Peter Singer | It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire (8/8) | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2019
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Believes It Is Immoral To Be A Billionaire.
Peter Singer closes the case for the Opposition, as the eighth speaker of eight in the debate.
Peter Singer is a moral philosopher specialising in applied ethics, he approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. His essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality argues for a more philanthropic society.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Watch the full debate here: ua-cam.com/video/LieWDaAA-6I/v-deo.html
Can the Union start posting vote results? (To those asking: opposition won this won, with quite a margin if my memory serves. Singer stole the show imo.)
"Singer stole the show"
Via the deflection of reality and obtuse diatribes.
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe Singer didn't deflect. It was the other side that wanted to change the motion.
@The Bengalee Sceptic You can't just look at actions you think are bad. You have to look at all their actions and look at the net effect. If you only looked at bad actions then every single human being who ever lived was immoral.
@@vaibhav2k13 You look not just at the "bad actions" of billionaires, but also the effect and potential to do more harm to people than good. Anand hit it right on the head, where billionaires can take all the money out of the wallet and pass off the empty, returned wallet as "philanthropy". Not all are bad. But not all are good. I don't see many of the "good" billionaires counteracting or even contradicting any of the bad ones. As you said, the net effect is even more muddled when billionaires are able to pay and change the way we/the govt. measures "effects". They are able to lobby against laws and policies that benefit the majority but hurt their interests; money talks, and when you're a billionaire, your money talks the loudest.
This guy was shilling for billionaires the same way that Ronald Reagan shilled for neoliberalism. And, the children of the elite in his audience loved his lies since they don't want to have any systemic change in Government that FORCES the elite to pony up their fair share in taxes and limits their power to exploit and pollute. These rich brats turn my stomach.
For anyone who is saying that he just supported the side because of a semantic game, the speaker is a philosopher. The slightest difference in the way things are phrased makes all the difference in the world for such a person. Anyone who genuinely took an interest in philosophy would also understand the same. If anyone failed, it is the union who phrased the question in such a way that it is irresponsible to vote for the motion.
The problem is that even then all of his examples are terrible. All of the people he listed off are immoral. He gives examples of them being moral that are by and large exploitation and propaganda. He at best gives examples of the billionaires doing moral things (not the same as being moral), and even then I don't agree that donating to the Democratic Party suddenly makes you moral as if they were the actual radical socialists that the GOP makes them out to be. The closest he comes is arguing a Facebook cofounder isn't immoral because all he did was make some code, which is drastically untrue. Facebook makes their money by selling user's personal data, and some handwaving about how if you have a Facebook account you can't really complain is absolutely shit rhetoric.
I love your name.
I see myself as once No-One, now I see myself as No-One, Who Is Not Even Me.
As I have become corrupted by life.
Also, I agree with what you say, 100%!!!
Correct is that, and wrong is equally that.
And all is binary:
0 or 1, black or white, no or yes.
Colour is a lie.
Having opinions hs nothing to do with the love of wisdom or understanding; in fact opinions are inimical to both. it seems that any tuppeny ha'penny halfwit can call himself " a philosopher" these days and no end of jumped up mice(nothings and nobodies) do precisely that
It is also worth stating that there is a 'Philosophy of Language' which questions the entire merits of philosophy due to its total dependence upon language and its inadequacies. For a simple example... You cannot describe what the colour red looks like to a blind person. As such, if language cannot perform even that simple task, how does it hope to articulate anything about the truth of things?
@@richardhorrocks1460 "You cannot describe what the colour red looks like to a blind person"
It is hot.
That is, how I would describe red.
As red is the socially accepted colour for danger/forbiddance.
Lingual inadequacy:
It is true, even scientific language and formulations lack the exact expressions in many ways.
Lately there are, on top of it all, ideologies out there that are too crazy to put into words.
But TRUTH is not dependant on language, while it sure affects all, it is rather either our brain failing to grasp something, or fills in a fact with non-fact (Ask 30 people that saw an accident, many will describe it differently, since the brain filled in inaccurate parts).
Failure to deeply understand a certain thing also leads to misinterpretation, and thus fact-corruption.
Then there is thought-disturbance, misconception.
Misinterpretation of data is an issue, of ten the case, or personal/social pressed on bias.
Lying to the self and others corrupts facts just as well.
Some even do this on purpose, just to hamper progression, or because "they can".
Plenty of proof here on UA-cam,
Hell, even know, today, finding good information is nigh impossible.
Even the very instances that do the research can't be trusted any more, seems.
The issue, as i see it, is not language.
It is ... human behaviour and our failed brain construction.
Our brain cannot process all the in-stream of data, thus, it shifts through the data, dismisses what it sees as useless, then compiles it into what we perceive as "reality".
This "reality" is, and this is absolute fact, already, depending on the person's brain capacity, about 8 microseconds in the past.
Our "now" was 8 ms ago, it took the brain THAT LONG to process the not even complete data stream, since it just CANNOT.
And as we are a faulty construction, hampered by emotion, which is the absolute nemesis of pure intelligence/intellect ... well ... we can conclude, it is not language, but us, that is the true problem.
Think about this:
If we invent something totally new, we invent a new word.
Then, WHY, is language imperfect?
Because WE are.
If we were not, then language would not be this incomplete or lacking.
Since language is us.
Dead simple if you ask me.
Remember Its immoral to be a billionaire UNLESS you fund democrats...
I think Singer has a point there. He spent several minutes indirectly criticising formulation of the motion. Because indeed it limits what one can say. So if he takes the motion literally (which he thinks he has to), his argument can only be something like 'not all billionaires are immoral'. So I guess he cannot say all he would like to say under this motion.
Although the alternative motions he mentions I'd be on the negative side of as well. The motion as stated is absurd. But there is no immorality at all to making, having, and keeping money. And the thought that "society" can confiscate the wealth of people for no other reason than they have it, to throw it at places where it is unneeded (climate "crisis") or will not work (Free money for the homeless anyone), is almost as abominable and evil as the original.
@@justso-gr3jjJust one of the problems is that in reality society has no means to decide, but the decision would be made by the goverment which is not very conserned by the people starving in Africa(for example).
Even in utopia scenario were people decide, average man would God knows where send the money, spoiler alert also not very conserned by starving people in Africa. Average man is not very conserned by the starving man on the street next to his house...
@@justso-gr3jjI think we should just patch it up by placing a max limit of assets that can be own by one person and continue business as usual.
TLDL: Don't hate the player, hate the game.
It was very clear from the start of the debate that each side was discussing a different topic
Hence why the motion should have been clearer
Whoa thank you. Now I can become a billionaire.
Didn't you become one the instant you were born?
As long as you give it all away.
sorry too stupid
I think what he failed to discuss is not about how billionaires are giving away their money, its how they acquired it in the first place.
Great point. It looks like such a wise man ommited this point on purpose. Perhaps he got money by those men.
...
The latest documentary UNTAXABLES proves your point beautifully.
What's your point? Let them be rich. Why does it bother you if they can afford good things in life?
@@amulyamishra5745 How old are you? 6 years old?
Do you ever ask yourself what are the reasons of war and uprisings?
@@ConstructiveMinds100 Yes I do and my views are quite different from yours.
