Watch the full debate here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gs-ViqeSpqeRZn0.html

Can the Union start posting vote results? (To those asking: opposition won this won, with quite a margin if my memory serves. Singer stole the show imo.)

For anyone who is saying that he just supported the side because of a semantic game, the speaker is a philosopher. The slightest difference in the way things are phrased makes all the difference in the world for such a person. Anyone who genuinely took an interest in philosophy would also understand the same. If anyone failed, it is the union who phrased the question in such a way that it is irresponsible to vote for the motion.

It was very clear from the start of the debate that each side was discussing a different topic

TLDL: Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I think Singer has a point there. He spent several minutes indirectly criticising formulation of the motion. Because indeed it limits what one can say. So if he takes the motion literally (which he thinks he has to), his argument can only be something like 'not all billionaires are immoral'. So I guess he cannot say all he would like to say under this motion.

I think what he failed to discuss is not about how billionaires are giving away their money, its how they acquired it in the first place.

I totally agree with him - words and the correct phrasing are so important because minor details like this can lead to major problems down the line.

Whoa thank you. Now I can become a billionaire.

Singer nails it with his laser-like focus on the motion itself, not a reconfigured motion as some on the other side try to make it. It's not about whether most billionaires are immoral or whether we should have a fairer tax system that might prevent people becoming billionaires in the first place, it's about whether being a billionaire is immoral per se. Singer's argues persuasively that it's not.

Remember Its immoral to be a billionaire UNLESS you fund democrats...

Britain was at its most equal during the period of 1946 to 1980, a CEO's wage was about 40 times that of the worker it is now in the vicinity of 250 X the average worker. That is the trend which cannot be stopped without intervention. Every time there is financial crisis, those with plenty of cash can do two things, they can wait it out and snap up the bargains. The losers are those with a mortgage, because it is now a buyers market; it was a sellers market when the property was initially purchased. Now the person with plenty of cash or a friendly bank can snap them up at a bargain rates. After the crash comes the recovery and those properties snapped up at a bargain will now sell for an ever increasing rate. It is possible for a billionaire to initiate such a crash.

It's important to speak to the actual wording of the motion, because there will definitely be people *literally* supporting it. Like he said: "billionaire -> bad!" Is too simplistic. Seriously discussed moral points should seldom be put in such black and white terms. They tend to promote conflating the person with the category, which is dehumanizing - and we all know where that leads.

I like Prof.Singer’s idea of a tax system making it impossible to become a billionaire.

there's a difference between contributing to the pot and taking the money for yourself to decide what you want to do for us with it

This seems like a weak argument that doesn't respond to the points of Anand Giridharadas or the Professor at UC Irvine.

Imagine a game of Monoply and one out of 10 players get 100,000,000 while the others start with 100. Who wants to play? 100% the one individual will win and have all the property. Would we call this cheating? Would it be okay if the billionaire in this game says, during the first round you don't have to pay any rent and I'll pay any fines you have. Does it make it fair and fun? And once the game is over, they decide that they will give away all the money... is that okay? After 50 rounds if anyone is still playing, the billionaire has bought everything and says they will forgive the debt the others own him/her.... do you see how it's not about immorality but why in hte game of life, everyone should be starting with the same opportunity.

Fantastic! I agree both with his personal views, which he states in the beginning, and with the position he takes in this debate. If the motion says what it says, then a debate should actually argue precisely that. Especially in a debate society.

