Poverty: Moral Dilemma - Why You Might NOT Save A Child From Drowning - Learn Liberty 

We can care deeply - selflessly - about those we know, but that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight.

Who else is here because their professor made them watch it. XD

In the late 90s, I studied philosophy at Monash University, right after Singer's departure to Princeton. And although the lecturers who filled his shoes were nothing short of excellent, I still regret not starting that course one year earlier and getting taught directly by someone who is a legend in his time.

the analogy is only accurate if every single day you walk to work you see hundreds of children drowning. do you then devote your life to pulling children out of the water, or is it enough to only help one or two each day and let the rest die? that's the philosophical question at stake.

There are a few problems extending Singer's Dilemma to children starving or being killed on the other side of the world. In Singer's dilemma there are a few assumptions most people will make. I would say a common assumption is that the 500$ loss is a one time loss for a one time event for a healthy child that will live a long time without further assistance or interaction from the rescuer. The results of the action are immediate and clear. You lose your suit the child is saved. Now with a charity the results from what you donate to the charity are never clear. Also you do not know if your aid will extend a child's life 40 years, 30 years, 5 years, or a mere few days, and at what point do you cut off that charity to the child who's life you have prolonged? How effectively is the charity using your money? There is no clear outcome to your donation. You cannot reasonably compare the two scenarios.

The fact is, there is no true selflessness. When you jump into the lake to save the child, you're not actually pursuing what's right, you are pursuing the mental well being that comes with saving the child even if it comes to the cost of your expensive suit.

The analogy fails because of some overlooked details. First, a child drowning in front of you exists in your country. You do not have to take national sovereignty into account. If the child you saw drowning was not drowning in a pond, but on the other side of a river bordering Mexico, you might have a legal and safety reason not to save that same child. Second, it is difficult, if not impossible to ensure that donated funds get distributed correctly and legally in a country for which the rule of law does not apply in the same way it does in America, and that assumes that the charity is legitimate, efficient, and effective (also a very difficult task). Africa is a prime example of how foreign aid of food, medicine, and money has propped up dictators, not made long-term (and sometimes even short term) improvements in the lives of the individual citizens of those countries. Third, in those countries with legitimate democracies, where the people decide their leaders and their government's policies, any significant poverty not caused by natural disasters can be placed firmly at the feet of the citizens and their choices. As such, aiding them amounts to little more than encouraging future bad decisions, since we will have removed or softened the negative incentives of bad behavior. I donate a lot of money and occasionally my time to charity. However, I do not think for a second that this will have any meaningful impact on the history of the world. Technological advancement has done more to improve the material quality of life for all humans, especially the poor, more than any help or aid ever has or can. First with the industrial revolution, then with the advancements that lead to high yield crops, a modern understanding of medicine and chemistry, and now even information is reaching saturation thanks to the information age. Very soon, material poverty will be impossible outside of forced starvation and other tyranny thanks to advancements in 3D printing and related technologies that will turn raw materials directly into consumable goods at little to no cost. Do not focus on helping people. Focus on getting out of the way of those creators who will push technology forward. You will get your poverty alleviation as a byproduct.

The moral dilemma neglects many other factors. First of all, I'm pretty sure most people would happily compensate the loss of the suit to someone who saved a child's life anyway so the cost isn't as great, especially when one considers the benefit that saving the child would have to one's reputation. More important, by not saving the child, you would also be placing your reputation at great risk. What if someone noticed your actions and told the local papers about it? You'd suffer far greater loss than just a suit for certain. In economics, gotta look at the unseen as well as the seen or you're not playing with a full deck. Positive moral obligations generally don't logically work unless there was prior agreement. Is it immoral if I decline to donate to save someone? First of all, everyone has someone they didn't help and suffered for it. Nobody can help everyone. What if I don't know about this person? What if I'm physically unable to donate for any reason? What if someone closer to me is in more immediate danger and I help them instead? Now, if I'm on a boat, a child falls off and I say "Stay back, I'll handle this" and then don't actually save the child. NOW I'm being immoral because I commited myself to the act and didn't follow through on it and by doing so, I probably denied that child help because others reasonably assumed I was going to save the child. This is often called the "man in a coma" rule. A man in a coma obviously cannot be said to be acting immorally. Therefore any moral claim which would qualify the man in a coma as being immoral cannot be valid.

