit others will no longer do so as there is not enough monetary gain. It’s your demand that fuels the exploiters. Another example is with latin American cartels. If Americans would stop buying their drugs then they would go out of business
I think this becomes a lot more complicated when you try to think about the problem over the course of time
I don’t read this as a judgement of people or the reader rather than a statement of “how it is” and the values people claim to have without praxis and what true praxis is. It’s ridiculous and that’s kind of the point. Ethics are messy, life isn’t a trolley problem
Great Reading/ Thanks!
Thank you!
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
My question would be if morally you are put in a situation to where you would hurt the same amount of people equally then how do you make a distinguishment towards a decision
Hey Peter, what about the business that would fail if no consumers were to buy the products? What then would happen economically, globally and locally to our grocery stores, dilivered products, transport and trade? Would it hault or alter our 1st world privileges? Morally it could be said that it could not be justified if monetary gains are not reinvested rather than given - ie if you give a man a fish...
#simpingforcapitalism
@@willowbeederouaux4750 Is that all you need to do to achieve moral superiority you filthy hypocrite? #simpingfor100milliondead
the business that fails is reliant on people not being moral, hence the business is immoral in the first place.
26:00 taxes ?? That’s pretty much all I have to sau
Ugh 33% is taken out for me for taxes. I live in California, USA. I don’t see where that money is going to besides food stamps and medical insurance for others though. I honestly think there’s corruption in the government because not too long ago, some California state workers got caught stealing millions of dollars from a single health program. They went and spent it on Disneyland vacations and birthday cruises. There’s no tracking and monitoring and those in charge of money at the government level can easily commit fraud for years 😩
Did Mr. Singer don't some or all of the profits from the sale of this book? Did he practice what he preached? Mr. singer seems to have overlook the fact that those who we entrust with the power to control the money we donated are less than honest in their handling of said funds. The fact that these famines are man made make it a very real possibility that they will or are created to transfer wealth to those creating the famine by intercepting the monies that should have gone to those in need. Mr. Singer's perception is very limited. The whole point of organized charities was to try and achieve what Mr. Singer suggests, to gather enough money at one time and teach men to fish as well as feeding them for the days until they learn enough about fishing to no longer need to be fed daily. But corruption has sidelined the long term goals of teaching people the skills to live independent of charity. All the people collecting exorbitant paychecks to "manage" the money, creating positions of employment for relatives. insane expense accounts etc. Fix all of those problems before passing moral judgement on how non-charitable people supposedly are.
Organized charity WAS thing before Singer.. Generalized human morality, however, maybe not so much? The world didn't have such free global communication (by today's standards) so it's fair to assume anything that was commonplace around the world but not documented may have also happened in other places of similar social makeups. Churches and Mosques have always been known to aid the sick and poor, as have many other religious places. - Selflessness is not a new thing, it's only new that the entire world is truly able to collaborate orate and make things happen. Singer speaks to things I've often thought about when I was in High-school, about 10 years ago - for example, if the combined excess wealth of allied (friendly) nations was able to eliminate starvation in a certain region of the world, why would they NOT make it happen? There shouldn't be any reason, unless the achievement of such a thing simple isn't important to whomever comes to mind. - How many nations spend how much on weapons and weapon research every year, for example, when we have already covered the surface of our planet with our species?..... What else are we trying to conquer? - I would absolutely agree the average person is selfish as fuck....but I would also agree there's no grounds for it. The term selfish is a negative one for a reason lol - tske csre and out yourself first by all means, but once you survive and thrive you have nothing to gain- nothing that will cstry beyond your grave - nothing that will be known to have been yours, in maybe 100 years.... If you're (un?)lucky, longer...
Your first question caught my eye, jane doe. And the answer is: yes. Since he published his paper, Mr Singer gives regularly and handsomely to charity, every penny that is beyond his "reasonable needs". He practises what he preaches, no question. He does not advocate that people should reduce themselves to penury. But that they think twice before indulging in luxury. It mostly falls on deaf ears, but some do take note. I am one.
