Famine, Affluence, and Morality, by Peter Singer

brad-t · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by slaani

The weak deserve to grow fat off the sweat from my brow, at the expense of my quality of life? I don't really feel the need to defend myself from this argument.

lol yeah **** those dumb *******

(you're a monster)

DLester · Oct 13, 2009

This is excruciating

reprehensible · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by dmash1080

Guys it's the internet, speak with more simplistic tastes. You guys are having a literacy battle for what purpose? You know you don't speak like this in the majority of your posts ; )

Many of us are quite capable of constructing elaborate sentences with unique words being educated as we are....it doesn't prove anything though.

Logic and philosophy have their own jargon for good reason.

If you want to say that Peter Singer is wrong, you have to apply some level of rigor, or else you're just making noise.

chorse123 · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by lee_44106

I agree with Singer.

Look at Africa. If only we in the West could give MORE, they'd be alright.

Bravo.

brad-t · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Uncontrol

lol yeah **** those dumb *******

(you're a monster)

figured i'd follow this up because some smartass is going to say something to the effect of: "I WONDER HOW MANY AFRICANS YOU COULD FEED WITH THE MONEY YOU SPEND ON DUMB FLORALS"

I'm not saying to completely sacrifice your luxuries in order to donate to these things, but to accuse people who are living in some of the worst conditions in Earth of wanting to "get fat" off the "sweat of your brow" is ******* excruciatingly ignorant, not to mention that a lot of the issues that plague these areas are the direct result of the western imperialism that allows you to have the quality of life you have in the first place.

Rosenberg · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by dmash1080

America was built on capitalism....if someone works hard their entire life and gets lucky to make an exceptional salary, I'm all for him/her reaping the benefits.

Successful indiviudals shouldn't feel that they have a DUTY to donate money that they worked hard to earn.

You also run into the problem that quite a percentage of welfare recipients and other low income individuals are prone to drug/alcohol habits. Not a good idea to fuel a fire like that.

Regardless, this argument is a no win for either side. There's too many conflicting point of views to come to a consensus. Everything will be opinionated, there's not a REAL right or wrong.

Just my 0.02

imo america was built by war and supported by capitalism. i in no way advocate socialism or anything similar, and i agree that people should be able to spend as they see fit. however if you income ever reaches more than 100k per year and you end filing for bankruptcy like so many americans have done recently, you are as guilty of gluttony as you are stupidity. guess who gets supported in that case. not the poor people
and the comment about the "lower income individuals" .... seriously ignorant and offensive. i can tell by your post that you are young and have obviously never been poor, but drug and alcohol abuse is not affected by ones income

Meis · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by dmash1080

Guys it's the internet, speak with more simplistic tastes. You guys are having a literacy battle for what purpose? You know you don't speak like this in the majority of your posts ; )

Many of us are quite capable of constructing elaborate sentences with unique words being educated as we are....it doesn't prove anything though.

I kind of have to agree with this. I'm mainly pointing this at Hecht: you don't have to use terms like 'ad hominem tu Quoque' or 'teleological' in every other post. Many of us here have or are working on post-grad degrees and don't feel the need to write our posts in such a way. Not to be mean but when you write posts in such a way it seems like you're trying too hard to seem intellectual and well educated, which ends up coming off as pretty douchey (and I'm sure you're probably not a douche in real life).

Counter · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Meis

I kind of have to agree with this. I'm mainly pointing this at Hecht: you don't have to use terms like 'ad hominem tu Quoque' or 'teleological' in every other post. Many of us here have or are working on post-grad degrees and don't feel the need to write our posts in such a way. Not to be mean but when you write posts in such a way it seems like you're trying too hard to seem intellectual and well educated, which ends up coming off as pretty douchey (and I'm sure you're probably not a douche in real life).

What's with the anti-intellectual vibe? Just because someone uses advanced terms does not make him a snob. Plus you're assuming that he purposefully populates his sentences with those types of phrases, when instead it could be how he normally speaks.

Meis · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Counter

What's with the anti-intellectual vibe? Just because someone uses advanced terms does not make him a snob. Plus you're assuming that he purposefully populates his sentences with those types of phrases, when instead it could be how he normally speaks.