@@amulyamishra5745 So, you’re immoral then?
This seems like a weak argument that doesn't respond to the points of Anand Giridharadas or the Professor at UC Irvine.
Literally has to make a semantics argument about the way the statement is fucking phrased lmao. What a spineless dweeb
Singer is on the opposite side of this issue irl.
You can’t respond to Anands point because he is marking a logic circle with his statement.
Singer probably did the best dealing with Anands “logic” without bringing up that fact, which would have eaten up a lot of time.
I agree, Peter Singer is arguing the case from a position that has caused the present situation we are in now.
@@kangchen45 Peter Singer is *specifically* addressing the debate question. In fact, he was forced into outlining basic semantics because the specific question was not addressed by some of the affirmative speakers. Why don't you try providing a counter-argument, as opposed to trite and ad hominem? Further, if you'd actually read any of Singer's work, you would know that he assumes almost the complete opposite position to that which you *think* he holds.
Singer nails it with his laser-like focus on the motion itself, not a reconfigured motion as some on the other side try to make it. It's not about whether most billionaires are immoral or whether we should have a fairer tax system that might prevent people becoming billionaires in the first place, it's about whether being a billionaire is immoral per se. Singer's argues persuasively that it's not.
It's important to speak to the actual wording of the motion, because there will definitely be people *literally* supporting it.
Like he said: "billionaire -> bad!" Is too simplistic.
Seriously discussed moral points should seldom be put in such black and white terms.
They tend to promote conflating the person with the category, which is dehumanizing - and we all know where that leads.
It's not immoral to be brought up in poverty. but it's immoral to die poor
What is a " moral" point? What the devil are " morals"?-Some sort of religious mumbo jumbo?
@@vhawk1951kl if your intelligence could speak to you it would ask you to please stop insulting it by using the expression "mumbo jumbo".
Oh don't be such a slave, I will use any words , I please whether the function that is your boss/master likes it or not, Mumbo jumbo is a term in common usage for nonsense. You will have to learn how to be indifferent to the purely automatic mechanical reactions of your functions or forever be their slave. The only free man is he that does not give a sh1t whether his machinery or function reacts like or not. your problem is that you identify with - suppose yourself to be, your functions or machinery; who knows? Maybe you are. All that religion/morality mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo with extra mumbo. they are only words little one, not gods mumbo umbo, stuff and nonsense, all one, calm, down dearie
@@janlaag Why are you so hung up on two l commonplace little words? It's so trivial
I like Prof.Singer’s idea of a tax system making it impossible to become a billionaire.
That’s a terrible idea. Why should any Govt in any country determine how much is too much?
If one is unwilling to determine an upper limit to wealth...then one is unavoidably defining there to be no lower limit to poverty. The two are inversely related. Again, Law of Conservation of Energy.
@@Poleeze1 That's silly. Govts do that all the time. They determine how fast is too fast to drive, how tall is too tall for a building, how steep is too steep for a public stairwell, how unsafe is too unsafe for an amusement park ride, etc. Those decisions are based on standards for the public good. If the public good is negatively impacted by too much wealth is the hands of too few people then it can and should be regulated.
@@Poleeze1 The Government, represents The People (at least it should). The purpose of a government is to safeguard the past, present, and future of a people. Essentially, a government should represent the will of the people in general. Just like how the environmental resources on this planet are limited, there should be a limit to how much resource a single individual can horde. As an individual of society, one should behave in a way that doesnt harm the society.
Paul Romano i mean how much money. Put things in context. How does a billionaire’s money constitute safety hazards to anyone?
there's a difference between contributing to the pot and taking the money for yourself to decide what you want to do for us with it
but it has not been "taken from the pot". Most billionaires became one not by accumulating and extracting profits from their workers at until the cumulative sum reached a billion dollars. They became one when other people valued the company stock at a value where the billionaire's share of ownership became worth as much. In an alternative system where, say, the workers of any firm have been declared the sole legal shareholders in the said firm, there would be no "pot" because those bits of ownership we call stocks cannot be traded away. The only "pot" left would be the actual profits that the firm makes. If that is what we measure today, in the current system, i.e., if the capitalist's wealth were measured purely in terms of the profits they pocketed rather than the valuations of their equities, then I doubt there'd be many billionaires at all.
I know it sounds good to say that and probably makes you feel good but I do hope you deep down know that economic systems are not as simple as that
@@novepe You need to read your own reply as if it applies to you, because it does.
@@cropcircle5693 Well, in one way or another the first bit o my reply applies to us all to some extent but I surely don't think you are being fair with me right there.
I mean I could say the same thing about your comment and I would be right to a certain extent but comparing you to the original commenter is not fair aswell.
If you care to elaborate how his massive virtue signal is in any way comparable to mine...
@@novepe You’re asking him to elaborate. However, you yourself did not elaborate. The OP, simply, is saying that using your money that should have been paid in taxes(30%) is not being righteous. The billionaires could just pay more taxes instead of setting up shady “donation foundations” to write off their taxes, ultimately making them more money. Would you care to elaborate on your first comment?
I totally agree with him - words and the correct phrasing are so important because minor details like this can lead to major problems down the line.
That's so often the problem with imprecise language... or so I thought. On its face, I'd agree with you. But I had to wrack my mind about a consequential example of when this had occurred in history. Then a few came to mind.
(1) The U.S. Constitution was beautifully written, and yet out of imprecise language, has been split into interpretation - which in one case, directly resulted in the precipitation of a country where the National Rifle Association holds a portion of the country emotionally hostage against a problem several other developed countries have managed to address to their satisfaction. In another case, directly resulted in the necessity for a thirteenth amendment. (Although this shortcoming in phrasing was already under such careful scrutiny that this problem, and even a Civil War in later years, was foreseen by many founding fathers; that's where succumbing to pressure and ensuring others have to repair your "syntactical architecture", if you will, because the polity is already so fraught comes into play.) Peter Singer demonstrates the need for calm dissent when a philosophical snowball is being rolled down the wrong hill.
(2) Let's go with a more recent one; the infamous 'Treaty of Versailles' in 1919. It was intended to establish long lasting peace and stability in Europe after the devastation of World War I. You have to remember, this was called the "Great War" - it was even called the "War To End All Wars". Our world is still ringing from the consequences over a hundred years later. And as we all know, the treaty's language was vague and punitive towards Germany. The myopic ambiguity here and overbearing harshness led to (by some accounts) that very same train car being used as a political prop by Adolf Hitler during his campaign to take over Europe. Not so many causal links are needed to draw toward the effect from that Treaty to the horrors of Auschwitz. Many historians attribute the nature of this Treaty to an inevitability of a second World War.
(3) Here's one that's even more recent, but not so serious to the average person. It still had a substantial impact on those involved. There's the situation with American Airlines' AAirpass, whereby its Terms & Conditions were allegedly abused by people who would buy the lifetime pass, and then sell their free seats for an easy profit. While this was litigated repeatedly, in some cases, the argument was successfully made that American Airlines should've been clearer in what was and wasn't permitted with the program. This ultimately cost them millions of dollars, and when adjusted for inflation, you'll just add more insult to injury.
