Can we, and should we, measure the the morality of inaction? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ignored?UA-cam&
Perhaps one of the issues regarding our collective failure to *stop* certain actions is the perceptibility of individual attribution? That's why, I think, some programs give a specific name and say "You can sponsor THIS person" by name. Then I can say "*MY* specific action had *THIS* specific impact on *THAT* specific person". Otherwise, throwing $5 into a huge pot that is hard to trace to a result, and yet harder to trace back to myself has less perceptible feedback that I can attribute to myself - I'm acting on almost pure faith. In terms of pure *inaction*, I wonder can any type of reciprocity approach be put into practice? Some way to make the potential actor feel committed? I was listening to a podcast that talked about how free gifts, given UP FRONT, make a person feel like a cheat if they don't subsequently reciprocate - even if the suggested reciprocity is out of proportion to the initial gift.
Wow, what a patronizing, chauvinistic simplification and stereotype. And of course the implication is that Non-Westerners are less sophisticated and advanced than Westerners. This is racism, pure and simple.
Oh no... effective altruism. Such a sham (see various deep-dives if this seems surprising to you, e.g. PhilosophyTube's, though there are various others as well). I just discovered Sophie Scott-Brown recently, and was excited about some of her ideas about anarchism... should I worry that she's wrapped up in Peter Singer's ideology?? (I think no, based on what she's saying. I hope not.) And where does iai fall in all this?
Thank you all very much for having this conversation. I have been telling people for years that how we spend our money is being complacent in or standing against the unethical and immoral practices of the businesses we choose to shop at or work for or bank with, etc..
When you create an environment where you allow people to believe in lies by staying silent, to me, is more evil than just flat out lying. Just give it to me straight, I'm a big boy, I can handle it.
Each person has a part inside of the Self that wants to run the show, what we see is a lack of composition for self and therefore others through miscommunication between the inner critic or critical inner voice and our other inner parts.
Hmm, decrease the world populations naturally all while increasing the well-being and standard of life around the planet... I suppose the need for this would have to be similar to Mr. Singer's prospective. Of course with a drastic decrease in world populations, naturally.
Естественным путём сократить население планеты никак не получится. Тут или применять биологическое оружие с неизвесными последствиями. Или начать глобальную войну с уничтожением мирного населения на захваченных территориях. А по другому население нашей планеты не сократится.
@@tolyamochin4066 That is nonsense, period... By limiting the live births and letting the natural death rate surpass this birth rate. It is the immediate rational position to the damages of overpopulation in the world, and the most humane.
@@tolyamochin4066 My hope is that there is a cultural shift towards not having kids. But I also think improvements in AI will allow people to have virtual kids, which give the benefits of parenthood without the hassle/cost/environmental damage.
Singer is a "free will" extremist, and yet his admonitions take the form of determinism. Agency requires information above all, and there is little evidence that people have the requisite data to make "free" choices.
This entire “conversation”, which is at heart three “academics” all arguing the same point, whic is this: Because “climate change” (insert dogmatic belief system here) Then : carbon footprint tracker redistribution scheme. Do they all think they’re just being clever, or something?
Can we, and should we, measure the the morality of inaction? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ignored?UA-cam&
Perhaps one of the issues regarding our collective failure to *stop* certain actions is the perceptibility of individual attribution? That's why, I think, some programs give a specific name and say "You can sponsor THIS person" by name. Then I can say "*MY* specific action had *THIS* specific impact on *THAT* specific person". Otherwise, throwing $5 into a huge pot that is hard to trace to a result, and yet harder to trace back to myself has less perceptible feedback that I can attribute to myself - I'm acting on almost pure faith.
In terms of pure *inaction*, I wonder can any type of reciprocity approach be put into practice? Some way to make the potential actor feel committed? I was listening to a podcast that talked about how free gifts, given UP FRONT, make a person feel like a cheat if they don't subsequently reciprocate - even if the suggested reciprocity is out of proportion to the initial gift.
Westerners build societies on trust and morality. Non-Westerners built societies on kinship ties.
Wow, what a patronizing, chauvinistic simplification and stereotype. And of course the implication is that Non-Westerners are less sophisticated and advanced than Westerners. This is racism, pure and simple.
Freedom is anarchy,,who's brave enough to want that.
What a bunch of entitled brats.
Oh no... effective altruism. Such a sham (see various deep-dives if this seems surprising to you, e.g. PhilosophyTube's, though there are various others as well).
I just discovered Sophie Scott-Brown recently, and was excited about some of her ideas about anarchism... should I worry that she's wrapped up in Peter Singer's ideology?? (I think no, based on what she's saying. I hope not.) And where does iai fall in all this?
Thank you all very much for having this conversation. I have been telling people for years that how we spend our money is being complacent in or standing against the unethical and immoral practices of the businesses we choose to shop at or work for or bank with, etc..
When you create an environment where you allow people to believe in lies by staying silent, to me, is more evil than just flat out lying. Just give it to me straight, I'm a big boy, I can handle it.
Each person has a part inside of the Self that wants to run the show, what we see is a lack of composition for self and therefore others through miscommunication between the inner critic or critical inner voice and our other inner parts.
Hmm, decrease the world populations naturally all while increasing the well-being and standard of life around the planet... I suppose the need for this would have to be similar to Mr. Singer's prospective. Of course with a drastic decrease in world populations, naturally.
Totally agree that massive decrease in world population would be a great solution. Just need to persuade people that having kids is a dumb idea.
Естественным путём сократить население планеты никак не получится. Тут или применять биологическое оружие с неизвесными последствиями. Или начать глобальную войну с уничтожением мирного населения на захваченных территориях. А по другому население нашей планеты не сократится.
@@tolyamochin4066 That is nonsense, period... By limiting the live births and letting the natural death rate surpass this birth rate. It is the immediate rational position to the damages of overpopulation in the world, and the most humane.
@@tolyamochin4066 My hope is that there is a cultural shift towards not having kids. But I also think improvements in AI will allow people to have virtual kids, which give the benefits of parenthood without the hassle/cost/environmental damage.
Waiting for mothers to start washing their baby's cloth diapers.
Singer is a "free will" extremist, and yet his admonitions take the form of determinism. Agency requires information above all, and there is little evidence that people have the requisite data to make "free" choices.
What data do you think is required to make a free choice?
Parasites and solidarity!
This entire “conversation”, which is at heart three “academics” all arguing the same point, whic is this:
Because “climate change” (insert dogmatic belief system here)
Then : carbon footprint tracker redistribution scheme.
Do they all think they’re just being clever, or something?
First
First