Corruption is an ever-present issue. In 1894, W.T. Stead wrote "Satan's Invisible World Displayed or, Despairing Democracy: A Study of Greater New York", in which he detailed how New York had been defrauded by members of the Tammany Society of over $160 million (that's the amount at the time, not now). It's not a problem of today but of all times, and is so endemic as to tempt the conclusion that it's not a problem, it's a fact of life. If I give protection money to the mafia, do I feed corruption? Yes, but I keep my store from being fire-bombed. I pay commission to an insurance agent, in order to get insurance: I pay a fraudster to get a fraudster for me. So, should we eschew every effort made to better the human condition because it benefits a middleman? Maybe. It's a view, but only if you know where all the middlemen are who take a slice of what you transact. And, they're everywhere.
Corruption is a major stumbling block to development in Africa. There, the elite, who attain political clout, invariably use it to enrich themselves. I asked an expert once why The Gambia and Senegal abandoned their moves to unite in the 1980s. He replied, "Two countries can have two presidents." Zimbabwe makes a fortune on exporting gold, which it never mined. It's a money-laundering operation that reaps millions for criminals, including the president of Zimbabwe (see the Al Jazeera channel here). Should I therefore make a point of never donating to a cause that includes Zimbabwe as its beneficiaries?
In "clean" countries, public services are offered by the government, for which taxes are paid. That means that, if I don't want a particular service, I still need to pay the taxes that go to providing it. It's called a "social contract". But, in other countries, public services can only be accessed by paying a "facilitation fee" (a meeting with Zimbabwe's president costs $200,000, for instance). But, if you're sure you need the service, then the facilitation fee effectively means that only those who need it will pay the fee. No one else does. Corruption can be an efficient means to ensure only those who receive a service need to pay for it. It would be nice to think that things are that well regulated, but, of course, they're not. Because everyone pays taxes, like it or not.
Since Jeffry Kaplan turned comments off on his video titled “Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil” I came here to argue this premise:
Singer argues that,
“[1] if it is “in our power” to prevent something “very bad” from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral sognificance, then we must, morally, do it.
[2] Hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering, disability, and death are “very bad”
[3] The luxeries, on which we spend money, are not of moral significance.
[4] By donating money to relief agencies, like Oxfam, we could prevent hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering, disability, and death.
Therefore, we must, morally, donate the money that we spend on luxuries to relief agencies.”
Sounds nice. But here is the hole in his premise’s 1-4. [1] It is NOT in our power to prevent starvation, disease, etc. just simply because we have money. I can sacrifice my money and give $20 to a transient or homeless person hoping that they buy food, but I do not know what they will spend it on, and they might go buy alcohol or drugs. That is not of moral significance. That is stupid.
[2] Hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering are very bad, but what is the cause and source of those? Why would I throw money at the symptom of a problem rather than throw money at the cause, which is more accurately, corrupt governments, poverty driven by crime, corruption, gangs, and badly run countries based on bad policies. These institutions run by these people in real, actual power, are VERY BAD. So, I argue, why would I throw my money at starving and diseased people, when I can fund efforts to take down these dictatorships, terribly run countries, and brutal regimes? If I’m merely donating to a charity or relief organization, I’m not solving the problem, I’m only temporarily feeling better about myself, knowing I let someone live a little longer… however, I’d be naive to think that my never ending donations to charity would solve world hunger…
[3] The luxuries, on which we spend money, are not of moral significance, but they are available in a free society, where people have the liberty to spend their money on whatever they choose. I was born in the USA, and I worked for all the money that I have. Why is an African entitled to that money? I was not born in Africa. I’m not morally obligated to help them. I didn’t vote for their leader, I didn’t create their customs or laws. I did not make their rules, or try to settle their lands. I didn’t choose to live where their ancestors chose to settle their communities, and establish their countries… so simply because some of us have money, isn’t justified that we have to give it to someone else, assuming they will help others with it.
[4] Donating money to relief agencies COULD prevent hunger, disease, etc, but those are not the causes of the suffering. As already stated, the causes of the suffering are the corrupt institutions set up through greed by corrupt governments, military coups, dictators, revolutionary armies, religious zealots, dominant tribes, etc. These countries are inept at running a successful country, and they are failing their people for their own greed and aspirations. That, is the source of their suffering… the hunger, the disease, those are the symptoms.
