4 ms·

I would have a very high opinion of him if he lived by his own standards. It's not special or rare; there are plenty of Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, (etc) asceti

I would have a very high opinion of him if he lived by his own standards. It's not special or rare; there are plenty of Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, (etc) ascetics who renounce everything from income all the way to even clothing altogether. Or if he acknowledged his own hypocrisy, like another philosopher (Diogenes? don't remember) who said something like "if you ask me directions, I'm not obligated to go down that way myself." I made my comment because I find it worthless to reference someone who doesn't practice what they preach. You might as well quote Bezos or Zuck for some PR statement about how it's important to love your fellow man and donate. It's just cherry-picking a quote from somebody with status that already fits with your predetermined conclusions.

tasty_freeze 5y ago
In his book, "The Life You Can Save" (free to download as an audiobook or ebook from thelifeyoucansave.org) he does talk at length about the question of "how much is enough? how much is too much? what obligation do you have to your family and community vs helping distant strangers?" In Chapter 10 of that book, "A Realistic Standard" he brings it all home. He has no problem recognizing that the philosophically perfect solution is unattainable for but a rare few, and that pragmatic solutions that fall short of it would still leave the worst off far better off than they are now. > Hence in this chapter I propose a much easier target: roughly 5% of annual income for those who are financially comfortable, with less for those below that level, and significantly more for the very rich. My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life. And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty. The corresponding website also has a calculator that has a progressive suggestion about what is a good target for someone of a certain income. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ He gives 30%. I don't think he is extremely rich, yet he gives at a rate 6 times what he suggests people who are comfortably well off should give. Do you still feel he is a hypocrite?
- silicon2401 5y ago
  > Do you still feel he is a hypocrite? Unequivocally yes, because the bar he set was (apparently) saying that living in comfort beyond hunger and pain (or whatever the comment I responded to said) is "wrong". Random numbers don't change the fact that he's still living quite comfortably, which by his own standard is wrong. If he admitted to changing his views, or acknowledged his hypocrisy, then I'd think highly of him for his intellectual honesty. Otherwise I don't see much value in his points unless you happen to already agree with him, again, like the commenter I responded to originally
  - tasty_freeze 5y ago
    The comment you replied to originally has this quote: "if you are living comfortably while others are hungry or dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behavior." You claim what Singer said was: "living in comfort beyond hunger and pain is wrong" You did "doing nothing is wrong" turn into living better than abject poverty is wrong?

tasty_freeze 5y ago

In his book, "The Life You Can Save" (free to download as an audiobook or ebook from thelifeyoucansave.org) he does talk at length about the question of "how much is enough? how much is too much? what obligation do you have to your family and community vs helping distant strangers?" In Chapter 10 of that book, "A Realistic Standard" he brings it all home. He has no problem recognizing that the philosophically perfect solution is unattainable for but a rare few, and that pragmatic solutions that fall short of it would still leave the worst off far better off than they are now. > Hence in this chapter I propose a much easier target: roughly 5% of annual income for those who are financially comfortable, with less for those below that level, and significantly more for the very rich. My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life. And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty. The corresponding website also has a calculator that has a progressive suggestion about what is a good target for someone of a certain income. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ He gives 30%. I don't think he is extremely rich, yet he gives at a rate 6 times what he suggests people who are comfortably well off should give. Do you still feel he is a hypocrite?

silicon2401 5y ago
> Do you still feel he is a hypocrite? Unequivocally yes, because the bar he set was (apparently) saying that living in comfort beyond hunger and pain (or whatever the comment I responded to said) is "wrong". Random numbers don't change the fact that he's still living quite comfortably, which by his own standard is wrong. If he admitted to changing his views, or acknowledged his hypocrisy, then I'd think highly of him for his intellectual honesty. Otherwise I don't see much value in his points unless you happen to already agree with him, again, like the commenter I responded to originally
- tasty_freeze 5y ago
  The comment you replied to originally has this quote: "if you are living comfortably while others are hungry or dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behavior." You claim what Singer said was: "living in comfort beyond hunger and pain is wrong" You did "doing nothing is wrong" turn into living better than abject poverty is wrong?