While some of these might not be the ultimate example, hopefully it's at least a passable springboard for more samples throughout history. I'm sure you and others can think of many other cases; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't agreeing with you out of emotion and laziness. The point being this: *earnestly caring about syntax isn't the same as pedantry and pettiness*.
Britain was at its most equal during the period of 1946 to 1980, a CEO's wage was about 40 times that of the worker it is now in the vicinity of 250 X the average worker. That is the trend which cannot be stopped without intervention. Every time there is financial crisis, those with plenty of cash can do two things, they can wait it out and snap up the bargains.
The losers are those with a mortgage, because it is now a buyers market; it was a sellers market when the property was initially purchased. Now the person with plenty of cash or a friendly bank can snap them up at a bargain rates. After the crash comes the recovery and those properties snapped up at a bargain will now sell for an ever increasing rate. It is possible for a billionaire to initiate such a crash.
I wasn't alive during that period, but wasn't it one of the worst periods in British history? Didn't we end up with restrictions on electricity?
Imagine a game of Monoply and one out of 10 players get 100,000,000 while the others start with 100. Who wants to play? 100% the one individual will win and have all the property. Would we call this cheating? Would it be okay if the billionaire in this game says, during the first round you don't have to pay any rent and I'll pay any fines you have. Does it make it fair and fun? And once the game is over, they decide that they will give away all the money... is that okay? After 50 rounds if anyone is still playing, the billionaire has bought everything and says they will forgive the debt the others own him/her.... do you see how it's not about immorality but why in hte game of life, everyone should be starting with the same opportunity.
@Sawyer I like the reality that you stated at the end that Capitalism has not been tried meaning that you understand, I hope, the the theory of Capitalism like others such as Socialism etc can not be achieved with humans. With humans, there is a variable called emotions which does not allow theories to be executed at 100%.
Now that we agree on that then the conversation is that because we are talking about a system to be executed by humans with flaws, how should a theory be executed then. Through adjustments and how do we as humans understand when we need to make adjustments? There are symptoms such as poverty, homelessness, suicide, laziness, all the characteristics which ppl would want to stay away including greed and lying.
Humans are not equal so we don't contribute to society in the same way so we all agree that those who contribute more should be rewarded more but over rewarding causes issues. If you really think ppl are okay will Bloomberg having the netwealth of the bottom 125,000,000 Americans then you should expose that comparison. Society does not expose this bc ppl will not agree that one person should have more than 125,000,000. Note that only 13 countries have a population of more than 125,000,000. Note that if Bloomberg did not have access to wealth in the beginning that he would not be able to hire at a low price the talents to which he got the wealth from.
If I was a billionaire, I can also hire researchers, engineers, designers, etc with talent and patent for my individual gains their hard work. I promise you, those creatives who worked in a team to get things patented are not rewarded fairly for their creation is the intellectual properties of the companies which hire them. If you don't see this then I would ask you to imagine Bloomberg on one island alone and the other 125,000,000 on an opposing island. Which island do you think would survive?
Since we are not equal, we should work to help those less fortunate right? When you see someone in a wheel chair, do you act differently?
How do we create a more equal world? Well you can start with tax funded education that is accessible to all. I think if this exist and adults are still lazy then fine... let them crash and burn. It is then their fault, but that is not the situation we currently have. The conditions we have now in the US at least is that the wealthy get all the funding while the poor neighborhoods get all the drugs and no funds for even schools at grades K-12. As a result, we as humans are not giving some of the best and brightest a chance to contribute to society. We are keeping the poor, uneducated, unmotivated, etc part of society so ppl like Bloomberg can expose ppl.
If you don't see what I am saying then that is fine. It would mean that you are either well off and never have been in need of help, to which I hope you never since I don't wish that on anyone, or that you are struggling but have been sold on the lottery ticket where it is more on luck then hard work.
Anyways, thank you for responding and I hope you well. Take care and stay safe.
@Sawyer Thanks for the reply. I think when ppl think of Bloomberg, they think oh he created so many jobs... well if I had access to that much wealth, maybe I would have created more jobs where the employees have better compensation etc. but you can't see that right? Because we are not trained to see what could be rather see what is happening. The issue with that is that we tend to believe that what has occurred is the best that humanity has to offer bc we assume that whatever form of capitalism we have, has indeed lend the money to the best of society.
You can read all the media you want that states that most billionaires are self made but I have my own opinion which you have the choice to reading it and thinking whether or not it could be true.
Like corporate media, those in charge have directed information in a path to end how they like it. We know this is true bc over in America, Sugar hasn't cause obesity but other substances has.... If we choose to read and believe what we read without stepping back to compare what we have read and the realities of the world then we will be stuck in our Confirmation Biased World to which, if lucky, we are on the better end.
Billionaires come about bc they have exposed others. Let's say I have capital and you are a genius chef but are poor. Let's say that I found you and decide to hire you and make millions while you work minimum wage. You might say that as a genius chef that you have the choice to leave and that is true for the very few. You have to understand that the world is kept in check by the wealthy. We do not have a surplus of jobs and therefore employers have the ability to say "work for this amt or I can hire someone else" bc MOST DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. I was never talking about the few privileged who are the best and fair enough, can climb the ladder.
We did not make the wheel chair for those who run in the Olympics, we made it bc it is humane to make the world better for those who were handed misfortunates.
Most ppl will define Bloomberg's wealth bc they don't see the impact income inequality has caused but that is due to the fact that humans don't learn from history. The French Revolution and Chinese Cultural Revolutions and others were all a reaction to an inequality that could have been prevent.
Anyways, hope you got your rest. I have these discussions with friends all the time and like you, most disagree with me and cannot see what I foresee. I agree with what you say for it is a reality. My point of view is difficult to see for it will probably never happen as God himself would have to come to expose the truth.... yet maybe humans won't see it even then.
Goodnight and take care.
Religion, of which you have caught a nasty dose does lead those infected with it to suppose that what-is-and-cannot-be-different, or facts might somehow be different or not facts, thus not only does it stupefy you, it leads directly to that most malignant of diseases I- am - right, and of course your religion modernism which is a sub-religion of the religion socialism which is merely a pisspor imitation of the impossible christianity is no less stupefying than any religion. or all that morality religious mumbo jumbo, but seemingly the disease religion is endemic in you creatures, stemming as it does from your slavery to your functions.
Going to disagree with Peter and, frankly use a notion that I got from him to fuel it. Since the root of the immoral nature of wealth is grounded in power structures, the very act of making billions of dollars gives you enormous power to leverage with regard to how that money is allocated. Just because Gates has done some things that are highly laudible and Buffet is distributing his wealth to others doesn't make it moral. Those billionaires still retain their power and, indeed, exercise it in a very undemocratic way.
I would suggest that the refusal to enter into a democratic power arrangement with regards to the distribution of that wealth does very little to aid the plights of people that are not addressed by these people's "altruism". This is extremely anti-Rawlsian. I can no more hit that randomizer of fate, attaining the veil of ignorance, than I can sleep at night knowing that those in my immediate experience are sheltered from the harms of poverty, mental illness, and the other anxious despairs of existentiality.