We ought not to put bandaids on a cut that is too deep to stop from bleeding. Those like Singer, would spend on his money on bandaids to cover up deep scars, and think that he is doing something moral and worthwhile. Money is not the answer.
The people of these struggling nations need to overthrow their corrupt leaders, and figure out a way to prevent crime, and lift themselves out of poverty. Charities will not achieve this, and this is why “ordinary people” are not evil. It is not the ordinary man’s responsibility, who lives in another country, to topple corrupt governments. If you think you’re saving lives by slapping bandaids on a deep wound, then you are very naive.
Also, Oxfam has been linked to Child Sex Trafficking
I also think not giving to luxuries causes another problem of making more poor people. Like if every one stopped getting massages we now make more poor people who now need money donated. So this argument is almost to simplistic to take seriously.
It is clear to me that you didn't finish Jeffry Kaplan's video b/c a lot of your claims were touched upon. Just admit you want to remain a selfish prick.
I agree with you that the responsibility should be with govt and corporations, not the individual, however when you say you don't owe Africans anything you need to realize a LOT of poverty worldwide is due to US foreign policy, and US corporations behavior. The people need to mobilize and force their govts and corporations to end their exploitation. All of us wage slaves living like monks and giving all our paychecks to charities while corporations earn billions from mining and manufacturing in Africa is a futile gesture
@@realtruth4804 I’m sure the IMF and some US government policy has played a role, but currently China is the main country exploiting most of Africa, and the corruption in Africa is due to their own corrupt governments. You can’t force countries that are recognized at the United Nations to have election integrity and a working Democracy, or a Republic. You can help them see the benefits of Capitalism and the way of the Western world, but you can’t change cultures and worry about every other failing nation that made all those decisions decades and centuries ago that has left them behind in the modern world. Right now there are trade wars, economic sanctions, tech wars, cyber espionage, and ideological wars for world dominance. The US doesn’t have the same dominance it once had after World War 2. Russia has rebounded from the former failed state of the USSR, and China has emerged as a super power in the East. NATO is competing with BRICS, and BRICS has been predatory lending to desperate African nations, not so much the US… and as far as the older colonial days go, it was the European nations like France that exploited Africa, not the US. China is actually approving high risk loans that US run banks will not give these countries.
Thanks
You're very welcome!
Ah The Camp of the Saints…
When you walk by an Earthworm drowning in a puddle without helping it you have to really think about where you stand with regards to a "Good Moral Foundation" i guess.
Acting on what we know is true now and disregarding future results because we can not really know the future could also be an arguenent to save all wealth for the future (it might be waaay more expensive than things are now) make provisions in your will, to give it all away upon death. Then you will know it is excess.
You of course won't be around to know, but you will know before you go that something is being left behind as long as it has not yet been spent. You don't know how long you'll live and what the future will hold, so best to be overprepared.
You don't know if your children, should you have them, will even be alive then. Maybe you leave the house, if you have one to leave them, should they be living upon your death, otherwise all to your chosen charities.
We had a friend of the family die recently. She had no family and no will, so it will all go to the state. She gave to charity in life, but made no provisions upon her death. That's a shame. I doubt the government would use the money as she would have liked it to have been used.
If you really believe in meritocracy, let those kids and grandkids make it all on their own efforts and merit. Give it all away to charity.
God doesn't stop awful things from happening.
then god is evil
Ought we to be heaping upon the back the care responsibility of those who caused the flight from war? Do we support these people fighting for control of a land by doing nothing to hold them to account? Have we taken their side by doing nothing about their criminality in in fact ourselves caused the suffering by failing to suffer the perpetrators for their crimes?
