Should You Sell All Your Possessions?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- For three months free with Express VPN, visit www.expressvpn.com/cosmicskeptic
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
In 1971 Peter Singer proposed a now famous challenge to the idea that giving to charity is, whilst a good thing to do, not a moral obligation. He suggested (and still suggests) that since the nonessential purchases most people regularly make are nowhere near as important as the lives of those who are starving, dying, and otherwise suffering around the world, we should refuse to buy these things in order to give the money we save to charitable causes.
There is some plausibility in this view, but should it lead us to sell all our possessions and give the money to charity?
A special thanks to Mattie McDonagh for his help in producing this video.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Get started with charitable giving: www.thelifeyoucansave.org/
Read Peter Singer's 'Famine Affluence and Morality' online: personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/t...
Buy Peter Singer's 'The Life You Can Save': amzn.to/3oUnsPd
My podcast with Peter Singer: • Peter Singer Talks to ...
Timmerman, 'Sometimes there is nothing wrong with letting a child drown': philpapers.org/rec/TIMSTI
Buy the sweater I wear in this video: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/pro...
------------------------TIMESTAMPS--------------------------
0:00 Intro
0:52 The Drowning Child
3:36 The Distance Objection
5:23 The Demandingness Objection
8:48 Sometimes We Can Let a Child Drown
14:52 Closing Thoughts
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
James O'Neill
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Isaac Medina
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
Jade
Monstar
Seth Balodi
Anon Training
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are clearly not enough charities teaching children how to swim.
And there are too many children who think they can swim but they don't
😂😂😂
no, this is obviously happening because they're refusing to fix the potholes!
Donate to swim teachers
Don't waste your time donating to big swimming charities, the scum bags at the top keep all the money, and almost no one learns how to swim.
Your obey moral obligation is to teach your own children to swim. That's it.
I have a love/hate relationship with this channel. He keeps saying true things that I don't want to hear.
Sounds like a every religion that ever existed 🤦🏽♂️
@@stenarsk6877 fuck george orwell
Thats your problem man
Honestly, I’m not necessarily convinced by this philosophy because I’m not convinced that there actually are moral imperatives. I think most people intrinsically have empathy and there is a resulting desire to ease/reduce suffering, but I’m not convinced that it’s obligatory in any real sense. We are living bags of meat that exist for a tiny cosmic blip, and while I think it’s virtuous to want to spend parts of that very short time making experiences better for others, I don’t think anyone has the right to demand that of you, especially considering what’s “right/good” in an overarching sense doesn’t necessarily align with any given individual moral decision (hence the age-old question in tons of situations of whether the ends justify the means).
@Apsoy Pike not a rebuttal
All I ever secretly wanted was Alex to make a "Tom Scott" type of video, now I can finally rest in peace.
because he's british?
@@pixeled9683 because youre racist?
@@anti-naturevegan because 'british' is a race? :p
Hand movements and everything... beautiful.
This does assume charities are actually effective at saving lives.
that's my only objection to the video heheh. it takes an individualist view, we're all responsible in saving lives but some of us are more responsible than other, because they're more capable and are able to do so much difference with nearly no effort. (looking at you 1%)
Yes some of them are. GiveWell is an organization that revolves all around assessing the effectiveness of charity organizations. You could go there on their website and find out about any charity organization of your choice. They also do inform you on the tools used to research and assess their indeces of effectiveness.
Yes! It’s this point exactly (on top of the argument presented in the video) that has led to the rise of the effective altruism movement.
Some good links are:
www.effectivealtruism.org
www.givewell.org
This is a handwaving argument. Peter Singer wrote The Life You Can Save to tackle this. Charities are effective, some more than others. You could also create a new one or get deeply involved in one to make sure.
@@hammer158 Some of them are. That's why I believe in higher tax rates for the rich. Another reason is that it stops the rich from buying out and monopolising everything, and it keeps them competitive.
I think we should be focusing more on changing the systems that lead to poverty rather than throwing money at the problem. Charity can be useful, but it is a temporary patch on a very serious issue.
The problem with changing systems is uncertainty. Giving to a good charity can nearly guarantee x number of lives saved (or diseases treated, etc) per dollar. It's also absurdly efficient as long as you choose the charity carefully (and not something like 'Give a Wish').
Changing a system runs into two levels of uncertainty. The first is that of success; will you be able to change the system the way you want to and how long will it take? The second is correctness; will the changes you make actually result in the positive net outcome that you imagine? People are usually too confident about the former and WAY too confident on the latter. Systems like politics and economics are complicated enough that even studying them your whole life shouldn't give you the confidence to make authoritative predictions.
They're also not mutually exclusive. Both because raising the living condition of the poorest can help change the systems that created them and because you can be politically active while giving to charities. It'd be a hard sell to argue that you should donate all your money to political campaigns instead of charities.
Edit: More practically, this kind of response is (typically, I don't know you and am not accusing you) often a cop-out. Systems are slow to change and require a lot of people to do a lot of things. Unless you are actually spending a good portion of your man-hours doing work towards a political goal, this kind of excuse is similar to saying, "If people put up railings, then the children wouldn't be drowning" and then not bothering to save the child and instead tweeting about the 'systemic' problem of no railings.
Agree. Another issue is that charity does not scale - addressing the root causes of poverty is really the only answer
@Alfred Olsen man you smart!
