Poverty & Our Response to It: Crash Course Philosophy #44 

I just want to take this oppertunity to say a huge THANK YOU ! Hank and John for making these insights and resources universally accessible. You are doing such a great thing and I have used your videos both on vlogbrothers and crashcourse sooo many times. You guys are awesome !!!! Sincerly Hannah ( 16yrs, Devon, UK) Thank You !!!

Another flaw with the lifeboat analogy is that in practice, better living conditions lead to less children, not more.

In my opinion a major problem is that people don't feel responsible to donate money because there are many people who are much richer than them, so they expect those people to donate. In the example with the pond that would mean that if someone in a bathing suit was standing next to you, you'd expect him to save the girl.

This is such an important video. i just spent six months living and teaching in Zambia, Africa, and i saw extreme extreme poverty. I dont understand how when we have all the resources to end extreme poverty globally we just dont. My lifeboat answer is, have everyone who is able to take shifts treading water while others stay in the boat, because you cant tell the future and what if another boat is coming? what if somebody is sailing around the corner.? I bought food for kids in africa knowing it would fill their bellies once but in the grand scheme of things be pointless, yet i still did it, because maybe tommorow someone else will buy them food, or their father will find a job, or they will be sponsored, but that cant happen if they die today because we refused to help them the first time. I enrolled kid in school and paid their fees knowing they wouldnt have enough money to buy uniforms when they grew out of them or books when they ran out, but isnt beggining beter than giving up. The people living in poverty, i found, never think of it as "prolonged agony" they think of every blessing God has given them, they have joy and fulfillment, and yes they have times of despair just like us, but our help is so so so so so important. every life matters.

Right now I'm a poor college student surviving on ramen noodles and oatmeal. But I plan to use my wealth in the future to help those in need

This is a beautiful but horrifying at the same time. Altruism and self interest have always been in a great dance. As with everything else, it is a personal struggle that almost always results in the conclusion that a nuanced balance is required.

The problem of poverty, as Hank pointed out, is not a problem of resources but of governmental and economic systems. It is not the duty of individuals to help those in extreme poverty, but rather the duty of the collective to band together to create new systems where extreme poverty doesn't exist. So while yes I would save the child and forgo my shoes, after that myself and others also have the duty to prevent future children from falling in the lake and drowning. Collective preventative action leads to less suffering overall.

Thank you for providing links for donating to trustworthy groups aiding those in poverty.

Are bananas still chom-choms?

After having seen CPG Grey's Keys to Power video and Crash Course Ecenomics' Tragedy of the Commons video I always find it a bit silly when I hear that we could "easily" end world poverty.

i consider myself a philanthropist, and i truly identify with Singer's reasoning of saving a child even if you cant see them. due to the spread of information over the internet know a days, it is impossible to not see the suffering others go through. i believe we have a moral obligation to help others even if its difficult

When CC: Philsophy only has two episodes left and you're wondering what to do with your life when it's over.

although, this entire episode completely ignores the reality that the extremely uneven distribution of resources wasn't the result of randomness. it is the result of abuses and exploitations by powerful groups who stole from others. and the fact is, that while we are not the same people who did the taking, the people of today are the people who are still directly benefitting from that theft or the people being kept away from having the opportunity to benefit from the resources stolen from their ancestors. the wealthy and powerful have an obligation to share resources and end poverty because the money and resources they have were given to them by people who stole it from the ancestors of the poor and impoverished.

The other issue with Garrett Hardin's analogy vis-a-vis overpopulation and thinking about one's own citizens/resources first is that: A) Overpopulation generally occurs in poorer nations and tends to go away once wealth gaps close and education - especially sex ed - comes about, so you can easily help avoid overpopulation without allowing a bunch of people to die (not to mention population issues nowadays has more to do with people living longer than too many people being born). B) Investing in aid and development of another country help's one's own country too. There is less likely to be immigration or refugee-ism from developed countries which solves the issue of refugee crises occurring, and it helps foster good diplomatic, social and trade relations between nations. Good will goes a long way.

I'm a philosophy PhD student and instructor and I approve of this video. It's really quite great, and I strive to provide my students with lectures with this level of clarity, not to mention that it was very engaging. Sadly, I found this video because one of my students plagiarized this video.

Good video! I really like Peter Singer; he's my favorite modern philosopher.

The natural reluctance to helping starving and dying people across the globe, and the difficulty of rallying everyone to help these people, I think boils down to the fact that inside most people think that they're already trying their best. They have their own worries. Everyone is trying to be the best person that they think they can be. So when you come up to that person and say "how dare you not help these dying people?" most people reactions is going to be, subconsciously or not, "Excuse me?!/how dare you?!". People don't like to be told what to do. Same problem applies to global warming. Rallying people to change their ways and save the planet cannot be done by arguing and debating. It's going to be very hard to convince people to change their ways for a situation that they can't even observe. The only effective way of doing so that I can see is to inspire and educate people on the matter, and allow them to come to the conclusion of what they can do about it by themselves.

I would make the argument that giving physical aid to poor places may actually make conditions there worse. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. And procreates, and so on. Demonstrably, aid organizations that give shoes destabilize emerging shoe industries in those countries, making them dependent on aid. The real thing that needs to be done is providing education and tools to the people in poor nations. Giving them the tools they need to build their own economy and help themselves. Teach a man to fish. This is arguably harder and more costly initially, but in the long run saves more time, effort, and money.

3:05 The difference is that although my cents could change a life, these unjustices are systematic and we need a systematic solution. The problem isnt that westerners arent philanthropic enough, the problem is that we are not investing enough in these underdeveloped regions. We are not solving inequality by saving childrens lives, rather we are keeping our conciens clean while ignoring the underlying problems. This is like how we handle global warming. Should the individuals make choices that reduces emission? Or is it the responsibility of the society? Should I be held accountable for all the emission I do, or is society responsible? The individual may or may not judge global warming as a serious threat, but if we are not all in this together, the problem simply wont get solved. So relying on the individual entirely is a non solution. We need society to set the rules.

*"I'm on a boat"* - T. Pain, 2009

It is heartbreaking that the series are going to end soon. I love CrashCourse Philosophy so much.

This one fills me with cognitive dissonance that I can't resolve, and an unshakable sense of anxiety. That makes it one of the best so far, in my opinion. And it's truly unbiased; a great improvement over some of the recent episodes.

wish this series could go on forever. its actually the highlight of my week. every week

This series has been fantastic! Philosophy should be taught to every child in schools. Your previous video on animals actually made me quit dairy.

1. We now have enough resources for everyone, but the moment you "aid" poor nations their populations will explode and cause even worse poverty.

It's like when you see someone hurt in a large city, you think "there are so many people around, they will help them; besides, what's in it for me?" But the problem is that everyone else is thinking the same thing and that is why no one helps.

“If you don’t, you have no reason to feel bad about it” My childhood begs to differ.

Next to last lesson?! How can this series stop? It's so awesome, the best of Crash Courses (and I like many of the others, of course)

The problem is a logistical one. I may be morally obligated to help, and I may even want to, but I don't know how. As far as I can tell, there is no structure in place to guarentee that my money will actually help those in need, and not just pay some administrator in DC's salary. I don't want to help administrators, I want to help the impoverished. I feel like the failing is in developing a trustworthy framework to help that functions without friction.

I feel like this ignores the fact that a lot of donated money (not all, obviously) just goes to propping up corrupt governments. That doesn't negate the concepts in this video, but it's an important point that we don't always have control over the way our aid is used.

thanks for discussing this, it's been a while since this question has been stuck on my mind and thanks to that I have a distrust in humanity as a whole, myself included

NEXT TO LAST?!? This has been my favourite series on RU-vid for a while now. I'm just not ready for it to end.

Next to last?? No!! I've grown so accustomed to this series! Aw I'll miss it when it's gone :(

After watching this video I start a monthly donation of $10 to unicef. I am a student living on government allowance, so it's not very much right now, but I hope this can help. Thank you Hank, I have learnt a lot from you. (21 yrs, Australia)

I just wanted to say thank you. For me, crash course has gone from a helpful study review to one of the tools that I rely on to better understand my world

Crash course has inspired me in so many ways. Every video I eagerly anticipated, it'll be a great sadness to have the series end. I feel I have grown so very much because of your video.