Agreed. This is a bad way to approach the problem. Starting off with East Bengal of all places, where Churchill himself created a famine. It's the approach of a privileged white man who has never confronted a structure of power and carries the cultural baggage of self defeating individualism.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 All interference with peaceful non-fraudulent exchange between emancipated adults is immoral. It always results in reducing efficiencies, often death, always a decrease in wealth. A prime example is the reduced wealth, increased costs and ongoing deaths as a result of interfering with people during the pandemic. Could anything else in history have created as much reduction in access to goods and services this universal objection to Liberty? I doubt any greater example of deleterious effects could be found.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 I like your comment: not because I think you're right in where you go with it, but because it provokes thought. I like Singer, but am I indulging in "self-defeating individualism" as a result?
Mr Singer is white, and he may be privileged, I don't know. But he is exhorting privileged white men, amongst others, to think differently about their duty to unprivileged non-white men, and I think that should garner praise more than condemnation, don't you? In fact, I think Singer's philosophy is better received precisely because he asks his own sort to change their ways, rather than the request coming from the beneficiaries themselves.
Churchill is dead. He was great. He was dreadful. He was a politician. He was.
Others are. Others are living and need help. We cannot refuse help to the living on the basis of the greatness, or dreadfulness, or whatever, of a man who died 60 years ago. If anything, if he had failings, that's all the more reason to make up for them. Today's politicians also have their failings - should the world then abandon the people whom they fail? If that were so, I fear that we would offer help to nobody, for all politicians fail in one way or another. That's perhaps why people need help.
@Graham Vincent I disagree that Singer is thinking differently about charity. We see it everywhere that charity is good and that we can make a difference. The TV adverts, the donation jars at the grocery store, etc. Corporations and governments adopt this position mostly to wash their hands of the need to offer any systemic change so they can continue their robbery of the third world and blame us for it.
We can give our life savings to charity and it won't fix anything. The real solution is to collectively confront and rethink institutions that create poverty in the first place.
@@duffdingelmeyer7101 I think it's the first time I ever heard "Singer is not thinking differently about charity". I won't deny that it is a good thing to be aware of the full consequences of what we do. So, don't fly, because the pollution it creates makes airlines rich and the rich are doing untold damage to justice by greasing the palms of Clarence Thomas, which is playing into the hands of right-wing extremists, and etc. etc. If I knew every last consequence of every last breath I take, then my wisdom would be without end.
I don't intend to be cynical but, perhaps you're different to me, maybe you are far more circumspect about the chains of reactions that permeate and criss-cross the globe. I'm not trying to be funny, and I don't want any arguments. But you seem to say that if everyone gave to charity as Singer advocates, the governments that we elect to office would simply wrap up any notion of international aid that they currently engage in and the givers of money to charity would be lambasted by the Third World for causing them a sharp decline in their living standards. I think that's the causal chain you identify, yes?
The US's GDP is $26.14 trillion at the present time. The US donates aid (it's hard to quantify, especially in terms of lent manpower and military training and such like, but in pure money terms) in an amount of $49 billion. A trillion is 12 zeros, and a billion is 9. So, cancelling a few zeros for comprehensibility's sake: the US earns in one year $2,614.00, of which it spends in total aid, all countries, all agencies included: $4.90. In percentage terms, that is 0,187%. Take-home pay in the US varies from state to state, but is at around $40,000 after tax, free disposable income. If each wage-earner in the US donated 0,187% of that take-home pay to charity, they would be donating annually a sum of $74,98. Your posit suggests that working Americans do not have funds in excess of $75 that they spend on luxuries in a year. I don't know what people spend their money on, but I think I can safely venture a guess that their spending on luxuries, over and beyond their necessities, is way beyond $75 a year and probably is more like $75 a week.
But that is not your issue. Your issue is that if the Americans and everyone else on the wealthy side of the globe gave $75 or more to charity, then, as a result of that, the US and every other government in the world would at a stroke abrogate their responsibilities for international aid, thus plummeting the third world into bottomless penury, for which you believe a finger would be pointed at you, among others.
First, there would be no penury in the third world: there would be boundless rejoicing. Because, by exceeding the figure of $74,98, no one would need international aid. And, supposing I'm right and people donated not $75 a year but per week, then the amount of charity flowing to the Third World would multiply by a factor of 52. In real terms, instead of the US spending 49 billion, it would spend $2.55 trillion. In one year, a single country's population, the US's, could wipe out poverty.