When you can erase 99% of the wealth of the richest man in the world, leaving him with a mere 1.3 Billion dollars for his efforts, and lift 5.3 million people out of poverty to the tune of 2000 dollars per month of income, I'm sorry but that is immoral to the highest extremes, when viewed as a consequentialist! If the incomes of the top 10 United States billionaires were liquidated to the point where they only retained 1 billion of those dollars (STILL allowing them to remain Billionaires, by definition) you could completely end poverty in the United States as we know it.
Would this spur on inflation? Maybe, but not for those goods for which poverty is a bench mark! Gone would be the argument for having to pay workers subsistance wages, as those on the lower economic rungs would be free of the oppression of poverty. A new age of artists and free ideas would be commonplace. Incidence of riots and social unrest would plummet and we would find ourselves in a FAR more just and equitable world.
So, Peter is my favorite living philosopher (perhaps equal to the great Cornel West, in my eyes) but there is a deep sense of inequity and anti-democratic sentiment in the very notion of the Billionaire, when the rates of those at the bottom of the economic scale reaches into the tens of millions of people. So, I cannot support him in this motion. I enjoy his sentiment. There are laudable actions amongst our billionaire elites but they are still a foundational poison against our democracy and the moral character of caring humans.
Perhaps there needs to be a discussion where Peter convinces me that the amount of economic freedom, to which he seems inclined, would be, ultimately, moral, over and beyond the scope of the poverty and democratic decay that results from it? I cannot think of such a lofty argument but Peter Singer is my better and I'd be happy to hear it.
Just random thoughts posted into the interwebs, folks.
100%
Then who’s buying (assuming this 1.3B is primarily if not entirely the valuation of said person’s assets) 1.3B of assets? It can’t just be liquidated and out of nowhere appears usable cash. To extract the value of that 1.3B, 1.3B of assets must first be sold to someone/people. That’s where the trouble lies. Who are you going to sell it to?
But, if you were to erase 99% of wealth from these billionaires, and give it to all the poor, and kept repeating this, would you not eventually be left with everyone having the same amount of wealth? Aka each individual on the planet having $ 100,000 each for example? and when everyone has the same amount, does nature not do what it does and make a hierarchy? Eg: because everyone is different in some ways, will make different decisions with their money. Some will misplace thier bank details and lose it all, some will gamble and lose it all, some will use it for evil, some will use it for good. but eventually would you not end up with the exact same unequal distribution of wealth as you started off with?
a
Here’s a line of thinking that may persuade you otherwise. Imagine the following, entirely plausible scenario. Jeff Bezos has a child, and leaves all assets to the child in his will. Then, Jeff gets in some unfortunate accident and passes away. That child is now a billionaire, having exploited no one in the process. Has the child done anything wrong? Have they somehow become inherently immoral just because they own a billion dollars? I think the only reasonable answer is, of couse not. It is the actions that are borderline necessary to be taken to become a billionaire that are immoral, not the ownership of a large amount of assets.
He had a good round up until he equivocated donating to the Democratic party with moral political engagement. Among Tom steyer, donors to the Democratic party include the fossil fuel industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, the private prison industry, the private education industry, and the military industrial complex. Somehow I get the feeling like these donors are not seeking to make billionaires obsolete.
We have a corporate captured government you fool. The Reps + the Dems = The Money Party. Neither party represents the working class and neither do the children of the elite or the Oxford Union. We don't need their fucking charity. We need systemic change through legislation. And, guess what? There are more workers than billionaires. We will eventually win.
I made a similar comment. Good observation, aufly.
aufly taz Since those industries are donating that’s surely in their favour. Your argument doesn’t make sense.
Sighs, please not*more* religious mumbo jumbo.
Politics is of course a subset of religion they being one and the same thing and examples of the slavery of you creatures to your functions
I feel like the opposition depended on removing the logic required to become a billionaire within the context of the statement. Sure, in some other reality...yes...some billionaires could get there...but in this other reality, the one we exist in...the means to achieving that status require two factors: Money, and the multiplication of money through money. The more you have, the larger and more exponential your potential. You can make money morally.
I imagine, even the "saint" that is Rowling has used the stock market, are we going to simply remove her questionable action of supporting a system that creates growth through the undermining of people lower in the economic caste system? When they cut costs through pay, align that across the board, and work together with their larger amount of power to create the growth she profits off of exponentially more than others...what is SHE accountable for?
When you get to Bill Gates and the like, they HUGELY profited off the exploitation of the third world. They actively avoided addressing the means they use to create their products that achieved their dividends/salaries. But if you take any economics class they "magically" make that guilt disappear by saying "they are better off than they were"...I'm sorry...what? Analyze what is happening here. That's the same statement Britain used to subjugate countries...only now private entities are using those dismantled systems to profit privately off of isolated populations.
If nobody is accountable for their actions, and the things they support...yet the "system" is somehow still to blame...they are propping up and supporting that system through their actions and they have the FULL agency to remove themselves from that system at a certain amount of wealth acquisition organically (such as through her book royalties) but you'd still have to analyse the factors that allowed her to make SO MUCH MONEY within that system? How high were her royalties? Are people getting undercut within the system she is using to create her core wealth?
If she did not amass money to then combat the things she had no control over in order to stop them, she needs to be held accountable because she KNEW how she got that money...and she should know what stocks and things she makes money off of in the stock market and how they do so.
End of the day, our current system of capitalism is so lazily unaccountable for its own evil that THIS is the reason it is so unstoppable. We just keep deflecting the blame up and then out...the individual staying completely clean at the end. It's garbage logic.
We are all accountable, but Billionaires should be held accountable to the degree at which they profit...and it's on a magnitude that is nearly unimaginable. Let's not even get to the nitty gritty of how selective charitable giving is removing agency from the general populace in what issues and charities receive financial backing. They have the resources to preach to the masses that they should not exist and the system should remove them through democratic means of taxation, and yet few if any do so.
Billionaires are a literal cancer on systems...using the resources of the body to do their own biding while the rest of the body suffers for it. The sheer amount of accumulation outside of democratic systems is by the nature of our economy...a sickness. Moral use doesn't equal out immoral gain.
Excellent post, i think you pointed out the huge flaw in Peter's reasoning here.
Bravo.
I'm sorry but microsoft employing millions of people in tech jobs in india is not the same as the british colonial rule. That's just ignorant and stupid. Also you gotta make an explicit normative statement. Go ahead and say what ought to be done for us to reach a standard of living that is considered the minimum in your country. You seem to think international trade under the current system is "unjust". What is your alternative? Am I supposed to believe the british or american populace is going to lobby for their governments to spend more than just a few scrappy billion or two for our benefit any time soon? In the 2020 presidential election, most liberal and leftist candidates in the US have had spending plans running into a couple of trillions. Confiscating the wealth of all billionaires in the world (the wealth that they supposedly stole from billions like me in the third world) would have been enough to fund basic health care for the americans for a few years, according to one candidates plans.
When the first world leftist discourse is at that stage, it's hard to take their concern for "extractionism" seriously.