Singer's argument is an extremely interesting argument, one which I think can actually be addressed in multiple different ways. One such interesting argument is made by Ayn Rand-- she argues that there is a difference between the 'morality of emergencies' and the morality we apply on a day to day basis. Altruism is an attempt to extend our emergency behaviour into the everyday, and it is for this reason that she thinks one can help another person in the state of emergency simply because they're human and be held morally accountable for it-- but not be held morally accountable for simply not getting involved in every case of poverty and disease that crops up, because short of epidemics a disease is pretty normal and poverty is something which is simply going to happen with any economic system. Of course, even acknowledging that Rand is right and agreeing that the day to day differs from times of emergency (this is pretty obvious, after all; being on a sinking Titanic isn't exactly the same thing as getting a cold or having fiscal troubles individually), I think many of us would still agree that we have a problem with leaving everyone out to lunch. For this reason we could certainly donate to charity of our own accord, because our personal desire is to help these people, whether we're obligated to or not. (This is especially important if you believe in free will, given that a volitional action holds a very different mean from an action made under threats or force.) What this gives us is a very strong argument against the redistribution philosophies of anti-capitalists, while still a way to retain the argument that we do care for people, because we do care for people. Beyond this, I think that there are more ways to help the poor than even charity and taxation. Taxation being a kind of theft is an important thing to remember, but I'm sure many people will argue for its practicality even in the face of its immorality, which is a prime reason why we need to demonstrate that there are multiple alternatives that can be applied and will have a similar or better impact. Charity is a good thing and every penny does help, but that doesn't necessarily make it the only volitional method. Another thing we could do is promote an overarching policy which does less to prevent the hiring of employees. Sure, those big rich one-percenters have a lot of money they're not spending and so they could "afford" to hire more people than they're hiring. But there are more costs put on them for hiring you than just your monthly paycheck, especially during the initial hiring process. The point of hiring someone is to add their efforts to your own and your staff's to increase overall profits-- it's hard to justify this when there's so much expense and legalese to get through before the new employee can even start contributing to your mutual interests, a problem which plagues small to medium businesses more than even big businesses. These additional costs, on top of pay rates, are calculated into the hiring process's cost-benefit ratio. Cut down on these, and even if a substantial addition is made to the pay of staff you'll have a much lower cost to match up against the opposing benefits side of the scale. Part of why Ford could pay his company enough that everyone was the equivalent of lower-upper-class today is because he didn't have a lot of these additional costs. One of his motives was that it lowered employee turnover rate-- something which is still a factor today, I agree, but not the only factor. It would be too limited to suggest that the low pay given to employees is "just" because companies suddenly don't have the foresight and self interest that Ford had. The truth of the matter is more so that there are fiscal limitations on what can actually be done about forethought when so many other costs now exist.

Proximity matters. We have a greater obligation to those closest to us. A parent is more responsible for their child than they are for a stranger. We are more responsible for an elderly neighbor than an old man 12 time zones away. The homeless in my own city are my caring obligation before the homeless three towns away. This is all part of the concept of subsidiarity. Matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority, which lends itself to taking care of those in our own domain who we have the ability to tend to.

Damn it Learn Liberty, now I have to donate to charity to feel like a good person.

Save the child, pretend to hurt yourself in the process. Call the press and advertise your heroism along with how noble you are. Write a book, take interviews. Give speeches. Charge everyone for the story you tell. Exactly what this video is doing. It's all about marketing dollars. Totally worth it now.

