Agnostic.com

3 3

LINK Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil - YouTube

Kaplan makes a sound case for Singer, which I remember from 1972 and agree with, but too much sound in making it. Advance him 10 sec's when he's getting repetitive or explaining what we already get and Kaplan gets to the sound parts. Singer's problematic fact is that people are not a moral species. We adopt morality for networking advantages but give it up when it's inconvenient. That's a truth which I think is important but I'm a very bored man🤔

rainmanjr 8 Apr 16
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I can see his point but is he maybe being a bit naive. Luxury is relative and what is luxurious in one country is ordinary in another.
There is also the problem of corruption in third world countries. How much of the aid actually reaches the people who need it.
Think about the old saying " as cold as charity". What is the motivation of the people giving.
I would much rather see wealthy countries increase taxation, particularly on the super rich and increase their aid budgets. Certainly give the aid money to organisations like Red Cross where there is less chance of the money falling into the hands of a corrupt dictator, and stop selling arms.
Without the sales of arms from western countries the current conflict in Sudan would struggle.

I think the problems related to specific charities or money distributions are unrelated to Singer's point about what giving does for the individual and how that acts as a check on money's corruptions but your idea is well taken. I was unhappy to see the tax write-off for charitable donations end. Ultimately I think money/resource distribution is best done through govt which does so on a verified need and equitable funding basis.

1

There is a site that grades charities [charitynavigator.org]. Early on I became interested in how some charities (mostly backed by religious groups) can actually cause harm. I was involved with a group Children International, that was run by a religion and, of course, no talk about family planning and schools were always religious schools. Another active group (even today) is Heifer Int'l. On the front it seems a good idea. But all the pictures with cute animals and smiling children are a sort of bait and switch. I did a little research and found a major problem. Most animals are eventually slaughtered. Most families receiving animals have no clue about animal husbandry and the animals are often placed in areas whose climate is not conducive for the specific animal. A lot of animals die and the people are left even worse than they started. Groups that offer food to the needy also create a huge problem. Food cannot be distributed to rural areas so food centers are set up. In no time those distribution centers become settlements. When people are well fed, of course they bear offspring who also need food so the problem is made worse. More food = more births which, in turn means more food is needed.

Thanks for the info. As I said to @ASTRALMAX, the charity's org problems have no effect on Singer's dictum to give to one (or more). I confess that I do not but also stand ready to give my Niece/Nephew (especially the Nephew) more as they need it. I've taken care of my entire cremation and burial so that cost won't affect my other Niece and Nephew but what I have is not enough to live on if the SS were to end. The old woman I live with calls me paranoid but I think she just criticizes what is rational. My point is that there are charitable ways to treat money that I think have the same purpose for the giver.

2

What Singer either overlooked was oblivious to is the fact of how the money you donate to charities is managed and how much actually reaches those in need. I worked for a medical research charity and had dealings with other charities. Before you donate money to any charity go their headquarters and have a look at the staff car park , it was an eye opener for me. There is a considerable amount of money wasted in the administration of some charities. I am not saying do not donate money to charity just pick your charity carefully.

You can go online and find the actual statistics on what is spent /how/where from several sites. that is one of my main criteria when choosing a charity.
Oh, and when you get phone calls, Ask! by law they must tell you if you ask...they won't want to, and the line may get 'disconnected'.......

Singer was not concerned about the management of money, only the intention and distribution of it as a resource, but that's a good point about charities.

I'd been in small-ish audience, & then spoken with Peter Singer. He was very aware of percentage of dollar donated that goes to practical & effective use, not administration, and of long-term consequences. From his range of suggestions, I donated to Fred Hollows, as admin costs were covered by corporate sponsorship. Every $25 donated went to restore eyesight of one person. I can't imagine a negative consequence of that.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:719562
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.