@Law of Perspective Can you explain how workers would have the "wealth" when most of what constitutes billionaire wealth is equity and stock? In a hypothetical world where workers of a firm are the sole legal shareholders, there would be none of this wealth. Now you can pull out a pretentious cop out and go on about and use value and exchange value and such, but you'd just be mistaking the measure for the measured. An amazon employee having a 300,000th of a democratic say in the firm's operations wouldn't equate to having 300,000th of the amazon's market cap in cash.
Rich people discussing the poor and why they are mad. Sadly most people who watched this on the internet will never be invited to an event like this. The event was not made for the average person, but rather the wealthy intellectuals.
id rather be the ruler of my own destiny than pray for a benevolent ruler. it's immoral to be complicit with a system that could give anyone as much power as a billionaire.
Got any alternative systems in mind?
You can be the ruler of your own destiny by starting your own business
Why you dumb @uck
If system gives you chance to become billionaire whats wrong about that
Idiots like you want to make sure anyone can't become rich
@@angryguy2713 u rly are an angry guy huh?💚🌎💚🌎💚🌎
@@CalumJJohnston A system without capitalism.
Oxford often screw up the proposition making the debates uninteresting. I'm not a for the billionaire class but the blanket term if total immorality is ridiculous.
what the fcuk is" immorality"?More religious mumbo jumbo and monkey business?
He's using semantics. He's basically choosing to address a different question/issue than what is implied by the question given and what is being spoken to by the other debaters. It's essentially conceding the point and then redefining the topic. That's a cop out.
Why would you choose to admonish Singer for choosing to speak on the subject of the motion and not those that side-stepped the motion and argued points irrelevant to the subject at hand? Who are you to define the 'implied' meaning of the motion when it is so unambiguously phrased in a sense opposite to that which you purport? In philosophical arguments it is vital to choose your wording carefully, and morality is unavoidably a philosophical subject. Singer made the perfect argument to address both the motion and the irrelevant arguments of the other side.
@@LanceConstableVimes unfortunately this is standard in so many forums. different people interpret the question differently and therefore address it/ answer it differently
@@Just_do_the_thing Yep This is really common and the solution is concise wording. Semantics. Yes, it's important and I wish people understood it more.
You take some objection to one that uses that branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning, or semantics and if so, why? To what is it relevant that he uses or is using semantics? Where and what is you syllogism?
Fantastic! I agree both with his personal views, which he states in the beginning, and with the position he takes in this debate. If the motion says what it says, then a debate should actually argue precisely that. Especially in a debate society.
He has used falsified premises.
i disagree with this dude, except for the shade he throws at the US, good counter point.
GFY.
According to his logic it's immoral to not try to become a Bilionaire and giving it all away. Which might be true.
Yes it's true. Never being a billionaire during your life time is immoral.
@@SamiNami try
I cannot for the life of me, imagine naming Bill Gates as a paragon of billionaire class virtue and/or REMOTELY moral unless you can also demonstrate that the WHO is concerned about the individual health of citizens and the freedom to maintain bodily autonomy AND that the world's citizenry have democratically voted for the WHO officials.
Great points. 👍👍👍👍👍
That still wouldn't matter, if even a single person afflicted is helped by such organizations, and even if they didn't you'd be morally obligated to form an organization that would.
@@surgeonsergio6839yes you would, but that fact does not make Bill moral.
@@nikolacvetkovic4549 But he'd be less immoral than the general populace.
@@surgeonsergio6839 why less, because of that one life? I would argue that this kind of capital would save more just by chance.. I do agree that it is the same.
what r they saying 'no thank u' to?
They are points of information taken by the audience in order to ask a question from the speaker. If the speaker doesn't want to take the question, he/she can say no thank you.
At 1:40 he more or less makes the same case for the other side.
exactly... It seems like a big contradiction.
Here, I'll fix it for you: it is immoral to allow someone to become a billionaire.
@Phineas Gage Possible. Depends on if you are in favor of the legislation or not. I am.
@Phineas Gage I am making a policy proposal. I'm on the right side of the policy proposal. You're on the other side.
Yep.
Two problems here. His first argument is pretty much the equivalent of saying that if you're going to call killing immoral, then you have to condemn all those who have served in the military as immoral people, as they have taken part in the killing of others, or to decide to become a vegan for moral considerations, is to condemn all meat eaters evil, immoral people. This argument simply does not hold water. Then there's the notion that we need these billionaires to spend billions to solve the problems around the world that have in one way or another been caused by people trying to either get rich, or stay rich. Again, not a great argument.
Why do you creatures stupefy yourselves with all that morality religious mumbo jumbo? It can only lead to that dreadful disease I-am-right and more of the trouble that you bring on yourselves by identifying with or being attached to, your functions
This is a happy and affirming argument for why there CAN be moral billionaires. Like technology, I contend that financial standing is neutral. It can CERTAINLY be deployed and motivated by WONDERFUL people. Stay strong out there!! (N.B., the only cautious issue is the one of power: when people choose to deploy their wealth as power for selfish/powerfully motivated reasons)
Singer's argument is well performed, but illogical... By admitting a billionaire who dies a billionaire is immoral, he is saying a morality of wealth ultimately depends on not having it... therefore, it follows, being a billionaire is immoral and can only be redeemed if that state is undone in the end... and, to what effect..? Is the goal to bring forth the equitable society he suggests? Why not just cut to the chase?
Good point
>being a billionaire is immoral and can only be redeemed if that state is undone in the end
No. If Bill Gates is a billionaire all his life and gives it away when he dies, he was not an immoral billionaire. During his life, it was not immoral for him to be a billionaire. Which is why the motion is stupid.
Well, that's his argument
@@Mickk4224 that's quite different from Singer's argument.
@@Mickk4224 bill gates is richer than ever and controls the foundation to which he "donates" his money, benefitting from the charitable deduction and passing on control of the foundation and the power that comes with controling its billions in investments to his children without paying estate tax
You remember that bit in Disney's Robin Hood where the Sheriff of Nottingham tosses a coin into the beggar's cup so hard that all of the coins bounce out again into his hand? That's billionaire philanthropy.
@Adam Craig - tax is membership dues to live & enjoy benefits in an organized society. If you don't want to pay tax, move to a deserted island.
@Adam Craig - the land you own is _part of organized society._ Your ownership rights are protected by, wait for it, society. The infrastructure around your land -- society. The amenities, the police, fire, etc -- society.
You want to live in an organized society & cherry pick what you pay for. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I don't agree that my taxes pay for a military which I feel is absurdly bloated. Another person may feel he doesn't need roads because he never leaves his farm. There is no logical way to have a menu to choose from.
The only thing you got right was the part about the majority dictating to the rest of us. But again, that's the way our society is organized. The majority rule. That's democracy.
But no one is forcing you to follow along. If you really do not want to participate in the "theft", pick up & move to a deserted island. Or maybe an area of Somalia where you could buy land for pennies. No government, no taxes. Problem solved.
Adam Craig
I agree in the case of the USA, I’d hate to pay taxes as I’m there to make mass money. It’s a land of individual freedom to state and all. I couldn’t care less about my fellow nationals. That’s the beauty of that degenerate land.
With regards to my ethnic nation in Europe, Iceland, no, I pay extremely high taxes for my people. It’s part of nationalist, homogenous ethnic/nativist weltanschauung. We should pay taxes as we’re are one, supporting and looking out for each other. We rise and fall together. A suffering Icelandic native in my nation should be an illegal circumstance. This is our land, we’re of blood and soil.