One difference - the drowning child belongs to the ingroup - same race, same nationality, same country. This is why people care much more. Also, it's in front of their eyes.

The question is at what points do you no longer have a moral obligation to give to charity? If you could live in average conditions or live in poor conditions but help dozens of children, do you have a moral obligation to live in poverty to save those lives? What about investments? You could alternatively compound your wealth and give a much greater amount to charity from your will. The fact is that global charity is complicated and humans aren’t wired to handle it, so it makes more sense to handle charity primarily on a local scale.

$500 for a suit and shoes? Someone's gotta give him a GQ magazine!

The difference between the children in Africa and the one in that pond is that the latter can ONLY be saved by me, as I'm the only one close enough to make it in time. I can't walk by thinking "someone else could do it" or "the government should do it".

At the end of the day, Money is obtained by voluntarily giving up a portion of your very own life (time spent working). You cannot force someone to give up some of their own life to help someone else that they cannot see nor confirm. It is easy to walk into a pond to rescue someone drowning (At least acting to do so, actually saving them is risky and hard, but not the point). It is not easy to wager some of your life on promises that someone somewhere will hopefully be saved eventually, especially when you can benefit yourself with something tangible.

I wonder how much Peter Singer's charitable donations are each year...

Government is immoral force to boot, so having them take our money to give to charities is not a moral effort. It devalues the act of charity to begin with, as you have no choice in the matter. On the other hand, private individuals and businesses donating to charities is great, as it's voluntary and a direct donation to the cause, weeding out as much overhead as possible (see gov bureaucracy).

The problem is we confuse emotion for morality. Emotionally you're pulled to help the kid drowning. Morally however, there is no obligation to do so. Even if you just don't want to get wet. By not helping, you neither make the situation worse, nor improve it for the kid. Given you didn't put him in the water yourself, you're entirely neutral.

Singer is wrong. The drowning child is personal and the effects of the aid are immediate and unambiguous. Giving to a charity is impersonal and ambiguous. Taxation is theft via implied violence, and supposes that it is possible to increase the overall wealth of a population by stealing from some parts of it to give to others. Not to mention that gov't adds another entire layer of ambiguity.

This is precisely why decency (anti-nudity) laws must go.

Does a drowning child (obviously helpless) represent accurately what the poor are in the U.S.? How many of those poor are actually as helpless as a drowning child?

I think the saved child should be in debt to the savior, at the going interest rate to cover cost of goods and some compensation for discomfort and reward. So there would be an incentive to help the poor, and an additional incentive for potential victims to avoid peril. That way even sociopaths would be inclined to help, and people can wave off the debt if they feel charitable.

I dont see a drowning child.... I see a child who was never taught to swim, a child whose parents were not responsible/moral/able to swim enough to help. Giving money is cool, but i dont trust that my dollar is going far, i would rather volunteer as a lifeguard or even better, have kids myself and teach them how to swim.

I feel like its different when its 24/7 because how can you be expected to constantly save ppl and the world ALL the time-if you just see one person in the water its p easily done and wont happen very often

The to situations, the kid drowning and a kid starving in a 3rd world country are different for several reasons: 1) For the kid that is drowning, you are their only hope, there are no other people around and nobody else to help save him, only your immediate action. The kid that is starving has all of the first world to look to for help and immediate action isn't required. 2) With the kid that is drowning, there is only 1 kid compared to the millions that are starving. 3) The kid that is drowning requires a single 1 time action where as feeding a starving child is a long term commitment. 4) With the kid that is drowning, you don't have to worry about people stealing the assistance you provide whereas it is common place in 3rd world countries. There is no moral equivalency.