NEXT TO LAST!? Q_Q B-but... but what will I do?

There's only two more episodes?! I don't want this series to be over!

Thank you so much Hank! This has been my favourite show on RU-vid. I'm really sad it's coming to an end

Noooo you can't really be ending this amazing series.

the refugee crisis is just like that lifeboat analogy 65m refugees floating in the water and we are debating pulling out a fraction of a percent of them. the amount of money the world spends on refugees could help exponentially more people if it was spent helping people where they live. for every refugee they bring there are literally thousands left behind. the wealthy and educated end up being the lucky ones to get refugee status, when theyre the ones who could help the most

Always feel like helping everyone and then realize i am broke😅..

The true difference between helping someone I can see and someone half world away is the question: "What grantee do I have that the problem will be solved". When I hep someone near me I can personally assess situation and take moral risk of trusting the action I took. Giving this choice to third party (especially in the complex world where each individual is trying to get better off) doesn't give me any certainty that my resources are not about to be miss-used. I also don't know if I'm giving a "fish" or a "fishing rod".

my line of thinking is that I would undoubtedly save the child in the water in front of me because I am 100% sure that if I make the sacrifice I will save a life. While if I had to donate money to some unknown agency or non-profit, how would I know they will do what they say they will do? I would have to trust the leadership of such an organization to donate that money.

Resources aren't "distributed" unevenly, they're bought and sold by buyers and sellers who own the property. The larger question of these moral dilemmas ends up being, "Does society at large have a right to X, Y, and Z at your expense?" The question becomes, does anyone have a right to your wealth? If so, that means people are justified in using force to take your wealth from you. Who decides how much? Society? When has society at large ever been a trustworthy source for civility and fairness? Who says that those in charge of taking your wealth are using it properly and effectively? We can justify most any use of said resources and make it "legal;" e.g. defense and war. So what recourse do we have otherwise if people want to take our wealth for "nefarious" purposes?

Please make another season of CC Philosophy, I'll miss it so much T_T

I am going to be so sad when CC Philosophy is over. Thank you Hank and everyone else working on this awesome channel!

I love this show. Because i never have to comment because you cover both positions so well. I subscribe to Hardins life boat analogy.

Didn't cover the traceability of money when giving money to those in need abroad. Corruption is a concern for alot of people

Is this not all related to the bystander effect?

Each time he brings Peter Singer everything makes much more sense! I really like the way he argues and his philosophy. Pretty interesting: it makes you think!!!

Please do not stop this wonderful philosophy course. Please, please, please!

This was one of the best videos in this series

It's interesting to see how philosophy can be applied to areas of life that many would not at first consider- Anyone would say Life after death as a topic for philosphical teachings but poverty isn't likely to have the same focus.

please make more of these, they're great

Thanks for these videos. Really gets the mental gears turning!

Who threw them in the water? It is the great colonial empires who have feasted on their blood and sweat and have become rich. Our shoes has the labour of an african slave embodied in it and that is why we should help.

"We're all in this (life) together."

A short time ago I thought I was starting to study Philosophy. I was wrong. I have spent a life time of study,watching people and events,forming my own unwritten Philosophy. Do I have THE answer? NO. I do see in Philosophy the truth is spoken of often. Truth is not the same as Fact. Has my Philosophy changed no. Deeper thoughts now go through my mind. I do still see today's problems as the same as all of the past. Life was not,is not and was never meant to be fair. The work you are doing is insightful.

NOOOOO THIS CAN’T BE ENDING!!!! I know you can only put so much into a course, but this is my favorite one. You do this /so/ well!!

Hank, you guys are normally pretty impressive and overall very helpful. Every now and then you reveal incredible biases and a reluctance to challenge those biases. This piece was a good example. You have reduced the very complex problem of world poverty to the uneven distribution of wealth and the problem's solution to folks being less greedy with their wallets. It is obviously not that simple.I am one of those people who believe it is a moral obligation of affluent people to help those in abject poverty, but being more charitable with our stuff doesn't change anything. The life boat analogy is actually a pretty good one, but it wasn't explained very well. We cannot fit them all in our boat or help by tossing food/money/etc. overboard to them. Neither is the problem addressed by reducing the populations in need of care (ahem, genocide).They need a life boat of their own, that means a functioning government, democracy, property rights, and economic stability. We would love to send these things over in a care package if that was possible, but it isn't. It is really not helpful to trivialize problems like these in order to make people feel guilty for having wealth. What helps are honest and fair discussions that don't retreat from the complexity of the situation, like those you usually deliver. Thanks.

Oh no!! Is it really almost over?! Say it ain't so!

I think George Carlin nailed it with his philosophy in "the sanctity of life". wether we like it or not, suffering is part of the nature of reality. And to categorize everything simply into "good" and "evil" is like reducing an infinite spectrum into just black and white.

Only 46 videos????? I think this series deserves at least 50. (This is my favorite crash course series yet.)

charity doesn't work because you'd have to pay for the people's living expenses for the rest of your life in order to get them permanently out of poverty. For example, on my way to class there's a guy that stands in front of the 7/11 everyday for 2 years. I've seen people give him money and change but he's still there every day. Charity is a band aid that's made to make you feel better about yourself. It's better to find the cause of poverty and eliminate it.

WHY IS THIS SHOW ENDING I JUST STARTED MY PHILOSOPHY COURSE

Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics made sense to me because he proposed that sending excess food (that spoils and is prone to hoarding), excess clothing (that impedes on that country's entrepreneurship), or money to governments (that is corrupt) does not create the best value that could be obtained from helping people. I understand that for most of us, we don't have the resources to go to that country and help them ourselves using our talents and abilities. Why not allow them to live here in this country so that they may live a good life with our help? Garrett Hardin is not a justification not to give, it is a call to reconsider HOW you give and whether it is really the sender or the receiver that benefits.

I agree with Singer more, we all have a natrual duty to help others in need, no matter the circumstances. It is a fundemental of the Life.

Nooo, you have to keep making more psych videos!! I can't understand the electrical engineering ones, so you're all I have left on Crash Course!! I'm sure you can find more philosophy to talk about

Just imagine how many lives could be saved and how many people would be brought out of poverty if the richest 1% gave just 1% of all their money to help those issues.

Thank you crash course. Thank you for lots of things you've tought me so far.

I think the key difference here is, that if you save a kid from drowning in a pond, you do a one time service to her/him, moreover you assume that the kid is there due from some kind of accident. The problem with starving kids is that you have to continuously support them. You will. not. end. poverty. You just sustain another person's life. There is a difference. The other one is that the kid is starving because of complex reasons, not from a single accident or catastrophe. People can relate less, because an accident or a natural disaster is more likely to hit us than famine caused by the combination of overpopulation, poor natural resources, corrupt and uncaring leadership. Helping someone once has closure. Sustaining others don't, and raises much more moral questions. Let's assume, the world decides to end hunger completely. There will be a 2% worldwide tax on everyone to contribute. Now that kid has something to eat. Something. The kid just barely lives. Isn't it our moral obligation to lift him/her up from that? Then they introduce another, say 4% tax, so the kid has access to sanitation. But isn't it our moral obligation that the kid should have proper medical care as well? OK? let's increase our taxes by 10% because medical care is so damn expensive. And now you pay 16% in taxes, but the kid in Africa has food, clean water and medical care. But isn't that kid entitled to proper sheltering? The list can go on... And in the meanwhile, the population in the third world explodes and you have to pay more and more to sustain that ever increasing population. What the Western world can do (and kinda does already with very limited success) is to educate, educate and educate. We can't solve their problems, only they can.

Thank you so much for what you do. You are one of the reasons that the internet is still great!

PLEASE DON'T END CRASH COURSE PHILOSOPHY!!!!!