But, and it is a MEGA-but: you are right in one thing: actions do have consequences. And aid has consequences as well. Because most of it never gets to where it's intended. It is purloined, stolen, embezzled, theived, and most of that is done by the very people into whose hands it is entrusted and who have stated a case to receive it in the first place - they are the governments, administrators and even presidents of Africa's ailing third world. UNICEF puts to work 20% of what is donated to it, with 80% going on administration; and that's before it seeps into the back-hands of officials, of administrators, of people who collect 200 sacks of rice and deliver 150.
The government of Uganda, which languishes low down the transparency index at place 142 (joint), is a member of the United Nations, which states in its charter that its purpose includes "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women". Uganda joined the UN in 1962 and has been party to the Vienna Declaration and the institution of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Uganda has also just enacted legislation by which homosexuals can be sentenced to death for being gay. Persons who flee Uganda because of persecution for their orientation may seek refuge at Kakuma, a UNHCR camp in Kenya, with a population of 300,000. But, anyone wanting resettlement out of Kakuma, a right enshrined in the charter by which the UNHCR was created and which is its very aim and purpose, must pay a bribe to the UN official who offers them a new life in, say, Canada or the US or wherever. 70,000 shillings, which is around $517.18. That's how public services are administered there: by paying bribes.
Duff, do you think that, because corruption and bribery are rife in Africa, that we should not help those who get but the basic framework of what aid is intended to help, but without ever solving the issues? Just leave the corrupt officials to take everything and leave the people hungry and hopeless? No country will ever stop paying aid to the Third World. Not even if we gave 75 bucks a week to it. Because aid is not for the poor. So, who is it for?
It's for the very people who receive it now: it's for the rich. It goes mainly to the rich in Africa and it's a bribe, to ask them not to incite revolution against our industries or rise up in a war against their neighbours and cause us difficulties. We, the west, the old and new worlds, pay them, the third world, aid in order to keep the peace, get rich, and leave office so that someone else gets a turn a being rich for a while, thus making it look as if there is democracy there. The only good thing I can say is that, at least charity gets help to those who need it more directly, but there is much more that makes Africa poor than just poverty. The laws against homosexuality are put there, not because the governments are anti-gay but because, whilst they steal money from their own people, they use the quasi-religious fervour behind persecution of gays to unite their people in one voice, and sing in so loud a throng that they quite forget they're being fleeced by their own leaders. They're a distraction, like a conjuror would use.
Sorry to to take so much of your time, assuming you're still reading here.
The wealthy can never have enough. Considering the wealth of many countries why is there children starving and living in deplorable conditions. I tire of this materialistic society where the wealthy are admired and put on pedestals. This is only how i feel and i know others will disagree and thats their right.
who else is here for class
I hope you found this useful! If you have other suggestions for readings, feel free to let me know!
@@echobook8513 do his practical Ethics next
Yours truly
Same.
Imma give everything away! Yay 👍 ohh wait now I'm starving homeless and sick... If only I didn't give everything away...
Fortunately for you, Singer doesn't advocate giving EVERYTHING away. Rather, he advocates giving away what you have in excess.
7:20 use your ears
Give that which enables you to not become in need of charity yourself. To live is not to live comfortably. Comfort can only come in a moral sense when everyone has an equal sense of their needs met. Starving people and drowning children are the same calamity, can you live with yourself next time you get a new phone and a family dies from hunger?
Ryan, hi. Your comment is light-hearted and, dare I say, superficial. And yet it's not, not by any means. It goes to the very heart of what Singer says.
The prime argument against Singer is the unforeseeability of our futures, and those who dismiss Singer will cite your argument one way or another. However, if making reasonable provision for future needs is a hard and fast component of your current budget, then that certainly does not constitute "luxury" as Singer defines it. And, in fact, it isn't Singer who needs to define it at all: it's you. Nor does he need to define the morality which speaks to you to define your excess spending as luxuries: although he takes examples that might be understood as "commonly held ideas of what is right" in order to illustrate his thinking, if that suggests to you a "set of rules" then it must be a set of rules that you adhere to, and not that are imposed by society or Mr Singer.