@Adam Craig Frankly, being godless likely helps them stop being degenerates. It's disgusting how the "land of the free" loves to try and shove their God into a woman's medical/life decisions.
@Adam Craig Christians have the slave trade written in their holy book as permissible. Any attempt to suggest that is what grants you morals proves any point I could want to make.
Is there such a thing as Ideal Ethik v Real Ethik similar to Ideal Politik v Real Politik? He only needed a couple of minutes to argue his case by considering the literal meaning of the proposition. Unfortunately (from my Ideal Ethik) point of view, from a debating point of view, he was correct.
Completely disagree. It is immoral to be a billionaire as well as to die a billionaire. You cannot amass that quantity of wealth without unethical practices. It means exploiting a host of people, paying employees a meager wage, making money selling products that are harmful, paying vendors less than fair compensation, exploiting loopholes in regulations and lack of regulation. Donations by billionaires that are typically self-serving and do nothing to truly advance the good of society in a meaningful way do not make up for the harm all billionaires will have necessarily wrought by achieving billionaire status
Ah yes a tax system to stifle innovation and encourage laziness, exactly what we need!
It is if that Billionaire does not use the wealth for the betterment of this world.
In a capitalist society, money is power.
Power comes with responsibility. Those who wield power irresponsibly do not deserve their power and should have it removed from their possession. This was the foundation of the American Revolution, among many others.
The working poor and disappearing middle class can only be asked to take so much abuse before the (proverbial) guillotines and pitchforks come out in the political arena.
The rich owe a debt to the society which enabled their wealth. They can either pay now or wait and pay with interest and inflation. One way or another, the people will get what they are owed.
I think the topic for argument should have been "SHOULD there be billionaires?" i think that's the point the above topic was trying to get at.
Who is to say what the question is *really* asking? The debate question must be addressed as it is, not as (in your opinion) it *should* be phrased.
"Should" meaning X-would-like-it if? Should is shit and ought ordure which is a roundabout way of suggesting into which sunless orifice all that religious ought/should right/wrong religion morality mumbo jumbo can be stuck..
so in his world view, best give away fortunes before the last breath, lest deemed immoral...hmmm???... this is circumspect. Rather...no matter billionaire or pleeb, what did you do with your life while breathing. the money is nothing. its neither a kings ransom, nor a baker dozen. A pauper and king alike die alone
Mr. Burns doesn't want you to dislike billionaires.
Why might anyone "dislike billionaires"?
What business is it of anyone whether or not someone is a billionaire?
@@vhawk1951kl Because the very act of becoming one requires the harm of other human beings and the disproportionate use of power over them. We don't vote for these people. Billionaires extract and hoard wealth away from populations while providing zero benefit to society. Musk and Bezos are removing billions of dollars from the US economy while giving nothing of substance back in the process.
So, it is very much my business to notice and dislike an entire class individuals who are harming so many.
Millionaires would be immoral too
Basically, he declined to argue against the motion. Which is good of him, and speaks volumes on where the sentiment lies with regards to concentration of wealth and the perversion it entails.
Singer was the most persuasive speaker because he spoke to the motion itself.
GPT-4's response to Singer:
Indeed, Peter Singer's main contention revolves around the universal condemnation implied by the motion "It Is Immoral To Be A Billionaire." He argues that such a blanket statement doesn't take into account the nuanced actions of certain billionaires, particularly those who engage in significant philanthropic efforts. He emphasizes that condemning all billionaires, irrespective of their individual actions and intentions, is an overly simplistic approach that doesn't align with the complexities of moral evaluation. Here's a counter-argument that specifically addresses Singer's concern about the universality of the motion:
### 1. **The Issue with Universal Statements in Moral Judgments:**
- **Precision in Moral Discourse:** Singer rightly points out that moral discourse requires precision. However, societal discourse often employs generalizations to address systemic issues. While not all billionaires may act in ways that are morally condemnable, the statement can be seen as a critique of the broader systemic issues associated with extreme wealth accumulation.
- **The Purpose of Hyperbolic Statements:** Sometimes, hyperbolic statements are used in moral and political discourse to draw attention to significant issues. The motion's phrasing might be seen not as a literal universal judgment but as a rhetorical device aimed at sparking debate about the ethical implications of wealth inequality and the responsibilities of the ultra-wealthy.
### 2. **Redefining the Motion for Nuance:**
- **A Call for Contextual Interpretation:** While the motion is phrased universally, it can be interpreted in a more nuanced way. It could serve as a call to scrutinize the systemic issues that allow such wealth accumulation and to question whether individuals, regardless of their philanthropic efforts, should hold such disproportionate wealth and power.
- **Moral Complexity:** Acknowledging Singer's point, the debate could benefit from a rephrased motion that encapsulates the moral complexity of billionaire status. For instance, "The systems and behaviors that enable individuals to become billionaires are often immoral" might be a more precise way of capturing the essence of the concerns without universally condemning every billionaire.
### 3. **The Role of Billionaires in a Moral Society:**
- **Beyond Philanthropy:** Even if we accept that not all billionaires are immoral, it's essential to discuss the broader societal impact of having such significant wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. This includes examining the moral implications of the power dynamics, influence on policy, and the societal responsibilities of billionaires beyond philanthropy.
- **Moral Agency and Systemic Change:** While some billionaires engage in commendable philanthropic efforts, the discussion also involves their role in advocating for and effecting systemic changes that address the root causes of inequality and injustice, beyond individual acts of charity.
In addressing Singer's concerns about the universality of the statement, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of moral judgment and the broader societal implications of extreme wealth accumulation. While individual actions of billionaires vary, the debate invites a more comprehensive examination of the ethical, economic, and political structures that allow such wealth disparity and the responsibilities of those who benefit most from these systems.
So where is it - the result of the votes???
the house believes it is immoral to be a billionaire.
www.oxford-union.org/node/1935
This debate is misguided. Its not immoral to simply have a billion dollars. Its immoral to have a system where some people can become billionaires while others experience poverty. Peter Singer is correct
Because of billionaires
it should be changed to “It is imorral to be in the position to be moral and to be imorral”
Why not just mind your own business?
@@vhawk1951kl 😘
@@mikeb3811 I wonder if you understand that those that employ those asinine and infantile little yellow symbols declare to all the world that they are imbecile children.
Apparently you - an imbecile child, do not.
@@vhawk1951kl They proposed a good title, you’re the one behaving like a manchild with your little insults.
I think there is good and bad even within the 1% what interests me is many of our ancestors across all cultures were buried with perhaps all their percieved wealth at the time
He wants to have it both ways. His unstated premise is that money is the sole solution to human problems.
That was a feel-good arguments which didn't even tried to delve into any deepness!
yes because the motion was badly formulated. Singer could have just said “not all billionaires are immoral, therefore the motion is incorrect” and sit down. These kind of moral judgements MUST be taken literally and thats what he did
Billionaires become billionaires by exploitation. There is no way around it. Yes, it is immoral to be a billionaire.
Who was exploited when JK Rowling sold 500 million copies of Harry Potter?