Firstly, helping people is great and this video points out good ideas like charity and living modestly. There is a big difference between a lake where only you can help and six million children who have to have more than just you to rely on. You don't have the same moral guilt if you are not directly responsible for a life. So there IS some difference. Also, even if you walk by a child drowning in a pond, where are their supervisor? There parents or caretakers have some responsibility for not watching a child closely enough or not teaching the child well enough not to go wandering off into a lake, in which case not only should you save the child from the immediate drowning but also, if you really care about the child's life, see what the problem is with the uncaring parents. So how responsible are you to the child? Do you only save them from the water and lose the fancy clothes? Or do you go so far as to lose your own time into trying to help some misguided parents as well?

I'm not going to ruin my $500 suit, I didn't hear or see any child in the pond. Honesty(selective seeing and hearing)

There is difference between saying you should save a drowning child and saying that saving a drowning child is a good thing. For example, the assumption here seems to be that we _should_ save the child, but what are the actual reasons we should? Is it because the child's life has value, or is it because it would be easy for us? I can accept those reasons, but let's say someone decided to save the child only because he thought he might get a reward. Or how about he only saved the child because he wanted to molest him/her? ..Should they save the child still?...and would it be still considered a good thing...? In my opinion, these questions have no answers. If were talking about a potential molester saving a child, then perhaps death could be a better alternative than a life of molestation. Maybe the child is actually trying to drown himself. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that moral questions like this can't be easily answered, even though we'd really like to think it has a easy answer. We don't have all the context and we cannot presume to know all the relevant details at hand. As for the question of whether or not this could be considered a good thing to save the child. It depends on what the actual value of the person's time, shoes and clothing is. Their value may not merely be in their cost, but what they could do. For example, perhaps before you saved the child, you were on your way to a important meeting in which the lives of hundreds of people could be at stake. And by destroying your clothes and taking the time to save the child, you've destroyed that opportunity and hundreds may suffer or lose their lives as a result. ...Should you still save the child? It is not for me to decide. This is a value judgement that each of us must decide on our _own_ to decide. Unlike what Singer may say, there is no such thing as an objective moral truth. It could be perfectly plausible that by letting the boy drown, that you would actually save more lives as a result. If were being objective here, we must consider this possibility.

It's not an issue of moral obligation, in either case. You are not obligated to jump into a pond to save a drowning child, even if it seems obvious that most people would choose to do so.

It is interesting to hear this argument from Singer, who would also argue that it may not be immoral for a parent to drown their child if that child was found to have some retardation.

I think the best solution would be to cut funding for medical help in 3rd world countries, and increase funding for education. That way there would be fewer, but more educated people, who are able to generate more resources for a smaller population, resulting in a bigger share per capita. But that's another moral dilemma that won't work for anyone who cares about public opinion, because nowadays people don't care about what works, only about what feels right.

My favorite charity is GiveDirectly. They utilize direct cash transfers to help those most in need. Very little overhead and an idea that stimulates not destroys the free market.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" has been around a LOT longer than some guy named Singer

Thanks for the introduction to the givewell.org website.

I guess my objection is that in the thought experiment, the only person that can save the child is you. In the case of charity, it's not clear that specifically your donation is the only way that someone can be helped. It's similar to why CPR classes always say to specifically choose someone to go call 911 instead of commanding an entire group of bystanders, as in the latter case no one will do it (they assume someone else will). Does that make it okay? I don't know, it seems to simply be the way the human brain works and therefore is more amoral than immoral.

I don't think we have a moral obligation to give money to charities, especially not the government. As seen from your other video, America is trillions of dollars in debt, and giving away taxpayer money to people in other countries would financially cripple us. If a man is right in front of you, begging for food, buy him something to eat. But if a charitable organization begs for money, how are you sure its not a scam? How much will you really be helping the starving children? If you do something like buy Tom's shoes, then you are actually hurting their economy, because the people who make shoes in Africa are losing business. Its just more complicated than saving a drowning child. I think the best way to help those in poverty, is to teach them valuable skills, so that they are capable of supporting themselves. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

Every day we all make the decision that it's okay for people to be hungry and live on the streets. We could make food and invite people in our homes to sleep on our couches etc. But we don't. And I don't. Therefore I accept this poverty.

No, it's not the same, and all analogies break down eventually. In one situation you have direct responsibility, and your selfless/altruistic nature will instinctually kick in. Additionally, your actions have social repercussions. In the other situation you're delegating responsibility and action to a third party. There are degrees to moral/ethical "obligations." Proximity and expectations are issues. People die every day, and when a family member dies, I'll be sad, may cry, and will be partly responsible for funeral arrangements. When an "anonymous" someone dies over in Australia, I'm not sad, I don't cry, and I'm not "expected" to take care of the burial plot. There are better justifications for taking care of others overseas. I don't think this analogy is helpful in doing more than placing a guilt-trip on people (i.e. You're not helping a drowning child!). Recognizing our inter-connectedness as humans on a shared planet is a better starting point --we are in this together, and our actions affect others.

You have no responsibility to others ( beyond your own children) jumping in to save a drowning child carries a risk to ones own life. What if the bottom was slick and the child climbs on top of you to save himself? Then I'm a strong believer in natural selection. If you can't swim stay away from the water. What responsibility does the child have for their own life? I was a lifeguard who has rescued people, and I've taught swimming. I'm just making a philosophical point.

Though it may sound insane to some, I believe an individual only has a moral obligation to themselves, and to not directly be the cause of harm to others. This is to say that it is morally ok to walk on by the drowning child, while going into the pond to save him is merely a supererogatory action. If this is not the case, Singer is right and people have a moral obligation to give to the poor in such a way that few Americans do. If Singer is right, we have a moral obligation to help others all the time and most actions, time, and money spent on ourselves is immoral, which to many sounds unreasonable.

It's more like I am giving somebody money and he tells me he saves the drowning child, but it is impossible for me to know if he really does it.

Aid can be such a pervert phenomenon if not applied properly. People can just become dependent on aid and trapped in a never-ending poverty spiral. To me, the real and effective aid is the investment : do you want to help poor children in Africa ? How about starting a business ? Thus, you hire people, you pay them, help with the education of their children, help the local businesses by aumenting the purchase power, inspire other young entrepreneurs etc.

Sound is too low but I guess I should be happy for that because it is him

"You can't save all the puppies in the pound."

So what if I could give all my money to charity right now and save x amount of people, or I could invest my money, and eventually use a small fraction of that money to start an enterprise that saves (2x)^2 people over time? So then what if instead of any of that, the cost of saving people falls over time. If I give now, I save x people, but if I wait until next year, I save x+x/10 people? One more year and it's x+x/5 people, a few years later it's more than 2x people How do I ever justify helping anybody with money right now, if I could achieve a larger effect in absolute terms absolute in the future using the same money?

Most charities are scams. That 500$ suit is ruined but "YOU" have literally saved that child. Give that same 500 to a charity, & they'll collect such 500$ donations from a lotta people then pool it and actually spend say 500 to save one child while lining their own pockets with the rest.

they should've made the kid drowning look at least a little bit more realistic, looks like hes tickling hte air or somehting lol

I don't like the "Government" being "Charitable" bit, though this is an inquisitive Video. You are allowed the option to make your own conclusion. THAT I respect.

The fact that it's a child in the scenario (as if that makes a difference) gives away that this is a fallacious appeal to emotion and not a sound argument. If you go to Matt Zwolinski's article you will see at no point does he put forward any sound argument for why saving the child is, as he claims, a positive moral obligation that is enforceable through violence. "It’s reasonable to think..." is not an argument. The person who doesn't save the child is most likely an insanely horrible prick but doesn't mean they have a moral obligation to save it. They don't. It's social justice emotional nonsense like this that has left millions in poverty even after decades and trillions of dollars of spending in trying to solve the problem.