Singer is often misrepresented as advocating that each one of us should become poor in order to help the poor. Your comment, to return to where I started, is precisely what runs through most people's heads when they read Singer, so you're not out of line. But, just as it would be foolish to splash out on a gold ring or expensive car and leave your debts unpaid, your rent unpaid or your family hungry, it would likewise be foolish to give to charity money that you need for those necessities. It is when you're able to even consider an expenditure that would not affect your ability to pay your necessities that Singer asks you to consider a charitable donation instead. That's all he does.
Try it. Next flag day. Give a pound. It could change you.
More like:
Live simply so others may simply live.
Live. That is that is the key. Live and provide for your continued existence, and when there is something leftover, use that excess to keep others alive.
People are evil!? No shit!
What Singer proposes is quite extreme and unrealistic for the majority of people. He doesn’t take all other variables into consideration, as if morality were, by far, the most essential pillar in human existence. Also, if all people did this, we would be living in a highly dysfunctional society, as people would constantly base their lives around giving what they have in excess. Rich people, by giving away, would become poor compared to the people they’re helping, while poor people would become rich in comparison and would need to take the same approach in the cycle. Morality would almost completely replace the idea of money, which I think would transform it eventually into something similar to religion throughout history. Such excess of morality will make it lose its essence and turn it into the most egotistical behavior you can get. I understand the point Singer makes, but it cannot be stated that it would produce a better outcome for humanity. It is too simplistic and extreme, and what we need are more balanced approaches.
Agreed, it is quite extreme. But it's not unrealistic: remember, what Singer advocates is not absolute; it is relative to him or her who decides to undertake the philosophy. It's not a set of hard rules, it is an exhortation: simply to think twice before indulging in luxury. So, if I believe that I have £100 spare each month, which is not otherwise allocated to my current and foreseeable future needs, the education of my children and possible rises in the price of petrol or food, then the question for me is: what to do with the £100? I can save it, invest it, buy a trinket, or I can give it. The choice rests on MY morality, not yours, and not anyone else's, Dan. The £100 is lawfully mine and I may lawfully decide which option to choose. As may you. As may everyone.
Dramatist Edward Bond wrote once about airmen who drop bombs on enemy countries and return to their families to be embraced by their own children, whereas they've just bombed other people's children to hell. "How can they live with themselves?" he asks. Well, they live with themselves because they are able to invent a morality that suits them. Perhaps several moralities. Moralities are cheap, and malleable, dispensable even, like fashion clothing. Except that, when they get altered to suit circumstances or dropped due to their inconvenience, they are no longer like fashion clothing; instead they ARE fashion clothing. Morality is not the product of being told what to do; it is the product of an intense conversation that an individual engages in with his or her own conscience. When the conscience tells you not to care about others, then that is your morality, and no one can take that away from you. Only you can.
Singer is more balanced than you perhaps appreciate: please, read him again, for his philosophy is not like Marxism or capitalism, which advocate systems of national application; his philosophy is a system of individual application and, whether one adopts it or not, or adopts it only in part, or to a certain degree, is always within the giver's power. The only factor that exercises any duress in its whole operation is you, and your conscience. That is all. It is answerable and accountable to no one, unless there is a deity which you believe you serve in opting for Singer's way.
Singer takes conceivable situations and translates them into what he believes would be commonly held emotions. Clearly, he selects his examples carefully, so as to reach a common denominator that he reasonably thinks will be shared by most, if not all, of his readers. But, he will miss his mark with some folk, inevitably. From his examples, he extrapolates a general sense of right, which he calls morality, but which is individual to each of us. And, from that, he exhorts us to act appropriately, in line with the morality that we have concluded is ours, and nobody else's.
Your dysfunctionality argument attracts me. I do wonder, however, whether it will ever be put to the test.
