I have a co-worker in China that told me a lot of people are afraid of helping people in the streets as it's common to be caught up in the accident and blamed and framed to be the perpetrator and sued.

Life changing. Thanks. I'm a guy that likes philosophy, math, and studied economics at university. Now I work in the finance sector. This makes total sense to me, I have been searching for ways to live more morally. Even began a career change, but changed my mind. So, my plan now is to follow Peter's advice.

My Ethics class brought me here.

I don't know why people don't like Singer - surely his ideas are a logical extension of preference utilitarianism - I mean it would make sense that the ethical framework that favors maximizing preferences would be one that advocates for charitable actions. But even on the whole animal rights part of his philosophy, I mean the tenet of utilitarianism is really that the moral action strives towards maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain - and it's not as if humans are the only species that can feel pain or some form of pleasure. You might not like Singer's ideas, you might not think they're practically feasible, but you have to admit they're pretty logically consistent.

I love the fact that there are hundreds of languages for options as subtitles

Professor Dr. Peter Singer is the leading ethical philosopher of our century. He introduces humanity to what true love means. Most people do not understand the meaning of true love. Altruism is true love. Altruism is giving true love to all sentient beings equally.

If you donate to the Against Malaria Foundation (as I have, based on Giving What We Can's recommendation), then they email you when the nets you've paid for are distributed :) They track this carefully and publicly post photos of them being distributed.

I absolutely agree with Singers views here, we should definitely try and be come altruistic. But surely it shouldn't be a burden on the individual to stop poverty. Wouldn't it be more effective to address the oppressive systems that mean that some people live in squalor whilst others lick gold off their fingers? The one percent hoards all their wealth exploiting the poor, we shouldn't rely on their altruism to make the biggest difference in the world.

One of my all time favorite philosophers.

People like this man speaking here, give me hope and peace and strength, and I thank God for giving us the resources and the intelligencefor dealing with lifes hardships and for life to have better days.

When he asked if they had the thought "I would help the injured child" I would not raise my hand. Not because of any belief that I *wouldn't* help them, but merely because I possess an intense fear of saying anything about my future with any sort of certainly. Just like the "would you jump off a bridge if everyone else did?" having the possible response of "why are they jumping off the bridge?"... any sort of hypothetical aspect of moral character means nothing compared to when it's happening with nobody looking. What are you in the dark? Would you risk losing something important in a physical or emotional way if it meant saving a life? What about risking your own life? Nobody knows the answer to this question until they experience the question in reality.

Peter Singer is an asset for the world.

Great proyect, effective altruism is a beginning to great changes in the world. Hope we can learn to be more sensitive and smart making things

When TEDtalkers use and reference great websites, like this, it would be amazing if they were in the video description! I'd love to see TED use it to communicate and offer more. Amazing talk, this is a community I want to live in!

I think we have to get over fear of being immodest when talking about our own giving. It is definitely possible to talk about this without boasting. If we were more open about what we gave, more people would be encouraged to also give themselves.

"We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of hamburgers." Peter Singer #goplantbased

Very good way to collective enlightment and improvement of the well-being of the global society.

It seems the people who disagree with Singer mainly either misinterpret him or just want to make things more complicated for the sake of it. His goal is simple: decrease suffering in sentient beings. How can you disagree with that?

Through this lecture, I realized that if individual do ‘The Effective Charity’, it would be even much more meaningful participation. This lecture was the opportunity that when I do the charity, how to donate to help improve the social structure. I hope that this video is widespread and helps a lot of people.

He's done such great work over his life, but still seems so humble about it. It's great he's being joined by so many people at The Life You Can Save!

He is trying to inspire people to action and he doesn't even lay down much guilt towards that end. Effective Altruism is good because it saves lives and relieves people from horrible suffering. The fact that it makes some people (like me) feel better as well is a bonus.

Absolute FIRE. This is a Peter Singer W. This guy is 100% sincere and will always act on his theory.

I had never heard of Mr.Singer. Then I start watching this and hear his Australian accent. WOW.! Much love & humility from SYDNEY.

To be honest, I am astonished by the oversemplification that Singer does when he says that the more you earn, the more you can give, the more you can be ethical. So we should work in finance to earn more and give more, he says. This statement is so void, as it seems to ignore that money are not made out of nowhere. In a society which is run by fossil energy, where big money gravitate around mineral extraction, plastic production, arms production, animal food production, tobacco production, how can you say that you are ethical if you orientate your life towards earning more so to give more money for charity? Before looking at the positive impact of our donations, we should look at the negative impact that we generated by accomulating the money that we have. If you work in finance, you can make planty of money by degrading the environment, exploiting workers in least industrialized states, and utlimately causing many people's and animals' suffering. How much of the money earned in this way should you give to charity to be ethical?