Going to disagree with Peter and, frankly use a notion that I got from him to fuel it. Since the root of the immoral nature of wealth is grounded in power structures, the very act of making billions of dollars gives you enormous power to leverage with regard to how that money is allocated. Just because Gates has done some things that are highly laudible and Buffet is distributing his wealth to others doesn't make it moral. Those billionaires still retain their power and, indeed, exercise it in a very undemocratic way. I would suggest that the refusal to enter into a democratic power arrangement with regards to the distribution of that wealth does very little to aid the plights of people that are not addressed by these people's "altruism". This is extremely anti-Rawlsian. I can no more hit that randomizer of fate, attaining the veil of ignorance, than I can sleep at night knowing that those in my immediate experience are sheltered from the harms of poverty, mental illness, and the other anxious despairs of existentiality. When you can erase 99% of the wealth of the richest man in the world, leaving him with a mere 1.3 Billion dollars for his efforts, and lift 5.3 million people out of poverty to the tune of 2000 dollars per month of income, I'm sorry but that is immoral to the highest extremes, when viewed as a consequentialist! If the incomes of the top 10 United States billionaires were liquidated to the point where they only retained 1 billion of those dollars (STILL allowing them to remain Billionaires, by definition) you could completely end poverty in the United States as we know it. Would this spur on inflation? Maybe, but not for those goods for which poverty is a bench mark! Gone would be the argument for having to pay workers subsistance wages, as those on the lower economic rungs would be free of the oppression of poverty. A new age of artists and free ideas would be commonplace. Incidence of riots and social unrest would plummet and we would find ourselves in a FAR more just and equitable world. So, Peter is my favorite living philosopher (perhaps equal to the great Cornel West, in my eyes) but there is a deep sense of inequity and anti-democratic sentiment in the very notion of the Billionaire, when the rates of those at the bottom of the economic scale reaches into the tens of millions of people. So, I cannot support him in this motion. I enjoy his sentiment. There are laudable actions amongst our billionaire elites but they are still a foundational poison against our democracy and the moral character of caring humans. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion where Peter convinces me that the amount of economic freedom, to which he seems inclined, would be, ultimately, moral, over and beyond the scope of the poverty and democratic decay that results from it? I cannot think of such a lofty argument but Peter Singer is my better and I'd be happy to hear it. Just random thoughts posted into the interwebs, folks.

You remember that bit in Disney's Robin Hood where the Sheriff of Nottingham tosses a coin into the beggar's cup so hard that all of the coins bounce out again into his hand? That's billionaire philanthropy.

He had a good round up until he equivocated donating to the Democratic party with moral political engagement. Among Tom steyer, donors to the Democratic party include the fossil fuel industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, the private prison industry, the private education industry, and the military industrial complex. Somehow I get the feeling like these donors are not seeking to make billionaires obsolete.

I feel like the opposition depended on removing the logic required to become a billionaire within the context of the statement. Sure, in some other reality...yes...some billionaires could get there...but in this other reality, the one we exist in...the means to achieving that status require two factors: Money, and the multiplication of money through money. The more you have, the larger and more exponential your potential. You can make money morally. I imagine, even the "saint" that is Rowling has used the stock market, are we going to simply remove her questionable action of supporting a system that creates growth through the undermining of people lower in the economic caste system? When they cut costs through pay, align that across the board, and work together with their larger amount of power to create the growth she profits off of exponentially more than others...what is SHE accountable for? When you get to Bill Gates and the like, they HUGELY profited off the exploitation of the third world. They actively avoided addressing the means they use to create their products that achieved their dividends/salaries. But if you take any economics class they "magically" make that guilt disappear by saying "they are better off than they were"...I'm sorry...what? Analyze what is happening here. That's the same statement Britain used to subjugate countries...only now private entities are using those dismantled systems to profit privately off of isolated populations. If nobody is accountable for their actions, and the things they support...yet the "system" is somehow still to blame...they are propping up and supporting that system through their actions and they have the FULL agency to remove themselves from that system at a certain amount of wealth acquisition organically (such as through her book royalties) but you'd still have to analyse the factors that allowed her to make SO MUCH MONEY within that system? How high were her royalties? Are people getting undercut within the system she is using to create her core wealth? If she did not amass money to then combat the things she had no control over in order to stop them, she needs to be held accountable because she KNEW how she got that money...and she should know what stocks and things she makes money off of in the stock market and how they do so. End of the day, our current system of capitalism is so lazily unaccountable for its own evil that THIS is the reason it is so unstoppable. We just keep deflecting the blame up and then out...the individual staying completely clean at the end. It's garbage logic. We are all accountable, but Billionaires should be held accountable to the degree at which they profit...and it's on a magnitude that is nearly unimaginable. Let's not even get to the nitty gritty of how selective charitable giving is removing agency from the general populace in what issues and charities receive financial backing. They have the resources to preach to the masses that they should not exist and the system should remove them through democratic means of taxation, and yet few if any do so. Billionaires are a literal cancer on systems...using the resources of the body to do their own biding while the rest of the body suffers for it. The sheer amount of accumulation outside of democratic systems is by the nature of our economy...a sickness. Moral use doesn't equal out immoral gain.

id rather be the ruler of my own destiny than pray for a benevolent ruler. it's immoral to be complicit with a system that could give anyone as much power as a billionaire.

