How We Let People Die | The Ethics of Peter Singer

There are few philosophy papers more controversial than Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". This paper challenges many of our assumptions about what it means to be a moral person, and accuses us of not living up to our moral standards. So come explore "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" with me, as we dive into the controversial philosophy of Peter Singer

00:00 Moral Philosophy
00:59 Famine, Affluence, and Morality
05:01 Radical Moral Consequences
08:43 Practical Objections
12:03 Moral Objections
16:26 Moral Intuitions, Reason, and Altruism

[seanberube]

I love how passionate you are talking about these topics that many might consider too intellectual.

As someone who’s struggled for years with shyness on camera, it’s quite encouraging!

[CaracalKeithrafferty]

"Friendship involves putting their interests above the interests of others." Genius words. You really have an amazing channel, man. Your rate of output, production, and clarity of thought are truly advanced. I hope you find offers as an artist in residence, or with a wealthy patron, who simply pays for you to produce your work. I find your efforts to be of cultural significance.

[mp-xsth]

your unsolicited advice.. is exactly what I have searched for ages ..thank you very much

[nikolasviaja]

I love this paper (this very paper made me fall in love with philosophy) because people find all sort of ways to justify why they consider themselves good people and still (for example) buy ice cream for themselves (pure pleasure and helping a business) instead of buying food for charity (helping relieve famine and still helping a business).

My take from this paper is: Yes, I'll buy the ice cream if I'm in the mood for it. There are a few homeless people near my favorite bakery. I pass right by then whenever I go to this bakery to buy food that is (mostly) for pleasure. Yes, I'll buy whatever I want there, support the business and employees. And I'll go back home and savor it and, all the while, completely ignore that there was a human being there in famine and without proper clothing or shelter. And that's it. I don't feel bad about it.

I still have to work out why I feel that way.
Perhaps I don't buy the Sanctity of Life argument, or perhaps I'm not a fan of the "Save everybody" mentality.
Or perhaps, as Mr. Singer pointed out, I'm just evil.

[PetrosSyrak]

“People should not worry so much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous.

We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctified our works.”

~ Meister Eckhart

[drdriven]

Your videos keep me sane - just this thumbnail on my timeline helps me unwind I love this 😭🥰❤

[alicewright]

8:25 i don't get why people would fight so hard against being labelled evil.
it would be better to be evil and perceptive than (any alignment) and delusional.
The perceptive or insightful evil person can see they are evil and want to become good. The person who is too delusional to accept evidence that they are evil will never be able to change, because they have no insight.

[ronnywijngaarde]

That's a false premise; people don't have to justify anything. It just makes most people feel better when they substantiate their actions with popular reasons.

[_nuance]

Peter Singer's analogy is false because it assumes a direct moral equivalence between saving a drowning child and dedicating one's entire life to helping those in extreme poverty. For his analogy to hold, he would need to phrase it as: 'Would anyone be obligated morally to dedicate his entire life to saving drowning children?' Clearly, such an expectation would be unreasonable, as one has other obligations to himself, his old age, and his family. The bigger the problem the lesser it became a moral issue on the shoulder of individuals.

[drdriven]

bro ive legit seen you go from 1k to 50 k subs - what a journey, kudos

[whitenoiseratio]

My morality is telling me I need to sign up to your patreon so you can buy a mic you don't need to hold! It's a meagre gesture considering all your fine unsolicited advice Joseph. Your real word examples always amuse me. The absurdity of it all!

[dilshoda_yuldasheva]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and knowledge. You are being always reason to me to come up new ideas💫

[reyscesenevara]

Heh fun stuff to see you cover this philosophy paper! I wrote a bit about this and to be reminded of it at this time means that I should go revisit it lol. This is a good summary of it! My first exposure to this paper was from Jeffrey Kaplan's video so its nice to see you cover it as well!

[MercedesCruz-qenj]

We are all morally guilty, when it comes to our compassion towards others, in different degrees.

[somethingsdivine]

just came across your channel and i must say i’ve been binge watching all of your videos lol. anyway you just got a new subscriber.😁

[BiznizTrademark]

For me, the main message of the article is that although we might never be able to become "perfectly" moral, we can always strive to be less evil. For instance, one can personally aim to give more than the average person to charity, and the more people who adhere to this principle, the higher the average will become.

By the way, the "fair share" objection would be a good reason to complement individual giving with a tax system, which collects contributions in a way that is perceived as equitable.

[robs]

If I don't donate to a charity that pays for life saving surgery for kids, am I the immoral one or is it the surgeon who requires payment?

[juanignaciomoreno]

Every person is responsible for its own survival and helping everybody is impossible because it means you don't ever live your life. Also, by the logic of this paper, anyone who voluntarily goes to live to a deserted island alone is evil because they're not helping people. The end.

[elemileTLDR]

I think you nailed it at the end. Dissonance and controversy arise because the relation between token examples of ethical (an in fact, epistemic, aesthetic, legal and other regulatory) principles is not of equivalence, i.e. reflexive, symmetric and transitive, but of similarity, which is reflexive, symmetric but not necessarily transitive: A being similar to B and B to C does not logically imply that A is similar to C. In particular, the alethic value of some examples is not always transitively transmitted to other (only similar) examples of same principles.

[Dmitrij-nlsc]

It's depressing to know how many people justify killing or poisoning neighbours pets.
I mean, if these pets are a problem for you go talk to your neighbours. If they don't listen then go to police.
If you live in a corrupt country where police don't care then visit some authority, talk to other neighbours and try to find solutions with them.
But murdering and especially poisoning pets is vile since it's cannot understand consequences of it's actions.