@@grahamvincent6977 Thank you for your in-depth explanation, you presented some interesting points. Still, I think it’s unrealistic for most people for long periods of time. I don’t see many adopting this as a life philosophy and romanticizing the idea of morality this way. Where I believe Singer was wrong is that he tried using the same tools to create a different system. His way of thinking will never make an impactful change, because the tools being used are too shallow for the individual and collective consciousness.
I’ll tell you how I would constantly give away some of my my hard-earned: I need to know exactly what happens with it. What was bought with it, down to the last penny. What family/people benefited from it and what is their full-name. What is their financial situation and what are their opportunities in terms of work and education. How do they take advantage of these opportunities, if any? Where can I invest a % of that money to create opportunities, if none? How can these opportunities be directly linked to the people I’m helping? How can we setup a way for us to communicate with each other, if none? As well as many other approaches that would create a direct connection between me and the people I’m helping. I would pay separately for this system to be setup, just like you pay the fees for using an investing platform.
Even if I paid 25% of that money for such system to be setup, I bet it would be much more effective in helping people. If I create within myself the belief of a long-term close relationship with the people I’m helping, chances are I won’t give up on them. I don’t want to just give money to an external entity that creates a link between me and people I will never know anything about. You might get a few dollars out of me each month, if you’re lucky, but that’s about it.
As an individual, I need within myself the rightly balanced illusion betwen selfishness and selflessness. I want to help create opportunities for people in need, just like I did for myself my whole life, or for my children’s future. At the same time, treat me like a pawn with my money, regardless of what you say you represent, and you won’t get far with me.
@@danpirau3969 Dan, I would like to also thank you for coming back in such good detail and with so many constructive ideas and, when I read these, I can assure you that you and I are singing from the same hymn sheet. In the end, whatever we think about Singer's philosophy, those who are intrigued by or dismissive of his ideas all want one thing: to help; it's the helping that's important.
I myself know a family in The Gambia, a country in western Africa. I met this chap on a business-people's website and we clicked, exchanged views in our posts and got to know each other. I never offered and he never asked for money and our exchanges concentrated mainly on possibilities for getting work in The Gambia.
However, the point arose when his sister was very sick at home, suffering from malaria: it's a very common disease in Africa and not everyone there can afford the precautions against getting it or afford the cure medication. He fielded a request with nothing more than: was there anything I could do to help? The question arose in my mind: was I being scammed? When I went to a payment agency to make a modest payment of 100 euros to him, I was just at the point of pressing “approved” when there flashed onto the screen a message about being sure it wasn’t a scam. I hesitated and for a while didn't really know what to do. Thing was that I trusted the man and yet it seems that scams are all too common: how could I be sure? I asked a contact of mine in Asia and he put me onto a website which is called baluwo.com which, on your behalf, will provide groceries, telephone call credit or pay an electric bill or organise construction materials on your behalf: you pay them and they will provide the services or the goods to the people in question. It's used often by expatriate Africans to send money home to their families, but who don't want to go through the rigmarole of using a bank transfer (but it's not a money transfer: you in fact pay for something that they can use.) I suggested this to my contact in The Gambia and he was delighted. I ended up spending 134 euros.
The family in The Gambia were profuse in their thanks and gratitude: it's a good solution for me. They were then able to allocate funds to get medication for their ill relative. I'm not tremendously well off myself and I don't have that much to spare but every now and then I'm able to make a small contribution to these people I know. I get nothing in return, except for thanks. However you really need to know who you are going to be making such a transfer to, so how do you come into contact with the needy? My contact was by chance, but I don't think that you would have difficulty in ascertaining who you might sponsor. It seems very direct and in fact limited in scope. Does it do any permanent good? I think every good does some permanent good, even if it's not to put on a balance sheet: I always ask the family to spread kindness, and to help those who are around them, the way I have helped them. That way some kind of fellowship can be created. But I can't control that, I don't really want to either.
I don't feel particularly good about myself when doing it but I'm happy that, in some small way, I'm able to make some difference. You seem so full of determination: I'm sure that you will find your way too, to make a difference.