@@Jordan-cd3ce trees
@@Jordan-cd3ce animals who live in those trees
@@Jordan-cd3ce You mean the books that are sold mainly through Amazon? 😉
Just remember that this is the same man who said ‘infants shouldnt have a right to life’ in one of his books
So what did the audience vote for? Who won the debate?
Slightly off topic but one of the things that keeps people from poverty is the very things that are not considered necceties like eating out buying luxury cothes, going on vacations. Many people that provide these things depend on them for income. Alwaysthere are unintended consequences for any human endeavour. I suggest the better argument is not charity but a reasonable system of compensation . After all the accumulation of wealth depends largely on making money off of other peoples labor. Just my thoughts.
It seems that too much leisure make our grasp of reality too loose and our philosophical inclinations "progressively" deteriorated.
They have so much money that they just can't give it away fast enough.
puhleeeze
It's really funny how people like you think all that money would be more evenly distribuited without any billionaries
@@novepe , if they put their hoarded wealth back into the system you think there'd be no result??
@@novepe Bro, the problem IS MONEY.
@@novepe If they are donating most of their money. How are they still billionaires? Literally having a million dollars is incomprehensible to me.
@@vivalaleta there would be a result, I don't really know wich one and to be fair neither do you.
The difference is that you are arrogant enough to pretend to know.
Lol, the people on the other side must be feeling really dim right now.
Is this guy debating for the right side? Seems like he should be arguing for the other. He declared it's immoral to have a system that allows for billionaires... yet his only point is that their are decent moral billionaires out there. I don't think anyone has claimed that all billionaires are immoral, so it's a meaningless argument.
Let us not forget that Stalin was a loving father and Hitler loved puppies. Being kind and generous sometimes does not make one a good person.
But check this out...Do they ever give away enough to fall off that Billionaire List?...NO
They make it seem like we want billionares to give up their wealth. We want them to pay their fare share. Its cool if they created the game, but not all the rules to make winings in their favor. We want them to respect the environment and the rights off all.
What's your fair share of someone else's wealth?
@@vaibhav2k13
It is clearly writennon common tax laws in the form of tax brakets. If I earn 100k and my braket is 30% +- adjustments. They should pay the same. Tax havens should not be allowed.
@@vaibhav2k13
I dont know how my point can be misundestood like that. I am not talking about unfairness. Simply playing what is really owed, with no special treatment.
they are not talking about paying your fair share of income. they are talking about wealth levels. these are different things.
@@scotchy451
It's all relative.
If you have to give some away, you took too much.
condemning all 2,000 of them lol
Well this is all so ridiculous a bunch of some of the most privileged people in the world living privileged lives going to a top level school preaching from their high horses about being rich as immortal. With what they're saying is every human being that has more than they need are bad people for not giving all the extra to the needy. Put it in perspective almost all Americans and other people in first world countries would be a billionaire compared to poor people in Africa and other countries so with their argument you are a bad person if you don't dedicate your life to help them. I think what this is about is tearing western cultures down and bringing us down to them not bringing us up. The only reason someone like these people would get down from their ivory tower to virtue signal in their grand standing speeches is if they have a hidden agenda.
I can't believe such a prestigious institution is debating such a click-baity straw-man of a motion. With such a blunt over-generalisation, of course the real life-and-death issues would be side-stepped and the debate would descend into semantics.
Yes, it's a pointless debate. Billionaires should not exist. Even if a few do good. It's a moot argument.
who are these billionaires that he's saying that gave away 99% of their wealth? I don't find that really plausible lol
It is true. Bill Gates and Warren buffet are examples Singer gave. There are many more who pledged to give away a majority of their wealth, but not necessarily 99%. See the following link for details. givingpledge.org/Home.aspx
@@synchronium24 yes, but massive exploitation is the reason they become billionaire in the first place. This whole moral argument makes no sense.
@@Sultansekte Does your definition of Bill Gates' "exploitation" go beyond surplus value? Because I couldn't care less about that.
which side won the house?
He essentially just said, “billionaires are not all immoral, but good luck running into a moral one”. People play the odds = 98% chance of rain means l will take an umbrella/coat.
Most billionaires are immoral = l will take my chances with a blanket opinion.
4:49 I feel you
even if billionaires doesn't give away
they are immoral...
"Immoral" being a cognate of diddums-doesn't-like- it?
From where do you creatures get all that morality mumbo jumbo?
Very illuminating speech, yeah I agree
Why are there 3 people sitting at the back on thrones? 😮
Couldn't agree more with Peter on this. Wealth in itself is not immoral. It depends on what you choose to spend it on and what you do with it once you die.
all the people starving today should be thankful for the billionaires who will give away their money to fight hunger when they die
I agree that "It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire" but disagree with his arguments. Why should the very rich be taxed more than everyone else. Already the top 20% pay 80% of all taxes. Why is it the left always wants to steal other people's money. The billionaires didn't steal their wealth. They created jobs and businesses. In their success they have help many others become successful too. Having billionaires means that their can be people who can fund dreams. I think of all the things that couldn't happen if it weren't for the concentrated wealth. Exceptionalism brings light to our dark world. All of the wonders of the world were created via exceptional people.
💯 agree to what you are saying.
Exactly.
His first argument is wrong. He says that saying it's unethical to be a billionaire means that once you earn a billion dollars, you become unethical. No, being unethical is how you "earn" a billion dollars, because the very act of doing so requires you to exploit millions of people.
Peter Singer makes great points here. What if we could combine the billions donated by generous philanthropists with the idea that no one should become a billionaire ? Should your wealth exceed a billion, you have a year to donate the excess to a charity of your choice or pay it as a tax. Now that would be progress. Nobody needs to be a billionaire or to control multibillion dollar companies.and certainly no one should be entitled to inheriting billions.
He just changed the debate into "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt," which TBH is bullcrap. His argument boils down to 100% or not.
His whole point is about a technicality, the wording of the motion.
He is a philosopher. If you had any lessons in philosophy, you would know that even the slightest bit of different in framing a sentence makes all the difference in the implication.
You said its immoral to buy stuff you don't need? And immoral to not sell you stuff to help people in poverty. But billionaires are moral and your probably a millionaire as well. Which I think is fine but you don't give everything away. Silly old man
It appears to me that Peter, in this speech, overlooks the fact that we shouldn't be dependent on the generosity of a few thousand people to distribute resources fairly and effectively. The best institution we have for making such complex decisions is democratic government advised by subject matter experts. Yes, much government spending (at least here in the United States) is wasteful. The solution, however, is not philanthropy; it's to end the corrupt incentive structure that lies at the heart of such poor decision-making. If Peter had told me that Tom Steyer donated to Senator Bernie Sanders, I would've been more persuaded. But the necessary institutional change is viewed as too "radical" and challenges powerful corporate interests, and therefore is almost totally rejected by the establishment -- despite the fact that international success (e.g. Norway, Denmark, Finland) has demonstrated that it produces greater flourishing.
It's unfortunate that such an acclaimed academic would make an argument about a class based on the actions of a minority of that class. It's as if to say that the class can not be judged based on what its members are more probable to do than not
Christopher Foderingham-Garraway the word you are searching is stereotype. Though not as definition, steretotype born when many members of a class do the same thing. Is stereotype good? Nah I don’t think so.