Rich people discussing the poor and why they are mad. Sadly most people who watched this on the internet will never be invited to an event like this. The event was not made for the average person, but rather the wealthy intellectuals.

At 1:40 he more or less makes the same case for the other side.

Just remember that this is the same man who said ‘infants shouldnt have a right to life’ in one of his books

i disagree with this dude, except for the shade he throws at the US, good counter point.

He's using semantics. He's basically choosing to address a different question/issue than what is implied by the question given and what is being spoken to by the other debaters. It's essentially conceding the point and then redefining the topic. That's a cop out.

Oxford often screw up the proposition making the debates uninteresting. I'm not a for the billionaire class but the blanket term if total immorality is ridiculous.

what r they saying 'no thank u' to?

Is there such a thing as Ideal Ethik v Real Ethik similar to Ideal Politik v Real Politik? He only needed a couple of minutes to argue his case by considering the literal meaning of the proposition. Unfortunately (from my Ideal Ethik) point of view, from a debating point of view, he was correct.

I think there is good and bad even within the 1% what interests me is many of our ancestors across all cultures were buried with perhaps all their percieved wealth at the time

so in his world view, best give away fortunes before the last breath, lest deemed immoral...hmmm???... this is circumspect. Rather...no matter billionaire or pleeb, what did you do with your life while breathing. the money is nothing. its neither a kings ransom, nor a baker dozen. A pauper and king alike die alone

That was a feel-good arguments which didn't even tried to delve into any deepness!

It is if that Billionaire does not use the wealth for the betterment of this world.

Ah yes a tax system to stifle innovation and encourage laziness, exactly what we need!

I cannot for the life of me, imagine naming Bill Gates as a paragon of billionaire class virtue and/or REMOTELY moral unless you can also demonstrate that the WHO is concerned about the individual health of citizens and the freedom to maintain bodily autonomy AND that the world's citizenry have democratically voted for the WHO officials.

I think the topic for argument should have been "SHOULD there be billionaires?" i think that's the point the above topic was trying to get at.

It seems that too much leisure make our grasp of reality too loose and our philosophical inclinations "progressively" deteriorated.

A person projecting moral necessities on positions they themselves will never find themselves exposed to - as a result of skill, culture or opportunity - is the very essence of fascism. An actionable conclusion of the world that’s drawn from personal need and experience, without interest or understanding of another time, people or place. Holding virtuous positions that place zero expectations on the accuser are pointless. A victim of poverty provides the power of the question - “Why?” - but they’re in a place to offer an answer - that burden belongs to those who instigated the “crime”. Objection to the Concentration of wealth at such events assumes currency contain an inherent moral value. It can do - in the case of preserving a photograph below - though ultimately the still shows a young woman who seems to ask for permission to their own native sex. If you’re so obsessed and certain with others sexuality - do the sensible and common thing - masturbate - don’t legislate.

Here, I'll fix it for you: it is immoral to allow someone to become a billionaire.

it should be changed to “It is imorral to be in the position to be moral and to be imorral”

Mr. Burns doesn't want you to dislike billionaires.

So where is it - the result of the votes???

So what did the audience vote for? Who won the debate?

Lol, the people on the other side must be feeling really dim right now.

Singer's argument is well performed, but illogical... By admitting a billionaire who dies a billionaire is immoral, he is saying a morality of wealth ultimately depends on not having it... therefore, it follows, being a billionaire is immoral and can only be redeemed if that state is undone in the end... and, to what effect..? Is the goal to bring forth the equitable society he suggests? Why not just cut to the chase?

Basically, he declined to argue against the motion. Which is good of him, and speaks volumes on where the sentiment lies with regards to concentration of wealth and the perversion it entails.

They have so much money that they just can't give it away fast enough. puhleeeze

According to his logic it's immoral to not try to become a Bilionaire and giving it all away. Which might be true.

This is a happy and affirming argument for why there CAN be moral billionaires. Like technology, I contend that financial standing is neutral. It can CERTAINLY be deployed and motivated by WONDERFUL people. Stay strong out there!! (N.B., the only cautious issue is the one of power: when people choose to deploy their wealth as power for selfish/powerfully motivated reasons)

Why are there 3 people sitting at the back on thrones? 😮

condemning all 2,000 of them lol

His whole point is about a technicality, the wording of the motion.