One of the first things he said was “it is your duty to give if it does nothing to harm you” basically would cost nothing for you to give away, so if a rich person abides by this logic they will not become poor. He also made the argument several times that simply doing nothing because other factors in the world could be doing more is wrong because less is being done. people should take responsibility for the society and mentality they are creating. It’s up to everyone. You don’t have to feel shamed by it but it’s not fair isn’t a real argument. Also if someone
Abides by their own virtues, not the norm, it will not lead to religious mentality. Also money is evil
System would reach equilibrium as a moral world gives resources where there is an actual need.
What he describes a sociolist style culture
People are ethnocentric. They will help those within their ethnos. Starting with their children. Ethnic groups are at best competing with each other and at worst openly hostile to each other. So why would an ethic group help a competitor. Trying to remove peoples ethic preference is very arbitrary. Why just save people. Why not save all mammals or all living entities. I do agree that limiting suffering is a good goal. But this can only work within each ethic group.
I agree, up to a point. I knew racists in my youth (yes, probably even now) (I'm white) who had black friends. I think it's easier to be a racist or to hate an ethnic group when you don't know them. And even to love them: we romanticise them, absent hard annoying habits. It helps if one has a friend in another ethnic group, especially if you're "introduced", to be more accepting and less hostile; but, as long as they are "faceless", it's easier to deal with them as a commodity.
The same way that cold callers tell you their name: it's easier to hang up on someone whose name you don't know. Some complained when sympathy was expressed to Ukraine by Europeans that we'd had little sympathy for Syria etc. Your point says it quite succinctly: the Middle East will care for Syrians; for Ukrainians, there are Europeans. They're more "us", more relatable to. There's much in what you say.
Can one really relate "globally" though? I smile: I think you'd be surprised. 🙂
Your premise is that all people are inatly racist. I disagree with that premise. I think you are racist and are assuming that we all think like you. We do not.
They only see you as a competitor because you see them as a competitor. Australia should allow unconditional immigration from overcrowded Asian countries, as the natural resources should be equally available to all.
People will do more for people the closer they are to them... affluent countries being able to help third world countries us a different thing all together... first world countriedhold massive debts over third world countries as well as plundering their natural resources.
These days Peter Singer is himself a morally dubious character.
In what regard?
Aren't we all...
@@theantinatalistinformantaltruism is shit. Save yourself and your own kin.
4 months and no evidence to back up this claim. Typical.
How so?
Peter does not understand that we are a social species, not a solitary one. Like Aynn Rand, his morality concept is constructed for a solitary species, which they both seem to mistakenly think humans are. Morality for a social species MUST include the interdependance intrinsic to a successful social species. We are all single consciences...but we are ALL wired to be part of a whole, whether we like it or not. Morally, we serve two masters...setting the stage for eternal conflict. Because of that, a healthy democracy will ALWAYS BE MESSY.
It will always be a conflict between self and others. Empathy is the mechanism our DNA provides to conduct that balance. Empathy IS what makes us a social species.
Empathy is what makes us humans...not animals.
Society only exists for the benefit of the individual. The second society stops benefiting the majority of people, or a minority of powerful people. That society collapses and a new one is formed. When society crumbles the focus becomes survival of the individual. Society only exists so long as it benefits the individual, the second it does not we tear it up and burn it down.
You only make and keep friends because they give u a benefit. Interesting how those who give no benefit or are a detriment aren't your friends.
Humans are an evil myopic individualistic species, the world would not be the way it is now if that were not the case.
Seriously 2023 you look around this world and all the suffering there is.
We are not an empathetic species, if we were... The world would not be the way it is now.
U got emerald glasses on kiddo
nothing makes us not animals. we are animals, and morality is unachievable.
@@asull06 Of course we are animals...but we are a PARTICULAR kind of animal, a SOCIAL SPECIES, and our morality is generated by the DNA of that species, in the same way as the behavior (morality) of a horse is generated; it is experienced by horses in the same way as in ALL social animals...as "feeling/emotion". That is how God talks to all animals, including humans.
Gotta be one of the dumbest papers of all time
Care to elaborate?
So altruistic he wants $18 for his essay.... 🤣🤣
I've found that if you email the author of a paper, they're usually more than happy to send you a copy for free. Usually, the paywalls are put up by the journals.