I'm not 'anti-intellectual' and didn't mean to come off in that way, and most definitely didn't mean to imply that solely using advanced terms makes one a snob (because it doesn't). However (what I mean to say) is that most people don't normally talk that way in day-to-day life, and probably 95% of college graduates are going to have to look up both of the aforementioned terms. It's superfluous to talk that way when you could use 'normal' words that people would understand immediately. As an aside- I think the first one would be considered more 'jargon.'

Edit: Sorry to distract from the thread topic...

Counter · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Viktri

There are several key weaknesses in his argument(s). 1. The reason for purchasing new clothes - that we are not providing for an important need is not necessarily true. (Depending on your bliefs, ranges from blatently false to probably wrong - there is great utility in spending as a motivation for innovation) 2. That we do not sacrifice anything should we continue to wear old clothes. (Not true for some individuals) 3. That our priorities are such that giving money to famine relief should be prioritized before our other needs; rent, expenses, food, savings, etc. and that the "famine relief" priority is presents greater total utility than savings (this is extremely weak). 4. That giving money away is a good thing for poor countries. (Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life - all that jazz) Without addressing these points, I would be suprised if anyone agreed with him.
I don't think he worded his argument too well. There are two pieces of clothing. Same exact quality and function. But one looks better than the other and therefore costs more. If you could afford to buy either one without any problem, then you should buy the cheaper one and use the money you would've spent on the more expensive one and donate it. And for the purpose of the argument, assume that the donation does bring a benefit to someone in need both in the short and long term. I think that's what he's trying to argue. Not saying I agree with him, but it seemed to me that the weaknesses you identified didn't really have to do with his basic point and more to do with his unfortunate wording.

chronoaug · Oct 13, 2009

What a terrible thread. You all should be ashamed

brad-t · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by chronoaug

What a terrible thread. You all should be ashamed

what did i do

dmash · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Rosenberg

imo america was built by war and supported by capitalism. i in no way advocate socialism or anything similar, and i agree that people should be able to spend as they see fit. however if you income ever reaches more than 100k per year and you end filing for bankruptcy like so many americans have done recently, you are as guilty of gluttony as you are stupidity. guess who gets supported in that case. not the poor people
and the comment about the "lower income individuals" .... seriously ignorant and offensive. i can tell by your post that you are young and have obviously never been poor, but drug and alcohol abuse is not affected by ones income

Sorry buddy, but that's a FACT...Ignorant and offensive? Your just not informed. I'm speaking of individuals scraping along on BARE minimum wages. This doesn't include ALL individuals in this category. I've done numerous reports on this as I believe welfare recepients should be drug tested. and drug and alcohol abuse IS prominent in lower income settings. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I wasn't making an attack, I was stating truth. Maybe YOU should indulge in some peer reviewed journals concerning this subject before you jump the gun and say I'm young and ignorant.

and everybody is getting too riled up in this thread seriously. Everybody is starting personal arguments due to their conflicting opinions.

breakz · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Rosenberg

imo america was freed by war, built by slavery, and supported by capitalism.
fixed. okay back to other threads. this thing will explode or die out by tmrw.

Counter · Oct 13, 2009

Originally Posted by Meis

I'm not 'anti-intellectual' and didn't mean to come off in that way, and most definitely didn't mean to imply that solely using advanced terms makes one a snob (because it doesn't). However (what I mean to say) is that most people don't normally talk that way in day-to-day life, and probably 95% of college graduates are going to have to look up both of the aforementioned terms. It's superfluous to talk that way when you could use 'normal' words that people would understand immediately. As an aside- I think the first one would be considered more 'jargon.'

Edit: Sorry to distract from the thread topic...

I have a question over your use of the term superfluous. Why'd you choose that word and not something like "pointless"?

Could your answer to that be the same reason why he chose to use "ad hominem" instead of "You're attacking his personality and not his argument. Not pertinent to the discussion." ?

Famine, Affluence, and Morality, by Peter Singer

Bae Blade

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Bae Blade

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Member

Distinguished Member

Member

Boston Hipster (Dropkick Murphy)

Bae Blade

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Member

Streetwear Featured products

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: