Audio Transcript Auto-generated
- 00:01 - 00:02
how often,
- 00:02 - 00:04
over the course of your life have you had people tell you that you should
- 00:04 - 00:07
be thankful for the things that you have and not complain about what you don't.
- 00:08 - 00:11
Especially considering that there are people around the world who
- 00:11 - 00:14
have access to far less because they're far less fortunate
- 00:17 - 00:18
now in relation to that.
- 00:19 - 00:21
How typical is it for you to have an opportunity to
- 00:21 - 00:25
give back time and money to charity or other similar causes?
- 00:26 - 00:27
And do you take that opportunity?
- 00:29 - 00:32
How much is it is an acceptable amount to give for an individual
- 00:33 - 00:34
and at what point does that amount becomes
- 00:35 - 00:37
too excessive for the user to bear?
- 00:39 - 00:42
These are natural questions posed by Garrett colors believes
- 00:43 - 00:46
regarding our duty to the poor and disenfranchised around the world.
- 00:47 - 00:51
According to a study done by the World Health Organization in 2019,
- 00:51 - 00:55
Roughly 820 million people suffer from world hunger annually.
- 00:56 - 00:58
And another study done in 2010.
- 01:00 - 01:03
The World Health Organization reported that poverty is the #
- 01:03 - 01:06
one cause of family in most third world countries.
- 01:07 - 01:07
In this speech,
- 01:07 - 01:10
I will explain Garrett color these arguments surrounding our duty
- 01:10 - 01:13
to the poor and disenfranchised elements around the world.
- 01:13 - 01:15
I will also delve into what exactly is a
- 01:15 - 01:18
reasonable expectation of us giving back based on cultural beliefs
- 01:19 - 01:21
as well as his reputation appears.
- 01:21 - 01:25
Singer's own philosophy and how it it's a logical nature,
- 01:25 - 01:27
makes it impractical and application,
- 01:28 - 01:30
especially considering that the average person,
- 01:31 - 01:31
it's either
- 01:31 - 01:32
likely unwilling
- 01:33 - 01:35
we're unable to provide constantly
- 01:37 - 01:40
the core of colonies argument in relation to Peter Singer,
- 01:41 - 01:43
It is on the concept of reductio ad absurdum.
- 01:44 - 01:45
In this scenario,
- 01:45 - 01:47
the reductio is defined by the assumption
- 01:48 - 01:49
that sense death
- 01:49 - 01:50
and suffering
- 01:51 - 01:53
is unavoidable occurrence
- 01:53 - 01:54
by default.
- 01:55 - 01:55
As such.
- 01:55 - 01:57
Most people will agree that the assessment that there is
- 01:57 - 02:01
no realistic need to justify stopping these things from happening.
- 02:01 - 02:01
It's true
- 02:03 - 02:06
Kody believes that each person should give back to charity
- 02:07 - 02:09
so long as it can be done without notable harm
- 02:09 - 02:11
or excessive demand
- 02:11 - 02:13
for the individual in question.
- 02:14 - 02:18
In contrast, Peter Singer believes we have a moral obligation to donate
- 02:19 - 02:20
and by not doing so.
- 02:21 - 02:22
Yeah,
- 02:22 - 02:26
we're committing murder by inaction or at least contributing to their suffering.
- 02:26 - 02:27
By not by not engaging
- 02:28 - 02:30
The only exception of this one.
- 02:31 - 02:32
So this belief would be
- 02:33 - 02:38
if giving able to compromise your your overall morality in some way, shape or form
- 02:40 - 02:43
another crux of uh Singer's argument
- 02:44 - 02:44
is that he's
- 02:45 - 02:47
he states that charity isn't considered altruism
- 02:48 - 02:50
uh within his belief system.
- 02:50 - 02:53
But since it's an obligation for all those who were able,
- 02:54 - 02:56
that obligation will always outweigh the burden
- 02:56 - 02:58
placed on the giver in terms of priority
- 03:00 - 03:01
naturally, colonies
- 03:01 - 03:05
own beliefs don't mess with Singers. As I mentioned earlier,
- 03:06 - 03:12
Colony himself believes that it's okay for us to be true and also a non altruistic.
- 03:12 - 03:15
We focused life focus on education and pursue friendships.
- 03:17 - 03:18
Whereas Peter Singer,
- 03:18 - 03:21
in contrast, believes these things are wrong
- 03:21 - 03:23
as the time ever in money
- 03:24 - 03:27
are better spent being given back in some way, shape or form.