Feeling of the "great justice" is also a product. And your will to fullfill this wish depends on marketing. Because total goal of marketing - to make you fill to do something. A drowing child makes great emotional response. But a drowing child in ice-hole surrounded by light ice will also produce strong response of caution and fear. But if this child is yours... Etc, etc. So the experiment is illegal.

Agree we should give more, but government shouldn't force us to.

If a kid is dying in a foreign country, I don't feel personally responsible for it, because there are so many more instances that should have prevented that to happen, for example the government. If the government fails, then it is the peoples responsibility to remove it, that is also not my decision. Also, I don't give beggars any money, because like that I would only support a system that creates beggars and makes them dependent on welfare. Instead of superficially fighting the symptoms, you should try to improve the system, if you really want to help.

In the thought experiment, you get to see child drawing with your own eyes and get to carry her with your own arms, no middle man.

Great video. But would the thought experiment be more accurate if there were several children drowning? Most people would save 1 kid without a thought, but there is a critical mass where people simply feel overwhelmed and helpless. That's what charities seems to do and its both their success and their downfall, they make the problem seem so overwhelming that you can't make a dent in it.

Simple: What easily preventable or treatable disease or condition is causing the most suffering and\or deaths? As of April 28th 2017, the answer is still Malaria. While you were reading this comment, someone likely died of it, and someone else and contracted it. Is malaria curable? Yes. Is it Treatable? Yes. Can it be prevented? Yes.

Easier to save a drowning child, than to teach them to swim.

awesome video

I think forcing people to value the lives of children more than their shoes is more immoral that valuing shoes more than children and far more destructive.

A soldier already saved him while you were asking the question if someone would save him....Soldiers sacrifice all the time, i see it because i am one....Charity is nearly extinct.... I feed my wolf charity, Jesus's love and good deeds, i am dying of a Lyme's disease, i want my buckets list to glorify Jesus.

I really believe that that everyone who can should give to any and all charities who actually help,m but the government is not the answer because they have never been and never will be fiscally responsible.

In this scenario, the reason I would save a drowning kid but not donate to charities is because I know I'm the only one there, that it's up to me alone to save the kid's life. If I don't take immediate action, he/she would die. Charity donation, however, seems more like a shared responsibility. There's always gonna be excuses like someone else is already donating or, even if I donated it's not gonna make any big difference, and so on.

Of course it's moral not to give to unknown children: doing so would be harmful to someone else's children. If that $500 is taken from the shoe budget, it will harm the cobbler's children (or the equivalent factory worker). It's perfectly moral to support there being work for the cobbler. His children are as deserving as any others. Charities have employees, too. And so do government bureaucrats. And they have children. But these may keep some of the money for overhead, which I don't find rewarding. Overhead in a for-profit business is far more likely to be minimal, with more money going to the people who need it, and any they don't need will be spent to employ others. I used to sell VCR's in the 1980's and sometimes people wanted one built in the US (there weren't any). If they didn't buy it, I was the one who earned less pay, and so did my American employers, as well as all those workers who helped make it. The only reason to give to someone you think needs your help instead of someone else, is because you like the way it makes you feel. One's moral duty is to make sure your transactions are win-win. There is nothing moral about robbing someone else to do so. You can only be moral with your own money.

If you're a Christian, there is only one answer to the question posed in this video. You have to give to charity, you have to help that child. Otherwise you aren't a good Christian.

i prefer the version of this where the baby grows up to be a monster in the future(.i.e hitler stalin etc) would you save the kid? i would it just a kid but thats me

I give a third of my income to charity, it's called tax.

Sadly, it's not easy to find an uncorrupted charity 😐

There is an answer to this question. I forgot who made the video, but they used footage from CK Louis to make the point.

People would give to charity more if we didn't have to forcefully give to the government

but imagine you were late to something important, a huge business meeting that, if you are late, will result in you not getting the job and missing out on a HUGE opportunity to help your family, as the job pays very very well. And by saving the child you loose your wallet and your precious wedding ring. If there is so much more at stake, would you still do it?

is this about Phil Collins???