Ex World Bank economist William Easterleys book was written to counter the assertions in this vid. We do need to reform charities. But I would say that, I'm self centred greedy and uncharitable anyway ;)
So give money to those who change the system effectively :)
Simple living, high thinking, generous giving while still taking care of yourself and your family is the ideal, I think.
"You remember lesson about balance?
Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life.
Whole life have a balance. Everything be better. Understand?" - Mr Miyagi, Karate Kid
Yeah, I really like Alex's videos, they are always reasonable, and he usually tries to account for every line of thinking someone might have.
At the same time it's not forcing anyone to do anything besides thinking through these moral issues.
This helps A LOT with cognitive dissonance.
Don’t forget abolish capitalism. Charities shouldn’t be necessary
@@elidarkbloom2017 well abolishing capitalism might be a little radical
@@elidarkbloom2017 Capitalism has reduced poverty around the world like no other system has done before or after. If you want poverty, despotism, and destruction around the world, then yes abolish capitalism.
Sharing can only occur if products have been created. and the more products have been created, the more we can share. Without capitalism, there would be no incentive to produce more and having spare products to share with those in needs. Generosity needs capitalism. Communism for example, can't be generous, because this system is so inefficient that it can't even provide basic needs for those who work, let alone those who don't. Communism led to millions of people starving to death. Equality is a stupid goal to pursue if it means everyone is equal in poverty, which inevitably happens with communism.
We also need to take into account the fact that in the drowning child scenario, we would be the only person responsible for saving them.
Yes, what about all the other people around at the same place at the same time?
This. If someone else can save lives at less cost (perhaps as absolute cost, or perhaps relative to their needs/ability), it should be their duty, not yours, to save lives.
This opinion is as true for the drowning child scenario as for charity, and probably even for tax policy.
Agreed. Why is my agency in Northern, Canada more "available" and "shameable" than the agency of those who live near the third world child, let alone their parents/community? I feel an obligation to help a homeless person who is starving within my city not because they are closer to me, but because they are more relative to me. They are a member of my community who is suffering. Someone starving in an entirely different country, let alone the opposite side of the planet from me, is not my responsibility. There are more than enough people who are relative to those suffering and starving, locally to themselves, where they should be able to do something instead of hoping and waiting for foreign aid from people who aren't even part of their community.
@@Bendilin Regardless of where you live, I think that there are plenty of very rich people who could make difference, even in their own countries. Strange how many leaders in poor countries are very corrupt and greedy.
Just one of the many factors that make the whole moral problem infinitely complex.
Sometimes giving to charity is to ignore the root causes of why such injustices are happening in the first place. Ppl dont simply want a hand out, they want control of their lives. Give to charity, yes. But challenge the corrupt system that create the need for charities in the first place.
He was using charity as a shorthand for any kind of self-sacrifice in aid of others. But I agree that many of our problems would best be solved with systemic level change... (socialism)
@@charlieevans295 What do you define as socialism and name one country where your definition worked?
It's not always or even usually injustices that give rise to poverty. 1st world living conditions are not humanity's default. Poor agriculture methods, famine, pestilence, overreliance on a single export, poor decisions, underdevelopment, overpopulation, disease--just to name a few.
Very good.
@@bassee3437 cuba, ussr, china, vietnam. the list goes on and on LMAO
How dare you ruin your 100$ shoes to save that child when you could've saved at least 5 kids from starvation with this 100$ ;)
A bednet costs $2 and protects 2 people for up to 3 years.
$100 will get you 50 bednets which protect 100 people for up to 3 years. 100 people saved from malaria or 1 person saved from death? And remember that death is elimination of consciouness whereas malaria is constant agony THEN death.
@PMF it's a hypothetical, buddy. Alex talks about donating from time to time but why now? Why not when we can make the most out of every penny? Why not when we'll be financially stable/rich? Is investing early in donating really the optimal choice?
@@matttzzz2 i said "at least" but yeah, there might be problems so cheap to solve, we might aswell prioritize them and let people die off of the other problems. Sounds grim again but, why not be optimal while we're at it? Lol
@@matttzzz2 Protecting 100 people from malaria isn't the same as saving 100 people from malaria. Not all of those people were going to get malaria anyway. I haven't checked recently but I think on average saving a life with Against Malaria takes around $3000 to $5000 due to this consideration.
Still a very good way to spend money. However, $1 per life is an unachievable rate for any charity. And that's a good thing, too, because if you could save a life for $1, that means that people are incredibly unwilling to do so: saving lives has diminishing returns in money like everything else, so the more people donate the higher the marginal cost, and the less people, the lower. The marginal cost of saving a life is actually a pretty good measure of how much people are willing to spend on doing so: which is why it's kind of sad that it's as low as $3000 to $5000.
How much money do we have to pay per day to prevent world leaders from exploiting certain resource rich war-torn areas of the world thus perpetuating conditions for famine and pestilence?
I think this style of video, filming at different locations etc., will get you much more views.
Kinda reminds me of a Tom Scott video
@@miranda.cooper I thought the same haha
True.
On what authority do you make such a prediction? Lol
Also the use of chapters 👌
This could go on an endless tangent about "what we actually need"
also
The major difference with charity and an immediate local need of ones help is that charity happens through donations of many,
(the mentality regarding charities is often "I don't know what my money is really being used for", or "It's not as bad if I don't donate, because at least a few hundred others surely will")
whilst a local immediate need of help in these theoretical situations the only options are either your help, or no help at all.