As I can see there is more time invested in the excuse why is not important to help.... "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

The problem with helping the children in other countries isn't about our collective lack of resources, but for me as an individual to offer aid in a way that makes a difference, there are so many competing claims on my fairly limited resources, and I have so little way to evaluate the quality or merit of them, that it makes more sense to spend my altruistic energies closer to home where I can have more expectation of making a positive difference.

Flint, MI hasn't had clean water in almost three years. Every major city has a sizeable homeless population. *_Why can't we clean up our own yard, if we are so great?_* If I find a job, then I'll donate. That, or I will join them.

I love Crash Course Philosophy. I just wanted to throw that out there.

I do what I can and accept what I can't. By the end of the day, it's what I feel right to do rather than obligated as a human being. I'm free as I am

We're all in the same boat! The disparities between "boats" were forged historically, by one boat sinking the others, by one nation exploiting the other one. Understanding this is being compassionate and it is the first step towards a brighter and less poor future for all mankind.

This is a really interesting topic that I've thought intensely about since I was a small kid. I can choose to donate time and money, and I do--I have volunteered over 100 hours in my 21 years, started charity events, and given my own money ever since I started a local business at 12 years old. However, this is WAY less than required to ensure a happy and healthy life for every child and family in poverty. It weighed on my conscience once I earned $1,000 and knew I needed to save it if I wanted to go to college to become a genetics counselor. This video helped me flesh out some rationale so I won't lose my mind about not giving away every cent I own: 1) Saving the money for college allows me to pursue a career that would help more families and possibly prevent children's suffering in the long run. 2) After experiencing life-altering health issues that cause my suffering, I need to save everything I have to help prevent my own agony while I convalesce. 3) Giving more than I already have would leave me in poverty, too, as I have very little to donate now. Additionally, I could not ensure the person I donated to would have a good quality of life while sacrificing my own. 4) If I eventually had enough to live comfortably, I could seek to accumulate enough wealth so one or a few more lives could also be comfortable. However, I would not be able to help an entire population, and must live with the fact that I could only help a few. I'm not sure if these are all solid arguments, but at the very least it can help me stop obsessing over the thought that I haven't done enough.

Can someone be an altruist and give me a hand? I'm dying of first.

crash course - thank you for steering your dialogue towards sociological current dilemmas. we've got to correct our ways. life can still be enjoyable, but should only be for those that can agree w not misusing our existence on this precious planet.

I'm so sad this series is going to end. It is so good!

"Charity saves one's life" -King Solomon

I wonder if it would at all be possible to have the United States Government to collect literally an extra 5 dollars in income tax from every tax paying worker in the country, and used that money to invest in a country that had a lot f abject poverty. Either that or it could fund the production and shipment of resources to those who need it. Everyone is different, but I would argue that this is quite plausible, especially if the almost negligible amount of extra taxes to help better the world was based off of our current tax gradient. I think that this would not harm America but help the entire world. Imagine what would happen if every wealthy nation in the world did this. In a single life time, many of the ailments plaguing the developing world, will be nothing but a hellish memory from a distant past. I sincerely believe we can all do this.

Thank you for making this! I work at a regional food bank were constantly marketing the act of helping others you don't know with your dollars or time, but it can be really uncomfortable to learn what does or doesn't work in that effort. We struggle with scale, we're helping half a state, much smaller that worldwide! Yet when most people think of hungry people, they think of "starving children in Africa" a distant problem. Which for some reason means, one that is not of their concern. So we make the concern immediate by sharing that 1 in 6 people in the US visit their food bank. Essentially dissing the extreme poor for those who are right here. We're selling Hardin's logic, flaws and all. Another marketing tool that is tough to swallow is what is jaded folks in the biz inappropriately call "poverty porn". (Think of every NPO commercial with Sarah McLaughlin singing over a sad slide show. ) In short, a sad kid with an empty bowl gets more dollars than a happy adult with a full bowl (full because of your help, no less). Thankfully the tide is changing on this, which brings me hope. Thanks for reading this super long comment, I just wanted to share that the 'noble' work we do at nonprofits doesn't always feel so noble.

Thank you for the links. I think 'any little bit helps' & when genuinely done....we can spread hope in showing our love & care for all.