They make it seem like we want billionares to give up their wealth. We want them to pay their fare share. Its cool if they created the game, but not all the rules to make winings in their favor. We want them to respect the environment and the rights off all.

Singer was the most persuasive speaker because he spoke to the motion itself.

Very illuminating speech, yeah I agree

4:49 I feel you

But check this out...Do they ever give away enough to fall off that Billionaire List?...NO

He wants to have it both ways. His unstated premise is that money is the sole solution to human problems.

@OxfordUnion Where can one find the result of the vote on the motion?

AGREE 100%

Peter Singer makes great points here. What if we could combine the billions donated by generous philanthropists with the idea that no one should become a billionaire ? Should your wealth exceed a billion, you have a year to donate the excess to a charity of your choice or pay it as a tax. Now that would be progress. Nobody needs to be a billionaire or to control multibillion dollar companies.and certainly no one should be entitled to inheriting billions.

even if billionaires doesn't give away they are immoral...

Bravo Singer - the only one who actually broke down what the topic was actually stating.

Two problems here. His first argument is pretty much the equivalent of saying that if you're going to call killing immoral, then you have to condemn all those who have served in the military as immoral people, as they have taken part in the killing of others, or to decide to become a vegan for moral considerations, is to condemn all meat eaters evil, immoral people. This argument simply does not hold water. Then there's the notion that we need these billionaires to spend billions to solve the problems around the world that have in one way or another been caused by people trying to either get rich, or stay rich. Again, not a great argument.

Just curious, to what or whom was he answering “no thank you”?

who are these billionaires that he's saying that gave away 99% of their wealth? I don't find that really plausible lol

all the people starving today should be thankful for the billionaires who will give away their money to fight hunger when they die

He essentially just said, “billionaires are not all immoral, but good luck running into a moral one”. People play the odds = 98% chance of rain means l will take an umbrella/coat. Most billionaires are immoral = l will take my chances with a blanket opinion.

The world we live in today is a injustice against humanity and the sad thing is that us humans are the only to blame for our own suffering, we will never learn and soon enough this "modern empire" will fall...

03:39 cosmicskeptic in top left hand corner

Slightly off topic but one of the things that keeps people from poverty is the very things that are not considered necceties like eating out buying luxury cothes, going on vacations. Many people that provide these things depend on them for income. Alwaysthere are unintended consequences for any human endeavour. I suggest the better argument is not charity but a reasonable system of compensation . After all the accumulation of wealth depends largely on making money off of other peoples labor. Just my thoughts.

which side won the house?

It's unfortunate that such an acclaimed academic would make an argument about a class based on the actions of a minority of that class. It's as if to say that the class can not be judged based on what its members are more probable to do than not

Millionaires would be immoral too

Someone should send this speaker a copy of Anand Giridharadas's latest book: Winners Take All: The Elite Charade Of Changing The World, so he can debunk the brown nosing of certain billionaires he named himself. The arguments against the motion are high school level at best.

I can't believe such a prestigious institution is debating such a click-baity straw-man of a motion. With such a blunt over-generalisation, of course the real life-and-death issues would be side-stepped and the debate would descend into semantics.

Well this is all so ridiculous a bunch of some of the most privileged people in the world living privileged lives going to a top level school preaching from their high horses about being rich as immortal. With what they're saying is every human being that has more than they need are bad people for not giving all the extra to the needy. Put it in perspective almost all Americans and other people in first world countries would be a billionaire compared to poor people in Africa and other countries so with their argument you are a bad person if you don't dedicate your life to help them. I think what this is about is tearing western cultures down and bringing us down to them not bringing us up. The only reason someone like these people would get down from their ivory tower to virtue signal in their grand standing speeches is if they have a hidden agenda.

Some people are managing all these people keeping everyone safe and doing essencial things. The problem is when they do it destroying everyone in the way ansd the enviroment.

yeah but maybe all those charities they start and donate to is out of guilt cause they know they are using a system that is immoral.

If you have to give some away, you took too much.