That is quite a major difference.
Great topic, great vid.
Easy solution to the first moral scenario (the drowning child): Just remove your shoes and your trousers, then go in and rescue the child. No one will bat an eye at a soaking-wet man wearing only a shirt and underwear carrying a hysterical child who is a total stranger to him...right?
I love the higher production value
which he could have used to donate on that charity of his.
@@QuintarFarenor By putting more effort into this video, he may have won some people's admiration who wouldn't have otherwise donated money, thus making the greatest moral investment with his money that he could.
@@callumrhind1357 That feels still like I'd donate to a charity I didn't choose myself. It might work, it might also have burned money. Sorry I'm too selfish for that.
All those teleportations must have cost a fortune.
I’m loving this new level of videography Alex.. simple theatre makes philosophical thought experiments feel a lot more real
you're so right, he should consider continuing with this new style if possible
Agreed, production value is improving significantly at the moment.
Hi Alex, I'm sure you recognise that there are other forms of altruism besides giving money to charity. I do not currently give money to charity, because I am in the process of starting a medical technology company with the aim of improving the lives of many people. Any money I give away at this point would decrease my chances of survival. It's essential for me to direct all my capital and any future capital raised towards reaching the long-term goal of the company - diagnosing and treating chronic diseases. My company, and as an extension, myself, are entirely self-centred financially, insofar as the company is able to function and therefore help people in need. Myself as an example, giving money to charity is not always the most optimal way for helping others.
What is your company called?
I hope it's going well!!!
I’m so glad you’ve made this video. It feels like it’s been a long time coming give you’re such a big fan of Peter Singer’s philosophy, but it’s well worth the wait. I’m loving the increased amount of practical ethics on this channel.
Did you sell that trippy dresser you had that looked like it was melting? Big mistake man
The drunk draws are the only reason i watch this channel, i don’t even know what a philosophy is or who this god fella is i’m just here for the interior design.
@@Metaporphsycosis Frankly this is my favorite interior design channel.
He needs to mention it in his bio, he's making everyone think he does philosophy.
He sold it and gave the money to charity, obviously.
He gave it back to Dali's family.
I saw it. He was smirking when he slowly transitioned to expressvpn. He knew that we knew it was gonna lead up to an ad. And i loved every second of it
ok I'm gonna need a link to that "a steak is a mistake" shirt
The way he talks is so addictive I watched the entire VPN ad
In practice, perfect ethical adherence is fairly messed up, partly because an individual who is ethical, will get exploited by those who find opportunities to gain from selective deception.
The solution is a system that prevents personal gain, so there little motivation to exploit it, and easy to identify those that do. 🤓🤔🤷♂️
@@serversurfer6169 "The solution is a system that prevents personal gain, so there little motivation to exploit it, and easy to identify those that do."
Could you clarify what you are referring to? If a system removed the option for an honest individual to derive excess personal gain through providing a disproportionate amount of value, that limitation would necessarily warp the incentive structure to such a degree that you would face at least one of the inevitable issues that exist with communism (where productivity is necessarily minimized because there is no excess utility accessible through additional effort).
Regardless, how could there be a system that prevents deception-based personal gain?
@Harsh Shinde "What if everyone in the world is fully ethical?? Than who'll exploit them"
I’m sure you’re aware that such a world isn’t realistic.
@SoMuchFacepalm "Well, since ethics evolved in a social species, it is probably a mechanism that is meant to benefit the society a given individual lives in."
Generally I agree with that, because the potential utility that exists for a population that can cooperate to some extent (fully for selfish reasons individually) in many respects outperforms what is possible when cooperation is not possible.
"The implication in saving someone from your in group is that they would do the same for you."
Hopefully but not necessarily. There are many situations where due to differences between individuals, acts of generosity do not have a reciprocal. In those instances the "ethical" actor/s cannot realistically expect to be repaid.
"The equivalent person in the out group is geographically removed, so you never even have the option."
No. Billions of people who can live a life with any excess have such options, but they are overwhelmingly eliminated from consideration due to a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Eg. Most people don't send relative large amounts of money to random locations in order to help those outside their in-group.
@SoMuchFacepalm "You missed my point about geographical locations. I can't cure a African kid of malaria because I live on a different continent. When you give money to charity, they are paying someone that is already in the same country to do the job. I can't be that person if I'm (for example)doing the same thing in South America."
If you're emphasizing that you cannot physically exist simultaneously in two locations to do a job, sure that's obvious and hardly worth pointing out, however it's quite possible to contribute to multiple efforts simultaneously via proxy (for example charity as you mentioned) while working elsewhere.
"The equivalent person in the out group is geographically removed, so you never even have the option."
Perhaps historically this may have been accurate, but in modern times (when an individual is not in poverty) there is a very limited argument to suggest that you "never even have the option" when as I've pointed out, you aren't dealing with truly mutually exclusive options .
The bottom line in all of this is that generous human behavior is not truly prevented due to the (often false) barrier known as proximity, but something else.
Do you agree?
The more I watch you, the more monstrous I become.
-an ode to drowning child
Stephen King, is that you?
bruh I know right
I think it’s also important to note that more people would save a child because they feel like if they don’t save the child no one else will opposed to charity where many have the mindset of “someone richer than me will donate”
Donating to charity doesn't really have diminishing returns. Saving one life will cost the same no matter how many lives were already saved. The only thing changing is apparent utility.