We are all tribal by nature q: Of course someone with enough empathy will save the drawing girl but would still save their sister over a stranger. Just as they would worry about the safety of their own state or country when an exterior threat arises because it's where they themselves live. It's near instinct. Over compassion can get you killed.. just as much, being over tribal will cause war. blah blah balance, as with everything else in life blah blah lol

I'm with Singer on this. If helping others would risk ourselves, then yeah, there's no benefit to helping others; but we can help others and still be just fine, which gives us the moral obligation to do so. And the idea that one person's life is more valuable than another's just because you are related to them, know them personally, or can see them, is just ridiculous. So if you met them the day before, suddenly they are worth saving, but because you personally didn't know them yet, they may as well die? That's highly selfish, as if the world's value revolves around your own personal experience. And don't even get me started on the whole "if we don't help them, their population will decrease and they'll be better off" concept--that's eugenics, and it's wrong because the "decrease in population" is *preventable death of human beings*. The way people so often restrict their own empathy scares me sometimes...

fantastic video, thank you

I dont want CC Philosophy to end, it's been a great way to learn about a lot of things!

The problem with this is that it removes uncertainty. Uncertainty means my "help" might be doing more harm than good, by putting local craftsmen out of business or putting money into the hands of warlords. It doesn't make sense to donate any substantial amount of money unless we can prove efficacy and that it's one of the best alternatives available. This is a major problem with donation: people don't generally donate in order to fix the problem, they do it to alleviate guilt. It's why the forces of capitalism consistently fail us when it comes to nonprofits. Imagine that you're trying to help feed the people of North Korea. If you airdropped food, it could be intercepted by the government and fed to their soldiers to further oppress the people. Even if it got to the people, that could contribute to the further stability of the regime and thus the peoples' own destruction. These things can have a real butterfly effect and dumping money into something you don't understand won't necessarily accomplish the goals you seek to accomplish.

Overpopulation is only a problem during the development of countries. Before countries develop, people just die a lot, children often don't make it to adulthood. That's reality. It was the same in Europe and the USA. During that period, people have a lot of kids. Otherwise, the population wouldn't have sustained itself. But now, suddenly, the country starts to develop, food isn't so rare anymore and medicine improves. As a result, people die less and less. But that doesn't stop them from having the same amount of children. Children that suddenly survive and become adults, and thus more and more people are alive at the same time. What we now have to do is help and wait. People will stop having so many childred and fall back to an amount that again makes the population self-sustaining. It's been this way for every region on earth: Europe, USA(-region), more recently China and currently India and Africa.

Many people donate, and donate a lot. There was a lady from Africa who went to the same church as my grandma. She was a refugee and had to leave her home country for the reason the she was telling people where the money they donate actually goes. Sadly it usually doesn’t end up with the poor children/people. It’s now a business that makes lots of people a lot of money and no poor children means the money would stop

Its nice to be able to make either decision (to help or not help) from the comfort of the boat (knowing either way you don't lose/die).

The thing is, I agree (mostly) with Singer's somewhat socialist bent ("Socialist" in this case isn't a negative qualifier). However, I think the statement, "It doesn't mater what others do, you are responsible for your actions and your actions alone" (I'm paraphrasing) is pretty grossly lacking in nuance and logic. Of course, only you cause yourself to act, but it does MATTER what those around you are doing. If you're standing around the proverbial pond, one person can call an ambulance, another can wade in to save her, and a third can try to keep her alive until help arrives (this isn't a particularly malleable analogy, I'm afraid). If you called 911, and waded in, and tried to perform CPR (or something) then you would be doing a great deed, in fact one that I believe any good person would do, shoes notwithstanding. But what if you are one of the other people? If you see someone do all three things, and the girl dies because they weren't able to do it all in time on their own, then are you guilty for not helping them? Wouldn't it have been better if you had shared the responsibilities and been able to save the girl?

Well, this is certainly timely, isn't it?

peter singer changed my life

Right now i’m dependent on my family myself. But someday i wanna help these kids by being there myself and educate the adults for keeping family small. And i’m also hoping my country will allow me to adopt one of those kids.