Fact: In a rare instance, no batsman of a team was able to score any run in a cricket match and the team lost by a massive 754 runs in a U-16 Harris Shield game here. The game was played between Swami Vivekanand School and Children’s Welfare Centre School from suburban Andheri. And it was the batsmen from the Children’s Welfare Centre School, who could not score even a single run, as all of them were dismissed for a duck (zero).The Swami Vivekanand International School, Borivali, one of the prestigious schools, had piled up 761-4 in 45 overs with their one down batsman Meet Mayekar remaining unbeaten on 338 off 134 balls with seven sixes and 56 fours. However, the batsmen from Welfare School succumbed to pressure and were unable to score a single run individually. Note: This is a clear example of the consequences of inequality and the hoarding of resources that enable the flourishment of all. Imagine them competing for a job a few years down the line. The scenario I imagine is equally pathetic to this one. Question: How many people in that room are billionaires? How come we are defending people who are not even among us? What do we do when the white walkers are walking among with us?

Dear Peter Singer, I have always had the feeling that you defend freedom and that you support those in need. Today I would like to ask you to say some sentences in public demanding the release of Julian Assange. Assange has been fighting for free information and bringing war crimes to the eyes of the public. He is a journalist and helps all of us the understand what´s going on. Thus reducing wars and the possibilities of successful `war lies´. Thank you for your understanding and all the best. Michael Haas

I agree that "It Is NOT Immoral To Be A Billionaire" but disagree with his arguments. Why should the very rich be taxed more than everyone else. Already the top 20% pay 80% of all taxes. Why is it the left always wants to steal other people's money. The billionaires didn't steal their wealth. They created jobs and businesses. In their success they have help many others become successful too. Having billionaires means that their can be people who can fund dreams. I think of all the things that couldn't happen if it weren't for the concentrated wealth. Exceptionalism brings light to our dark world. All of the wonders of the world were created via exceptional people.