- 03:28 - 03:30
Reductio ad absurdum,
- 03:30 - 03:31
it comes from you
- 03:31 - 03:34
comes from the latin, the latin language
- 03:34 - 03:37
and translates as a reduction to the absurd.
- 03:38 - 03:41
It's a formal argument that assumes a statement to be true.
- 03:41 - 03:44
That leads to a contradiction, proving the argument false.
- 03:47 - 03:48
In essence
- 03:48 - 03:49
reductive ad absurdum can be
- 03:50 - 03:51
defined as taking
- 03:51 - 03:52
an argument
- 03:53 - 03:55
to its logical extreme to refute it.
- 03:59 - 04:02
This mainly revolves around refuting the argument by showing contradictory
- 04:02 - 04:05
or absurd consequences that arise from following the premise.
- 04:06 - 04:08
This can also be done through the use of indirect proof,
- 04:09 - 04:11
which is the denial of an argument by by proving
- 04:11 - 04:14
it to be contradictory to a previously accepted a proven state
- 04:19 - 04:22
color. He believes Singers demands to be far too severe
- 04:24 - 04:24
as
- 04:24 - 04:26
by following his
- 04:27 - 04:29
the road map set out by Singer,
- 04:29 - 04:31
there's no real logical endpoint for the giver.
- 04:32 - 04:34
Singer is essentially advocating
- 04:34 - 04:37
for endless aid until all poverty is eliminated,
- 04:38 - 04:40
meaning that all excess time
- 04:41 - 04:41
and money
- 04:43 - 04:44
that one has available should be given
- 04:45 - 04:45
otherwise.
- 04:45 - 04:49
The behavior would be considered immoral or unnecessary in his viewpoint
- 04:50 - 04:54
by critiquing this viewpoint through colleges Reductio ad absurdum
- 04:54 - 04:56
This will lead one to the assumption
- 04:56 - 04:59
that they would have to not only contribute endlessly
- 04:59 - 05:02
but to continue doing so regardless of any personal cost.
- 05:04 - 05:06
Singers, moderate demand can
- 05:06 - 05:08
essentially be boiled down to the,
- 05:08 - 05:12
to the belief that we must not sacrifice our own interest in pursuing a good life,
- 05:13 - 05:15
but still provide reasonable amounts to charity,
- 05:15 - 05:17
whether that be monthly or yearly.
- 05:22 - 05:24
This method is much more reasonable and sustainable.
- 05:25 - 05:27
In contrast, the singer's own severe demand
- 05:28 - 05:31
and the expectations to put charitable acts above everything else,
- 05:31 - 05:33
including her own self interest.
- 05:35 - 05:36
Singers severe demand
- 05:37 - 05:38
in essence puts
- 05:39 - 05:41
the entire onus on on the giver
- 05:42 - 05:43
instead of
- 05:43 - 05:45
incentivizing them to give back
- 05:46 - 05:47
or just generally
- 05:48 - 05:51
encouraging the positive behavior that comes behind. That
- 05:53 - 05:53
in summary
- 05:54 - 05:58
Cody would define singers criteria as being far too excessive.
- 05:59 - 06:01
Singer singers outlook leaves
- 06:02 - 06:05
the giver responsible for an indefinite sponsorship until
- 06:05 - 06:07
the root problem is called is solved.
- 06:08 - 06:10
Considering the obvious and plausibility of
- 06:10 - 06:14
an individual actually carrying out that expectation
- 06:17 - 06:19
or even being willing to attempt it in the first place
- 06:21 - 06:25
color. He chooses to advocate for a far more reasonable and measured approach,
- 06:28 - 06:31
which can be considered a much more realistic scenario for
- 06:31 - 06:34
the average person choosing to give back to charity.
- 06:34 - 06:34
Whether that's
- 06:35 - 06:36
time,
- 06:36 - 06:38
money or volunteer efforts
- 06:40 - 06:41
as such
- 06:42 - 06:43
singers, severe demand argument
- 06:44 - 06:46
generally falls apart under the scrutiny of
- 06:46 - 06:48
colored his own moderate demand argument,
- 06:50 - 06:53
leaving his beliefs and the requirements surrounding them.
- 06:54 - 06:56
Feeling a logical to the average person
- 06:57 - 06:58
and generally excessive
- 07:00 - 07:02
and in all likelihood doing more harm than good