To me this was one of the most inspiring TED talks I've seen. Clearly spoken and a genuinely heartfelt message. I'm unsure how this could be controversial.

What a amazing human being! His comments on the Bill and Melinda foundation show a great lack of business understanding. Doesn't take away from his words though.

Just when I have been feeling we are losing it as a species, I found this video and am full of hope. thank you Peter for all the great work you are doing. I am moved and touched.

I agree. Altruism is like a skill or expertise. When someone starts, you say "wow, that's so great that you started doing that!", that you'll overlook that they're not good at it right away. But maybe they didn't put their focus in the right place, and you see them going around in circles for a while not getting any better. You step up and tell them how you feel, have a debate about it. Altruism is like that. Wow, so proud you took the first step, but now let's refine and improve.

Effective Altruism: "All this unchecked corporate capitalism at best and fraud at worst is going to be for the good of humanity bro, I promise after getting billions of dollars for myself under my name I will give it all back just trust me bro"

Brilliant as always Singer, the analogy of a hedonic treadmill hit me the greatest.

I'm so glad that he brought up the bottled water thing. I tried to talk a few friends out of spending $40 a month on bottled water during the summer, but they just wouldn't listen. It made me want to bash my head against a brick wall, especially because the tap water here actually tastes quite good.

just saying..if you are middle class like me, we don't actually have luxuries or spent money in things we don't need. I can barely fulfill my needs with my salary. But there are people that earn millions-extra millions every single day. They earn in one minute what you and me earn in a life time. My point is: We wouldn't need human care foundations to wait for our pity 5 or 20 dollar donations if salaries would be fair-equity. Movies stars, sports stars, government executives, etc; I get it, they have a talent but same as the surgeon who save lives or the garbage collector that keeps your city functional and so many other jobs. So if that thought is fair, why we have some people getting getting 35 million a year? isn't one million or three enough to satisfy their necessities? and the rest put it to famine, poor children, health relief and so on? AND YET THIS PETER SINGER TELLS ME THAT I NEED TO GIVE THE LITTLE YOU AND ME HAVE LEFT TO A HUMAN ORGANIZATION TO BE BETTER OFF? I THINK THE IDEA IS GREAT BUT THE MODEL AND PHILOSOPHY IS WRONG-FALLACY. We need a different approach to a better society, to a progress.

Peter Singer brings to light an interesting movement, I wish more people wanted to help each other in this way!

Isn't it awesome how he's stuck at encouraging people to help each other more, given what a while ago he wrote Famine, Affluence and Morality? It's great that The Life You Can Save has really taken off as an organisation and not just a book now!

Being altruistic is hardly giving up my life, I can live extremely comfortable while helping others. If I were to start a business, I might be able to support maybe 10 people who could probably have found other jobs. However making sure people in the developing world don't have disease could be extremely effective at giving them a shot at supporting themselves they might not have otherwise had. And while everyone's skills may not be equal, I do believe everyone is morally equals.

I still feel that you should help yourself first and then help the people around you, and then after that you help others in different locations.

What an inspiring video! The analogy of ignoring the little girl is really powerful.

I find Singer so inspiring, especially in relation to his work on animal liberation. I like this idea too because it empowers the people to act rather than wait for the goverment to take action (which is happening in the vegan movement too). But like other people, I worry how effective most charities really are. If that website shows a full breakdown of the charities' spending and outcomes then that would probably convince me.

That last line was powerful.. Well done.

Of course it matters whether or not I see the child lying in the street or if it is starving halfway around the world. One presents an opportunity to immidiately and effectively help, the other is a trust-based attempt at help, done around at least 3 corners (from you, to the organisation, to the local help). It is monstrous to walk past a bleeding child in the street. But, by that logic, it would be just as monstrous to keep a single penny for yourself, because you could've always helped more

i like singer's approach to maximizing utility and i appreciate the sentiment here. but i think something he needs to look more into is how imperialism and capitalism contribute to world poverty. when he talks about going into banking or finance to donate money, it would be quite ironic to dedicate a career to capitalism which contributes to worldwide oppression when you are trying to battle poverty

I have a lot of love to give and I certainly do so. I quite enjoy donating my time but unfortunately, I simply can't afford to donate to charities on a weekly or monthly basis. I think volunteering in your community and treating everyone you meet with a gracious attitude is far more meaningful.

Altruism is not just about ' giving ' . It is also about not causing ' harm ' !

It makes all the difference. When in person the emotional effect and cost you recieve is greater therefore effecting your decision.

I like where he's coming from. However, I do not think that earning money by exploiting the poor (or working for a company that does so) in order to give a percentage of your income to the poor is radically ethical.