We absolutely have a moral obligation to do all we can to end poverty, hunger and suffering all over the world, but it is impossible for individuals, who lack significant financial means, to affect real meaningful change in the world without the help of governments, both here and abroad, adjusting their priorities to deal with this situation. That being said, it is our responsibility to support and elect public officials, who have at their core being, those moral imperative priorities! The real problem is that the filthy-rich, the less than 1% of the population, who own and run the governments and media of the world, are greedy and do not share any of those priorities, and live only to exploit the weak and powerless for their own personal gain. They spend good portion of their wealth manipulating government officials and the media to manufacture a false consent of the governed masses to continue on with the status quo, making themselves even more rich and powerful. Education of the people through the media is the solution to this problem! Change the Media and Change the World! The media IS the problem! The MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex), the fake, mimic of democracy and freedom of speech, is running and propagating Western Empire through propaganda and misinformation to manufacture the consent of the people for their agenda. It really is just that simple! The assassination of Zawahiri was totally unnecessary, but it gave Biden his "Obama Kills Bin Laden" moment, just like the "Trump Kills General Soleimani" media moment, so with the media's help, they can further cement the idea of the legitimacy of the "War On Terror"! The killing of Zawahiri will NOT make the world safer, in fact, just imagine if the new leader of Al Qaeda acquires some drones or other high-tech weapons that we are funneling to the black-market through our hundreds of billions of dollars of arming Ukraine! So NOW, everyone should clearly see the MIMIC's involvement in the manufacturing of our consent for endless war - but they won't! Al Qaeda was created and funded by the US and the CIA. 50 years of media consolidation and message manipulation have gotten us to this really bad place in America! In the US of 2023, we find ourselves so deeply controlled by the corporate government and its propaganda media arms, that "we the people" are unable to extricate ourselves from this, our self-imposed, brainwashed stupor of inaction! American Empire and Hegemony can no longer be altered from inside the US, so the change must come from outside, possibly from the BRICS countries. The things that need to fall are the Petrodollar, the IMF and the World Banking System - NATO will follow. Then the United Nations must be reformed with real democratic changes. For the UN to be able to operate effectively, many structural changes would need to take place. First, no country should have veto power. Each country, or region if you like, should have power commensurate with their population. NATO, the US imperial force of American hegemony must be dissolved as the Warsaw Pact was after the break-up of the Soviet Union. All military alliances between individual countries must be ended. The IMF and the World Bank must be gotten rid of as well, taking away the ability of a few countries to sanction and enforce their policies on others. There may need to be a military component to the UN in case individual nations refuse to abide by the decisions and decide instead to enforce their will by force-of-arms. These types of actions could be curtailed by limiting the size of individual countries military forces to only defensive capability, not offensive weaponry. If a country fails to abide by the UN collective decisions, their trading rights with the other member countries could be suspended. Each country could have their own currency, or central bank if you prefer, but all of them would be pegged to an international currency exchange rate, sort of like an indexed fund based on all of the currencies combined. In this case, if an individual country prints too much money, their money would be devalued in relation to the international exchange rate. State secrecy and censorship, the scourge of humanity, must give way to a totally open society based on direct democracy. Now, the real question is - Do you think the US and the other Western Empire member states would endorse these changes? The MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex)is now totally in control and rules via the fake democracy! All of print media is owned by the same people who own mainstream (lamestream) media, and they follow the same playbook as stenographers for the establishment power elite. They are full-fledged members of the MIMIC, the Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex! I'm 70, a Vietnam era veteran, and after living through all the horrors perpetrated on the rest of the world by American Empire, I still find it hard to believe that people support the idea of American Exceptionalism, when it is brutally obvious that the only things truly exceptional about Americans is their sky-high levels of ignorance and apathy! Older people have had a lot more time for exposure to the MIMIC through the mainstream (lamestream) media outlets TV, Radio and print media, who merely parrot the policies and agenda of the power establishment. Unfortunately, most older people DO NOT engage with alternative digital media, which is the only source of non-propaganda information available today. The young people are a product of the digital age and don't absorb corporate news, but the MIMIC system IS hard at work finding new ways to reach them on digital platforms! I have told you this before, but it bears repeating one more time - The MIMIC is now totally in control and the fake democracy is fully pushing a far right-wing agenda! True democracy in America was mortally wounded many decades ago, and the coup de grace was administered by the US Supreme Court in 2010 with the horrendous "Citizens United v FEC" decision which opened all the floodgates of corporate money into our political parties and election processes! Now, our government is totally owned by "Big Money" and they call all the shots! The MIMIC has so thoroughly divided the two DEM/REP political camps over nonsense issues, that they could never be made to vote for the same candidate even though many individual issues are supported by people of both parties, and therein lies the problem! The Republican Party is wholly and totally owned by the corporatists and the Democrats are NEARLY totally owned by them as well. And this is why the status quo will be maintained regardless of which of the Dem/Rep duopoly candidates is in the White House and in Congress! CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS and all of their affiliates along with nearly all other radio and print media outlets are dues-paying members of the MIMIC (Military-Industrial-Media-Infotainment-Complex). The MIC morphed into the MIMIC over the last 50 years following the Viet Nam war when the Deep State realized that without the media on board they would be unable to manufacture consent of the masses for their agenda. During the Vietnam war, the President of the United States said it out loud with these words, paraphrasing, "If we have lost Cronkite (the nightly news anchor), then we have lost the war". That was a "Clarion Call" to the to the deep-state establishment power and now the whole system mimics a functioning democracy for the benefit of the ruling elite and to the detriment of the masses! It's time to face the fact that an ignorant, poorly informed and misinformed electorate is easily led to vote for its own demise and it has been doing so for over 50 years now! It's way past time to wake up and smell the napalm!

"To be moral humans we should all refrain from ideas and actions that make us different and valuable to others, and limit ourselves to those ideas and actions that keep us at the sheep level so that we can all avoid jealousy and covetousness and be much more "equal"".

This debate is misguided. Its not immoral to simply have a billion dollars. Its immoral to have a system where some people can become billionaires while others experience poverty. Peter Singer is correct

He is arguing for an oligarchy.

Is this guy debating for the right side? Seems like he should be arguing for the other. He declared it's immoral to have a system that allows for billionaires... yet his only point is that their are decent moral billionaires out there. I don't think anyone has claimed that all billionaires are immoral, so it's a meaningless argument.

Billionaires become billionaires by exploitation. There is no way around it. Yes, it is immoral to be a billionaire.