👏🏻 Incredibly impressed with this video - from the switching of scenery and skits, to the philosophizing itself with the back and forth objections from both sides. I’m inspired to step up my game, and I look forward to being a long-time follower of your work and seeing your continual progression into the future ✌🏻
the difference isn’t distance. it’s that when you save a drowning child, only YOU have the moral responsibility, and donating to charity is a responsibility diffused throughout ALL people who can donate.
Here is a tougher dilemma then. Imagine you and a bunch of other people are at the beach. You and several other people are standing near the water when you hear a kid in the water drowning and crying out for help. Given that there are a bunch of other people around, is the same factor of diffusion of responsibility at play here as there was with the charity?
There certainly is diffusion but not nearly as much as giving money to people on another continent.
@@alexandertownsend3291 i think instincts would be activated right there and then, so the one who reacts the fastest and is the most confident would try to go save that child, whereas those instincts are not as strong when it's someone you can't see, so the same thing happens as in bystander behaviour (with the difference that the person is not in front of you)
Yep that sounds like the bystander effect.
Great point! I hadn't thought of that. Valuable insight. Thanks.
Jesus: sell all your belongings, donate to the poor and follow me
Modern day Christians: Jesus help make me more successful and rich
Finally, the hipocrisy. And they say atheists are going to hell when atheists are more good than them.
Edit: please don't think all christians are the same, I can say it by myself, my mother helped a family for six months until the father could have a job.
Don't forget he told people to buy swords
@@wallpello_1534 I think he said it in a metaphorical manner.
Edit: I just read the Bible and was not a metaphor
Another edit: I might have been misleading. So here is what I read:
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.
DEUS VULT
@John Fernandez In fact the first of his requirements is to forsake all to follow him. His early followers did so leaving everything to be with him and receive his teachings. They left family, home, work, dreams and plans for the future and even their own lives to fulfill the mission entrusted to them; in fact they sold their properties and their goods, and distributed them to all according to the needs of each one.
But today most self-proclaimed Christians try to change the meaning of Jesus' words to avoid
doing it the Jesus way.
Here is an example... ua-cam.com/video/tAyF0TD-Xec/v-deo.html
Wow, I'm really loving the self exploration and growth you've undertaken over the years. From expanding on athiesm, to becoming vegan, then an antinatalist and now your compassion towards those less fortunate. You are truely becoming a better person every day and sharing your expierences with us so that others can learn and better themselves as well
Wait is Alex an antinatalist
@@existentialbowlofnoodles2495 Not sure if he classifies or titles himself as an antinatlist but he's interviewed David Benatar and made videos about whether life is worth beginning or not.
I find it interesting how this concept fits in with minimalism and contentness. I've found it really interesting having a system where I match all my non-essential materialistic spending in donations, it very much makes me think about the value of things I buy and often has stopped me from getting pointless stuff. And it feels so great to be generous like that too. And it reminds me not to take such things for granted.
I occasionally provide food and blankets to the homeless. I am skeptical of most charities. I would be surprised if even 1% of a donation made it to the "starving child" somewhere else in the world..
I agree, I don't trust most charities.
I think what Alex means by charity in this context is merely the act of helping. Be it donating money, volunteer work or whichever way you deem most efficient in saving the child.
If we want to end poverty, placing the responsibility to end it on the individual through charity is not the answer, it might mitigate poverty and suffering slightly, but won't end it.
alex always sounds so pained when he transitions to sponsorship lmao
That's a good thing though
Love the different locations you film at. Really spiced up the video!
Is no one going to talk about the transition into the advertisement? Had me dying... xD
lmao the closeup 🤣
Was just checking my phone in bed, goodbye sleep then.
Same here... it's 2:30 am and I have an exam in the morning
Sell it. xD
@@late8641
Oof I have exams Thursday & Friday. Scared bad.
Good luck to both of you! You've got this!
@@barry7136
Thanks but probably not lol. I have an exam & a certification test for one class & I’m confident on the exam but on the certification, not so much. Pretty sure I’m gonna fail it & gonna get a C as a final on the class which my family doesn’t find acceptable.
I haven't finished watching the video yet but regarding the drowning child/charity, I think one of the main reasons it feels different is because with charity there's a third party involved, with the drowning child only yourself is responsible so you have a much greater knowledge that your actions will indeed save the child, with charity we're not 100% sure that it will save any life or what our money is even being used for, that sense of the unknown and not being in charge I think is the main reason those two scenarios feel different.
This new style of video made watching much more entertaining, keep it up Alex!
The moral paralysis part! So interesting, I always get stuck in it and end up not knowing what to do
When I saw the title, my mind went"my gosh"..... And when u said it is not about me turning into minimalism, I was relieved.😀
Whats wrong with minimalism?
@@Jerard715 nothing. Just seems to me a bit contradictory to get into nihilism in order to get out of nihilism
@@Jerard715 Nothing inherently but people tend to push the idea on to others.
@@langkuai2671 what
@@65firered "push onto others" what the hell do people mean when they say this? Like by physical force or threat? Or like discussion?
The quality of your videos ha improved so much! Especially this one was really pleasant to see with all the different places :)
Being an ex-christian I have a very difficult time trusting charities with my money. I guess I still feel some guilt knowing the money I used to give helped perpetuate the indoctrination of vulnerable people. I really liked this video as it really makes you think. Keep up the good work!
The book mentioned (the life you can save) talks about this issue, and many others. Search "effective altruism" as a topic of discussion. Charity navigator mostly just focuses on how much of a dollar given is used in overhead vs goes towards the charitable end, but doesn't address a more important issue -- how effective is that dollar.
An example from the book: say someone in your community is blinded and everyone pitches in to raise the $30K or so cost of training a guide dog for that person. Everyone feels they've done good and 100% of the raised money went to training the dog. But that same amount of money could have prevented river blindness in hundreds of children in certain areas of Africa, even though the charity which does that work has some overhead and isn't 100% efficient. Singer argues that as compelling as it is to give to the one local blind guy, it is better to save hundreds of children from river blindness even though you will never meet them.
Go to thelifeyoucansave.org -- it has links to vetted effective charities, and you can download a PDF of the book (it is a short read) or download an audio of various celebrities reading chapters of the book.
That's the nice thing about research - you're not obligated to give money, but you're free to do so, to whoever you decide. You can (and should) research any recipient to make sure your money will go towards reducing overall suffering rather than increasing it.
Just make sure to research and donate to secular charities instead! You can still make the world a better place without giving to anything religious!
indoctrination of voulnerable people? Wdym?
"Each child you save takes five minutes to save. How many children will you save?"
Literally one. Every other child has drowned while you were saving one.
Then change it to every five minutes another child starts drowning.
@@deebles4082 Then the moral thing to do would be to prevent future children from drowning instead of waiting five minutes for the next one to start drowning so you can enjoy saving them. Like maybe cover up/fill in what they are drowning in, or arresting the person who keeps trying to drown the children.
@@Bendilin it's a thought experiment
@@scy3591 Precisely, and I am thinking of the most moral solution to the experiment. If I can stop and assess the situation, I can prevent further children from even begin drowning to start with. Preventing an issue will always be preferable to having to solve it once it' becomes an issue. Idle hands, etc.
@@Bendilin Preventing children from falling into puddles in your city is a waaaaaaaaaay more manageable problem than solving systemic poverty in third world countries.
A question that comes to my head is "What would happen if all of us put our cars on sale? Who would buy them?".
someone w/o a car? :)
And then that person could sell it again :)
Always so concise and clear, Alex. Well done.
There exists an ethical “happy medium” between Abject Greed and living like some shoeless monk. Both are impractical for most humans.
As a Hurricane Katrina survivor I can tell you firsthand that it’s fine to own what you need and some things you just want, just don’t get too attached to them and don’t expect them to act as a substitute for learning how to respect yourself and others.
There. I just saved you decades of pointless poverty.
You’re welcome.
Shoeless monk lol, that did put a smile on my face (:
Plot twist: there was an actual child in the car
Plot twist: He is pro choice...
@@ChaosReignsXxX If you want to save the most amount of lives being pro-choice makes sense.
@@ChaosReignsXxX plot twist: Alex' position on abortion cannot be boiled down to neither "pro choice" nor "pro life". He's got a more nuanced view on the topic.
Very thought-provoking, Alex. Also loved this style of video!
Charities indicate a systemic issue. We should be looking to eradicate poverty by implementing policies that would benefit society as a whole. No matter how much you give to charity, in a classist society, there will always be poverty. Since we operate as part of the system, what we should be looking to change in order to make things better is the system. Giving money to charity is like putting a bandage on a never-closing wound. Poverty is perpetuated because there are systemic problems and no matter how much money you donate, the problem remains. This is not a moral issue but rather a reflection of a poorly constructed society that favors the rich. Saving the drowning child is not the same as saving people who struggle because of horrible distribution of resources. A local murder is not the same as the murder of George Floyd. One is a random occurrence and the other is a result of systemic racism. We shouldn't be looking to change things on an individual level but rather on societal level. Maybe money is better spent in education and funding projects that push towards systemic change rather than naively thinking that your charity dollar is changing the world.
Such a timely video. I recently fobbed off a charity in a shopping centre and asked myself how I could morally justify doing that every time, while acknowledging that I can't give to them all.
A lot of the charities that are hitting you up at shopping centers are sub-optimal in terms of overhead and effectiveness. A lot of them will have a deal with the store that's pushing them, to give them cut of the money donated, which is pretty fucked IMO. Much better to do your research and pick the charities yourself. I almost never donate in person to a charity that's asking, but will look them up later and donate online if they seem legit. Most of my donating is from charities I found and researched myself online.
How he manages to express my thoughts exactly, but just with a lot more literary understanding, is just beyond me.
My issue with this is that we only have expendable cash from jobs. If for example I work at a fast food place and everyone decides to follow this principle and never buys fast food because it isn't essential, then I've lost my job and my ability to then provide money to charity. The principle seems to defeat itself as if everyone followed it, it could only last for so long as so many jobs would be lost no one would have the money to send it to charity? so our pointless purchases are what, in a way, keeps Singers point alive. I guess a virtuous balance would be to send 'some money to charity' while still maintaining a certain level of pointless or unnecessary purchases to make everyone keeps having spare money to send to charities
This is an interesting point, and I've pondered a similar question, myself: are we're obligated to prevent the harms of global warming by avoiding unnecessary consumption?
For both problems, I think the solution is to split jobs. For example, each person works for 30 hours per week instead of 40 hours per week, and their pay decreases by the same portion. Then, they use their excess time for charitable activities.