Reza Mahenra I don’t know whether a stereotypical assessment would be appropriate either. I’m more about taking a probabilistic assessment as informed by statistics
He is right, but this is an impractical idea. Some people will always find loopholes in the system, impossible to enforce.
Someone should send this speaker a copy of Anand Giridharadas's latest book: Winners Take All: The Elite Charade Of Changing The World, so he can debunk the brown nosing of certain billionaires he named himself. The arguments against the motion are high school level at best.
Ghiridaharas is amazing. He breaks it down so that anyone can understand why billionaires are part of the problem not part of the solution. When you watch his interviews the interviewer no matter how hostile always ends up questioning his own presumptions. It's fun watching their eyes getting wider and wider. Bernie needs him for the campaign and should make him Treasury Secretary if he'll take the job.
Bravo Singer - the only one who actually broke down what the topic was actually stating.
03:39 cosmicskeptic in top left hand corner
Sniped him
Seemed like Singer was, himself, twisting the motion into something different. He is arguing, primarily, that billionaires are not themselves immoral. The question is whether BEING a billionaire is immoral. (I realize, of course, the ways that Baradaran and Giridharadas also modified the frame. But I think the ways they used it were a philosophically useful one more than just a strange bit of pedantry about how the question should be framed.) I believe that a person can be or do something immoral without necessarily being immoral themselves.
I, for example, consume meat. I am a carnivore/omnivore in a world where I could quite easily survive (maybe even more healthfully!) as a vegetarian. I think it is a philosophically-defensible position to claim that it is immoral to kill unnecessarily or cause unnecessary death and suffering. But I think it takes a bit of a leap to pronounce ME as immoral on that basis. This is the same type of leap that Singer is urging you not to take. But it's a rather absurd point because people do many things--some good and some bad. People even ARE many things--some moral and some immoral. Bill and Melinda Gates aren't moral or immoral. They are moral AND immoral. Philanthropic giving is a moral use of capital. Accumulating capital through exploitative business practices as their wealth was acquired is immoral. And the system that allows them to acquire and keep that wealth (as Singer admits!), even to give it away is immoral.
So this whole speech was weird because it was urging people to vote in a certain way based on a combination of what seems an intentional misreading of the proposition even while accusing the other side of being the ones who are twisting the proposition.
Zachary Noyce, nicely put. It seems that the key trick to rationalize any morally dubious position is to shift the goalposts and eloquently argue for some seemingly relevant non sequitur. I think there is even a whole profession dedicated to this practice: lawyers.
Zachary Noyce immorality and morality aren’t built in characteristics. Its not like you have brown hair or blue eyes. Morality and immorality are best judged through actions as they are manifestations of ones believe, thoughts, interests and private lives inside ones mind. For example, let me ask you something is a someone who kills another human “immoral”? Or not? Based on your frameworks of thinking you are dividing between “being” immoral and “doing” immoral action, thus, its possible for our imaginative murderer to being moral, yet does an appaling act of immorality called murder. Thats contradiction
It is/is not immoral to be a billionaire. I think the problem lies in the topics proposition and wording. If a person is born into a family and makes no business decision throughout their life and inherits the money they are a billionaire. Lets say this person then sells off every business so they have no income from any 'immoral' business practice the moral argument cannot be applied to them. If this person then gives all but $999,999,999 of the money away they are no longer a billionaire. So this person is still very wealthy, can influence with that money immorally and not be included in the argument. I presented this scenario to show that billionaire is the wrong word to use in the context of the argument the words should be 'extremely wealthy' or the 'top 500 most wealthiest people' and also the word 'be' would be better as 'are'. So it would read: The top 500 most wealthiest people are/are not immoral. The word 'be' is too ambiguous as it states - That the billionaire as a person is or is not immoral or that the billionaire by action of wealth creation is or is not immoral or to have that quantity of money is or is not immoral. Personally I think it would be better to finish the statement with 'through their action of wealth creation and accumulation'. That being said I have never debated in my life so I may be missing something if I have feel free to let me know :)
AGREE 100%
DISAGREE 120%
A person projecting moral necessities on positions they themselves will never find themselves exposed to - as a result of skill, culture or opportunity - is the very essence of fascism. An actionable conclusion of the world that’s drawn from personal need and experience, without interest or understanding of another time, people or place. Holding virtuous positions that place zero expectations on the accuser are pointless. A victim of poverty provides the power of the question - “Why?” - but they’re in a place to offer an answer - that burden belongs to those who instigated the “crime”. Objection to the Concentration of wealth at such events assumes currency contain an inherent moral value. It can do - in the case of preserving a photograph below - though ultimately the still shows a young woman who seems to ask for permission to their own native sex. If you’re so obsessed and certain with others sexuality - do the sensible and common thing - masturbate - don’t legislate.
It seems that philanthropy is the gateway to power. By Peter's own definition you must be immoral to become a billionaire. Billionaire's might not always be doing immoral things, but them existing as billionaires is immoral.
Like all advocates against the motion, Mr. Singer fails to consider the morality of exploitation that enables a literal handful of the the world's population to achieve billionaire status. True, some persons are born billionaires, innocently living off the avails of ill-gotten gains, though such fortunate "innocents" are still likely to employ the services of a finance manager with investments in tax havens and exploitative industries, including war profiteering.
I don't think I'm being harsh as I regard the circular arguments posited by those against the motion, as unsubstantive apologia by sycophants to power.
A decent argument in the abstract got completely destroyed with atrocious examples of "good billionaires".
If the best argument for moral billionaires are examples of billionaires who give most of their money away (JK Rowling, WarrenBuffer, Bill Gates), and the bad examples are billionaires who hoard their wealth (the rest..), then why even have an economic system that enables billionaires to exist in the first place? Whether or not being a billionaire is immoral, I think we can all agree that it would be better if they did not exist in today’s economy, and rather most of their billions in earnings be redistributed in escrow, in my name, until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
too late now... I don't think the system is ever set to change cause any heat any of them feel will result in them simply moving somewhere else out of the reach of these debates or simply shifting the net worths' somewhere else while they operate in the likes of the US or wherever.
It's an immoral system. I don't really care about the individual billionaires.
That isn’t the motion.
The world we live in today is a injustice against humanity and the sad thing is that us humans are the only to blame for our own suffering, we will never learn and soon enough this "modern empire" will fall...
Who decides what is or is not what you call an " injustice" -Is it some sort of religious mumbo jumbo best left to self-appointed priests? What the devil is " humanity" - apart from imaginary?
It’s not immoral to be a billionaire but if it means keep the rest down so you make more and more of it, that’s wrong and so isn’t that the essence of being a billionaire.
I largely agree with Singer, and I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are great examples. I would not put Tom Steyer in the same category, as Obama, Clinton, and the Democratic Party are status quo centrists at best. We also saw that in this primary Steyer had political aspirations of his own, which largely discounts the philanthropic nature of his donations to the party in the first place. Same goes for Bloomberg (who thankfully Singer did not mention as a model for moral billionaires).
Is he wearing a new tie?
"It's not amoral to be a Hitler"