GPT-4's response to Singer: Indeed, Peter Singer's main contention revolves around the universal condemnation implied by the motion "It Is Immoral To Be A Billionaire." He argues that such a blanket statement doesn't take into account the nuanced actions of certain billionaires, particularly those who engage in significant philanthropic efforts. He emphasizes that condemning all billionaires, irrespective of their individual actions and intentions, is an overly simplistic approach that doesn't align with the complexities of moral evaluation. Here's a counter-argument that specifically addresses Singer's concern about the universality of the motion: ### 1. **The Issue with Universal Statements in Moral Judgments:** - **Precision in Moral Discourse:** Singer rightly points out that moral discourse requires precision. However, societal discourse often employs generalizations to address systemic issues. While not all billionaires may act in ways that are morally condemnable, the statement can be seen as a critique of the broader systemic issues associated with extreme wealth accumulation. - **The Purpose of Hyperbolic Statements:** Sometimes, hyperbolic statements are used in moral and political discourse to draw attention to significant issues. The motion's phrasing might be seen not as a literal universal judgment but as a rhetorical device aimed at sparking debate about the ethical implications of wealth inequality and the responsibilities of the ultra-wealthy. ### 2. **Redefining the Motion for Nuance:** - **A Call for Contextual Interpretation:** While the motion is phrased universally, it can be interpreted in a more nuanced way. It could serve as a call to scrutinize the systemic issues that allow such wealth accumulation and to question whether individuals, regardless of their philanthropic efforts, should hold such disproportionate wealth and power. - **Moral Complexity:** Acknowledging Singer's point, the debate could benefit from a rephrased motion that encapsulates the moral complexity of billionaire status. For instance, "The systems and behaviors that enable individuals to become billionaires are often immoral" might be a more precise way of capturing the essence of the concerns without universally condemning every billionaire. ### 3. **The Role of Billionaires in a Moral Society:** - **Beyond Philanthropy:** Even if we accept that not all billionaires are immoral, it's essential to discuss the broader societal impact of having such significant wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. This includes examining the moral implications of the power dynamics, influence on policy, and the societal responsibilities of billionaires beyond philanthropy. - **Moral Agency and Systemic Change:** While some billionaires engage in commendable philanthropic efforts, the discussion also involves their role in advocating for and effecting systemic changes that address the root causes of inequality and injustice, beyond individual acts of charity. In addressing Singer's concerns about the universality of the statement, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of moral judgment and the broader societal implications of extreme wealth accumulation. While individual actions of billionaires vary, the debate invites a more comprehensive examination of the ethical, economic, and political structures that allow such wealth disparity and the responsibilities of those who benefit most from these systems.

so... It's not immoral to be a billionaire _if you live to give it all away_ Also I guess is perfectly moral that poor people expect to be liberated from poverty at the expense of those who have more than they need

If the best argument for moral billionaires are examples of billionaires who give most of their money away (JK Rowling, WarrenBuffer, Bill Gates), and the bad examples are billionaires who hoard their wealth (the rest..), then why even have an economic system that enables billionaires to exist in the first place? Whether or not being a billionaire is immoral, I think we can all agree that it would be better if they did not exist in today’s economy, and rather most of their billions in earnings be redistributed in escrow, in my name, until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

For sure it is!

I largely agree with Singer, and I think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are great examples. I would not put Tom Steyer in the same category, as Obama, Clinton, and the Democratic Party are status quo centrists at best. We also saw that in this primary Steyer had political aspirations of his own, which largely discounts the philanthropic nature of his donations to the party in the first place. Same goes for Bloomberg (who thankfully Singer did not mention as a model for moral billionaires).

This how the motion sounds but was incomplete 'billionaires are immoral, evil, scammers!! Let's get their heads and hang them on a spike!!' 😂😂 The problem that has to be addressed here is inequality. Its really undeserving to strip people off what they worked for. More so, putting a limit to what hardworkers and ambitious people can do. I go agree that there are billionaires who are immoral but don't forget there are others who have brought change and contributed positively in their societies. What is needed is policies that actually work and prevent billionaires from overstepping and manipulating voids that are undiscovered by many. They should have a perimeter on how far they can go.

He is right, but this is an impractical idea. Some people will always find loopholes in the system, impossible to enforce.

Couldn't agree more with Peter on this. Wealth in itself is not immoral. It depends on what you choose to spend it on and what you do with it once you die.

It seems that philanthropy is the gateway to power. By Peter's own definition you must be immoral to become a billionaire. Billionaire's might not always be doing immoral things, but them existing as billionaires is immoral.