I asked myself this question many years ago as a child after witnessing extreme poverty as someone privileged enough to have parents rich enough to afford overseas travel. I never and still haven't found an answer that was satisfying. it hurts to give up everything and it hurts not to.
Excellent video as always Alex, very powerful arguments brought forward. If I may, my one suggestion for those looking to be involved in helping/ donating to charities I feel it would be best to look to local charities, these charities can be more rewarding as you can see the immediate effects of their work on the nominal community of which you are a part of, choose a charity that you have actually seen firsthand change the lives of people/animals and make an impact because it’s easier to tell that these are genuine. It can be a charity that works abroad - All I’m saying is that local charities have to hold more accountability for upholding their aims as you can actually witness the work they do more obviously. It’s always engaging as well to get involved in helping a charity that you have a personal attachment to, which tend to be locally based. I personally survive on little income so I’ve recently began to dedicate time to helping charities and intend to continue to do so as I am lucky to be aware of the existence of some great genuine charities that I know are only in the interest of helping those in need.
So I'm an animal abuser for eating eggs and now I'm a child murderer for buying clothes. Thanks CosmicSkeptic.
I would just take my £100 shoes off before saving the child,,, just sayin
You dont have time to do that and you don't think of it in the moment. Your welcome
There are leeches in the water!
Then they stolen by the child's friend since they were both in on the scam.
@@TheMoMoBigGC where is my welcome?
@Simulating - this could be a joke but a lot of people think that's how you counter-argument a hypothetical. The hypothetical can be changed in order to lose 100$ everytime, it doesn't have to be shoes
Your videos make me hate myself, but I keep coming back for more
Great edit, great script, great video!!
Note to self (and others): Watch the video before commenting
I refuse!
I am going to not Obey and tell you that you are absolutely right.
To late
I'm not gonna watch another video about minimalism
Nobody does that.
intro had me thinking Alex is turning into Tom Scott
With a darker colour scheme
@@emilejetzer7657 and better color grading
I think it depends on the point where "unnecessary" purchases don't actually improve your life much. If I recall they've done studies where your happiness increases with income up to a point where happiness plateaus, and I think in some studies it actually starts going down once you reach a certain level of wealth. I think once you hit that point where wealth is no longer doing much to improve your happiness, it's time to start dedicating your surplus wealth to helping others.
I heard something similar from Alex in one of his podcast clips and I thought "Man, I wish he made some more short videos on this matter"
So thanks.
What about an economic objection, if no one bought unessential things companies would go broke, jobs would be lost, poverty would increase, etc.
we should just throw away our corrupt economic system i.e. capitalism
@@saii221 You mean the economic model that brought us the most prosperity in history and which keeps improving in countries where its actually developped the best, such as in Europe? Nahh. More like we need it more of it.
Stop ruining the comment section of this great vid, leftards.
Light industry and tech is what creates the most jobs and economic growth these days. When we're so prosperous we can even mass produce things that are not essential for living, we did something right. The prosperity surplus can and does indeed help those in the most need.
There would be an economy based on helping people. So the economy would still be there, just less people working in entertainment and luxury and more people working in hospitals, developing vaccins, producing mosquito nets and the infrastructure around that. Compare with government spending, that is also stimulating the economy. Also, if everybody was into this, the biggest problems would be solved pretty quickly. The differences in wealth are so huge, that if we wanted, global poverty could be solved within a year.
“The most good you can do” by Peter Singer was one of the best books I’ve ever read!
Is it ironic to buy a copy of "the life you can save"? Is it morally right to pirate the book, and give the money you would pay to charity?
Burn your money
Asked for this + animal liberation for Christmas!
@PMF Singer actually takes a step back from such a radical formulation of effective altruism in “the most good you can do.” Singer gives loads of examples of people he supports that have loads of possessions and lots of money but also donate a lot to charity. In this book, Singer, like Alex in this video, simply wants people to start doing the most good they can reasonably do. Even in Famine, Affluence, and Mortality Singer doesn’t think it reasonable for everyone to give up all their belongings. The newest edition of it even has a forward by the Gates.
The Office!
The issue with this, is that the moment you actually give money to charity - you also put a price on what you’re willing to give to save whatever it is.
This means, you don’t feel as bad for not giving, as you would for giving a little (but potentially) or larger sum.
Should I subscribe to ExpressVPN? Or should I save a child by donating that money to charity instead?
You really stumped me.
Thx bro. Ive been thinking about this lately, and its nice to get a New perspective
The difference is variables. If I save the child, I know the child is saved without anyone else doing anything. How do I know my money is going to help anyone? It could be inefficiently used, siphoned, used for research that never amounts to anything, used for research that has negative aspects. Theres so much less certainty. Surely that matters. The less sure you are that the effort you give will have the desired affect, the less likely a reasonably moral person will give the effort.
Take your child in a car scenario. If your friend comes over and he tells you about the baby in the car about to be electrocuted and tells you the remote is in your neighbors house that you don't like (cost of giving). He tells you to get it to save the baby, and then drives away. Was it a prank? Is he high? He looked frantic and he's your friend though.
Now that there are variables, it seems much less wrong on a moral scale to avoid taking action.
Well done, great video.
I'm always reluctant to donating as I was doing it for years. Then to realise that these companies keep majority of it and donate a fraction of it. And the CEO drive Range Rovers and live in mansions...hard to find a trusting charity now days
I believe Jesus said "If you wish to follow me, give up all that you have." How many Christians do you know who follows that commandment?
LOL. Damn that does damage! "You didn't follow this commandment attack is very effective!"
Not what he said. I think he said to deny yourself and take up the cross. (Luke 9:23). Maybe you’re thinking of the parable of the rich man who didn’t want to sell his possessions cause he was kinda stingy. (Matthew 19:16-20)
I do believe we should take care of the needy though, the Bible says so (Proverbs 14:31) , and even if you’re not religious it’s still the right thing. Have a great day😊
@@user-uh5qv9jc5o As with his admonition, "you must be perfect as your father is perfect", was
intended to enforce his insistence upon forgiveness, not perfection. NO ONE other than the delusional
imagines giving up everything or being perfect is a reality.
Yet Jesus also said "the poor are with you always" when Judas had complained about the perfume which had been poured on Jesus
@@langreeves6419 yeah because his burial was happening soon and the lady with the perfume was preparing him for it. I don’t think he was saying that the poor aren’t important just explaining that they’ll still be here after his burial. (Matthew 26:6-13)
Save a child? Get VPN? Save a child? Get VPN? Save a child? Get VPN?
Both :)
One problem in donating money to charity is knowing how much actually gets to the recipients of whatever charity is being supported. Some years ago it was reported that at Oxfam only pennies on the dollar actually reached the recipients. Churches also seem to spend a lot of money on big fancy buildings, at least in the USA, when they are also supposedly helping the poor.
The fancy shoes helped me get a good paying job where I made lots more money to in the end donate to charity. It's not so cut and dry!
There actually is a difference between a drowning child some feets away from you and a starving child on the other side of the globe: Locality and Possibilities. Look, in the first case, it's literally in my hands if the child survives, I must do it quick, I'm close to the catastrophe and there is an instant feedback if my action succeeded or not. The same can't be said about the second case of a child dying on the other side of the globe.
Would you pay someone to get to Africa and stand next to a sea of water to watch out for drowning kids?...
You know that's stupid it's a metaphor of course if you pay for food you'll be saving a life maybe get them through a rough time
@@davidevans3223 "You know that's stupid it's a metaphor"
A metaphor that was used as an argument and analogy.
"of course if you pay for food you'll be saving a life maybe get them through a rough time"
But here comes the problem of Locality and Possibilities: I can't just give them some euros or dollars like I could give a friend some money.
Do you give every poor person in your region money for food?
@@Kevidiffel He explained in the video why location does not affect the moral imperative. Did you watch it?
@@Kevidiffel sure but you made out it would be wasted money but giving a couple of quid to a charity will make a difference they get cheep food and take a few penny's in the pound for wages and running costs I'm not saying do it only it's never wasted
@@drewroberts139 I watched the first 3 1/2 minutes and yes, location does affect everything here and problems exist all around the globe. People are dying in more places than Africa.
‘I can do this without anyone tracking my data’ apart from the VPN company who sell it on...
Yes, but there is, I presume, a part of the agreement with the VPN that they have to destroy that data
Damn, that's deep. I was so entranced that I sat through all 17 minutes of it without even noticing.
Me as a poor PhD student: non-essential spending? What is that?
I literally just read Peter singers paper in my philosophy class
What did you think? (If you’re not too fed up of it 😅)
I am dying to hear Karl Pilkington's thoughts on this topic.
I stopped listening to the XFM podcasts to watch this 😅
Concentrating each year on a different cause... there’s something to it, you know! Maybe not the way he exactly suggested 😂
For me the distance argument is more about emotional distance than physical distance.
I would care far more for a dying child of a close friend , than 10 starving children I have never and will never see. Seeing a child drown immediately gives a closer connection than any picture, movie or story ever could. Let alone an unknown, unseen, hypothetical child in a far away place.
Hi Alex, I manage one of the programmes recommended by the Life You Can Save - it's called seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). Thanks for the super interesting video. A large part of the funding we receive comes from the effective altruism community, which is heavily influenced by Peter Singer's philosophy. I therefore benefit professionally from the radical utilitarianism that underpins effective altruism, but I've always struggled with that philosophy, at least in part because of the demandingness issue. Your video has given me plenty of food for thought - I'm definitely going to read the Timmerman paper!
I think the analogy also fails because of some bystander effect going on here: When we pass the pond and notice the drowning child, the problem is presented as if there is no one else who could possibly save the child. But millions of people give to charity, so the "one respective child" that YOUR money could have saved, might be saved by someone else's donation. Of course, this doesn't free you from giving to charity whatsoever. But I think it definitely decreases the amount of money you should "morally" be expected to give.
Except everyone takes that out (including me) and we are left with lots of children dying
@@olavrask9729 Yes, that's the problem with the bystander effect: the more people could be helping, the less inclined we are individually to actually help. But that's why the hypothetical situation isn't really analogous to giving to charity imo.
@@cocacraesh I guess you are right about it making the analogy less accurate. I was more thinking in terms of wether it decreases the amount of money you should morally be expected to give. I mean I might be wrong here (and of course thats why it's interesting to discuss with people on the internet) but isn't it like saying "If other people are immoral then I am also justified to be immoral"?
@@olavrask9729 What I got from this video is that Singer's hypothetical situation leaves you with the dilemma that every penny you spend on anything non-essential would be spent "immorally" because you are not saving that drowning child.
However, Alex here gave an argument on why you shouldn't be expected to spend every single "disposable" penny of yours on charity.
The idea I wanted to bring up was that the hypothetical situation is also disanalogous because of the bystander effect: When you are the only one who could possibly save that child, I think the burden is pretty much on you to at least try and save that child. But imagine the same situation with 900 people standing around that pond and maybe some of them are stronger and better swimmers than you. Of course you have the moral obligation to help in the child's rescue, but maybe your "burden" is smaller than in the case when you are alone.
So to say, it's not just MY obligation to give to charity and solve poverty around the world, but also EVERYONE's obligation and therefore I should not be expected to give all of my money which I would spend on "unnecessary" goods and services. I hope this makes my point clearer.
@@cocacraesh For sure. I think I understood initially. And I see what you say about stronger swimmers and so on. Just in reality it would seem there are a lot of children in the water. Maybe everyone should jump in and it would be immoral not to :D For the record I'm not claiming to have thought this from every angle but it just still feel like a cop out to me. Or I guess basically the video, for me, didn't really give a convincing arguments against the original dilemma. Not that I'm giving all my stuff away. Just I don't know if I can truly morally justify not doing it. It gets me thinking about being completely moral. At what point can you say ok this person is as moral as can be expected. And what is the measure to judge that by - what everyone else does kind of feel weak but it's probably part of it on some level.. anyway.. time to sleep :)
Alex your amazing 👏 your even making me, Jesus shed a tear
How could you let those poor children die?
@@richardk5246 I work in mysterious ways 😅
@@yeshuachrist2300 I think I visited that shop.
Thank you oily josh
@@billnyethesciencesguy no problem 😉
Charity is sometimes the people around you, like helping family members who cannot find a job.
Great Video!!
All of my possessions are junk.
Facts hollow gratification
Same, including my own brain
I am just above homelessness, and so all of my possessions are the bulwark between comfort and existential pain, and I'd still save the child, regardless of what it did to my shoes. Because there is Right and Wrong. And anyone who says otherwise is totally sus in my book. Anyone who places their shoes over the life of another person, hell, even over an animal that they could save, is a crap person, and not worthy of any more introspection.
I'm junk
I'm always mad at how my family refuse to donate to charity, but they always give money to the church so the preacher can buy a new car
Well, they are buying themselves a ticket to heaven.
But but but if Je$u$/God$, didn't want him to have that car, then surely he would stop him from getting it, right? ..right?
As opposed to a charity so its CEO can buy a new car?
Very interesting topic!
great video, thank you ! Could you maybe do a video on your favorite books in 2020 ?
"I'm turning into a full-time UA-camr"
I thought this was about minimalism, i lost everything to a hurricane and became a minimalist just because it would be easier to get back on track.
I find the hardest part to be knowing the full ramifications of our actions. In our complex world it is unlikely to be as clear as we think, in particular when you consider effects over long time periods.
Really thought provoking and frankly life changing
the question is how much our money helps these people, i think the problem is much bigger then just filling charities with money
This is youthfully inspiring but short sided and generically naive. It lacks understanding of evil, corruption, and balance in ones life. Many have traveled the same path few make it.
The dilemma is not about distance, it’s about actually knowing that there’s a problem. With the kid drowning, you can see that yourself. With some charity for kids thousands of miles away, you don’t even know if they exist or not. You can’t see your assistance helping before your very eyes. When you pull a kid out of water, that’s instant gratification.
Such an important video. I’ve been putting this off for some time now. my reason being “not sure if there are any reputable charities “. I’m changing that today. I will look into this link you’ve provided. I happily give my time to cooking vegan food for the homeless at shelters; but I agree we can all do a little more. I’m quite content with a very simple life,. A roof over my head and food, is more than sufficient, especially when so many go without. Keep up the great content, and inspiration, I look forward to those books as well 🙏🏼
I love that this answers my question on the last Cosmic Sceptic video i viewed, to a T
My friend once said: “All charity is a failure of the state.” That did make me wonder why there’s a presumption of moral need for charity on the part of us individuals.
The State should guarantee people's freedom, not take the product of our labor and our possessions (money) by force to distribute it to other people. Charity should be a personal decision, not a mandatory thing from the nanny state. How moral is charity if done through coercion?
@@Mozz78000 I think the drowning child is just as happy if you save it through your own free will as it is if you are forced to save it. Should 'how moral you feel' doing it be part of the equation?
It is true to some extent. But it is not the failure of the french state, if children are dying in Somalia, for exemple.
That's what robin hood said! But in all seriousness it's your hard work you didn't take it from anyone so no one else but you has the moral right to decide whee it should go, if you want to give to others do it from your own possessions not from other people's hard work.
If charity is the responsibility of the state then you have to pay more taxes, and it becomes a duty imposed on all individuals, not merely on voluntary basis.
I like singers story about one of his students, a humanitarian who envisioned working for an org that helped the worlds poor. Instead, after hearing Singers arguments, he worked out what he would need to earn to have a comfortable modest life and then set his sights on going to work for Goldman Sachs. He achieved that goal, lives a modest comfortable life and donates the rest of his high salary to charity. Intentions matter, as I suppose getting an education to qualify him for a job at Goldman Sachs and then getting one, required him to buy quality clothes and shoes, to occasionally eat at fancy restaurants, and purchase the latest technology devices.
a lot of people don't give to charities because the directors and managers usually syphon off a heap of money for themselves and then, after legitimate expenses are paid, only about 10% of your donation gets to where you expect most of it to go.