There's plenty of time to take that suit off. It only takes about 15 seconds, and if you know CPR, you can save a drowning person minutes after they've gone unconscious.

A handout feed you for a day or maybe just for a meal, a hand up lasts a lifetime.

No. They should not (gov't). You can if you want. The thing is if you add up the amount of time saved vs the amount of time it costs it usually doesn't add up. Sure you save some poor people, but the end result is larger portion of the non-poor people's lives is lost vs those they save. In the end society ends up losing more in the long run. I'm not saying poor people should just be left to die, but let's not lie to each other saying that charity is the best short term solution to a very long term problem. It would be better that people just concentrate on making sure that they and their immediate circle of family and friends are taken care of. In the long run things culturally and economically will improve more quickly if everyone stopped with the handouts for those "in need".

holding a gun to someone's head all calling theft taxation is morally wrong. would you per say, break into someone's home and shoot them because they shot at you? Now think of it this way, if would be okay and you'd get away with it because you're a cop

What good does it to gain the whole world and lose your own soul.

What's the point of some of these questions? I guess I know the answer to that but this just illustrates how desensitized and disconnected people are. Nobody should expect to be protected from anything if they are not willing to do and advocate the same for others. We're not even talking about a question of morals. We're talking about existing in a society with other people and not understanding that even questioning this scenario is the definition of a sociopath, no matter what.

Call 911. Problem solved.

The will of the majority is supposed to prevail in the U.S., correct? So if a majority of people want to help the less-fortunate, then government-forced "charity" is not necessary; they will do it on their own through private means. If, on the other hand, a majority do not want to help them, then such action by government is undemocratic. Either way, it shouldn't exist. Can anybody refute this logic?

Also, the government in the US can barely run a postal service and yet we should trust them with the needs of the poor? The idea of taking tax money and giving to the poor is very socialist, and requires that you pay taxes or people with guns come and take you to jail. So if you don't help the poor via taxes, you go to jail. Not helping the poor is certainly a douchey thing, but is it worth going to prison over? Voluntarily giving requires no guns and no prisons. Educating people about the needy and how to help is much more effective and philosophically sound then using the armed power of the state to fund the poor.

What color is the baby?

If there was a colony of rats starving outside in a sewer, should you give them a portion of your food? What happens when they multiply and double in size? Should you then give them twice as much food? What happens when they double again?

Private charity is great! Govt programs are not so great

Bernie 2016!

You'd be staggered by the amount of money I'd give to charity _if_, I had a credit card.

the fact is poverty and hungry people will always exists. we can minimize the amount of poverty and hungry people though by giving people the opportunity to advance. it's governments job to ensure a good business. climate a good economy does more for the poor than social program or charity ever could. most people will choose to work hard for rewards but there will always be some who try to get rich quick or who demand to be taken care of no matter how able they are.

The best type of aid is trade.

wtf idc about my shoes i would save the child

How to take action in the real world? Here are Professor Singer's recommended charities: www.thelifeyoucansave.org/

2:11 no your not as bad as someone who would just walk by.

Take off the suit before you go in?

He just assumes that if someone would save the child due to empathy, they should also donate money to charities. There is a logical leap there. He is assuming that one's sense of morality ought to be consistent across the board. Says who? The magical moral laws of the universe?

You mean this Peter Singer? www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html His idea of a moral dilemma leaves a lot to be desired.

save child

Well some 20 year old in Switzerland burned a Ferarri so that he could collect insurance money to buy a new one. Perhaps we should be stripping some cash from these millionaires and billionaires instead of complaining about minimum wages and government charity.

Saves child and takes $500 from parents as a fee.

Im poor so can't relate

As poorly tailored as those trousers are, it is best to replace the suit. (Yes, yes, humour in serous video.)

umm just let the clothes dry?