I agree! Although sometimes it seems like the best way to change the current social order might be to give to charities that lobby governments (eg RESULTS) or in other ways try to alter / help the system (eg CITA farm workers). Charity evaluators like GiveWell and Giving What We Can try to consider and evaluate those kinds of organisations as well as more traditional charities.

Ayn Rand was against altruism forced at gun point and given to people who did not deserve it. She would have approved Peter Singer’s donation to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF). Singer’s giving to AMF is voluntary, reflects his values and gives him joy. The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is a follower of Ayn Rand philosophy. His “altruism” reflects his values and brings him happiness. I am amazed by how many people on both sides misunderstand what she was trying to say.

EA comes across as if it means well, that it's driven by the utilitarian principle of doing the most good for the most people but at its core lies a troubling antecedent. And that's assuming people want to do good and to help others simply because they want to do good and help others. Study human nature. Selfishness lies at the core of it. Selfishness is what drives much of human initiative. That can serve both good and bad aims. If you want to lead an ethical life, and give of your time, energy, and/or money, the first step is to actually lead an ethical life! Put off buying your next carbon combusting automobile; become a vegetarian; don't become a conspicuous consumer; don't buy products made with plastic; take physical actions that actually show you what it means to be ethical as you understand the meaning behind the word. EA emphasizes $$$ as a way to be ethical and that's where the fundamental problem begins. Can you be ethical and effectively ethical without needing to accumulate and/or spend a lot of money? Do you need to sacrifice a kidney to be effectively altruistic? It all seems so relative. People behave ethically and become altruistic because ethics matters to them. And people give money to organizations that matter to them. Spending that much time on which organizations are doing the most good is not second nature. I care about what I care about and am not going to spend the most time on figuring out which organizations are doing the most good. I'm extremely impressed by the Ocean Cleanup and the leadership shown by Boyan Slat. That man deserves a Nobel prize for what he's trying to accomplish! And as far as I can tell, his organization has been as transparent as possible about the progress its made and its ongoing challenges to remove plastic from our oceans. Boyan Slat has SOLD ME on his efforts to rid the world of plastic and I believe his org will continue to play a fundamental role in achieving that objective. How effective is the Ocean Cleanup? Are they doing the most good at removing plastic from the ocean? I can't say for sure. But I like what I'm seeing and reading about. And he has my financial support. And I'm content with my financial contributions to his org. I discovered Ocean Cleanup because of TED and I have to thank TED for it. But I never for a moment believed that Boyan's organization was going to be the most effective way at removing plastic from the ocean! You have to fundamentally change human behavior and human systems that are using plastic for that to happen. That requires much deeper systemic changes in policy. At least Boyan is no SBF and not a con-artist (at least he hasn't shown to be). SBF was a fraud and the biggest lesson we can learn from him is to not be so easily fooled by people who espouse EA. Money corrupts and the drive for wealth accumulation is not always the best way to advance a more ethical way to live or to be more altruistic. EA looks to capitalism, an inherently exploitative economic practice for its answer on how to improve human behavior and drive effective altruism when that is the problem.

A little concern that I have about effective altruism is that it encourages the use of foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates one that even if they do make a big difference in a lot of people's life they also pursue the goal of augmenting their influence which is something that can lead to neo colonialism and to make the poorer countries depend on the help of the richer ones. I appreciate the effort of Singer on spreading the value of equity but real social justice only comes when you have both freedom and equity.

Brilliant guy, brilliant talk.

'But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralizes.' - Oscar Wilde

It's uncomprehendable to me of how people could dislike this? Do they just not care about people in third world countries? Stop complaining! Your life could have been so much worse! The fact that you had the ability/opportunity to watch this means you should be grateful beyond belief.

Effective Altruism.... so what is InEffective Altruism then? Who decides what is Effective? I am pretty sure sending money to a third world country or donating for a cure to some decease is not. It is very short-sighted. The comparison between the kid that was driven over and our ability to contribute to help preventing kids to die from poverty related deceases, is so wrong that I cannot possibly find words for it, where to begin. This is quite disturbing stuff. With the even more disturbing conclusion: Make lots and lots of money, give some away, done - you are 'good'.

I’m here from my philosophy class

What a beautiful thing, and hes even fulfilling his goals by giving the ted talk because its persuading us to adopt the philosophy. What we consider a genius is wrong him and other people making that targeted effort are geniuses.

Какое прекрасное выступление, спасибо. Скоро мне доставят книгу Питера «Жизнь, которую вы можете спасти», очень жду

I can't think of a more effective way to funnel all charity money to your own agenda than to make the claim that your charity is wiser than the others. This is a dangerous concept and will create a power imbalance and shortage for charities not on Mr singers agenda list.

Very true! It's amazing that we have the opportunity to help people so much. And nice to know that others are really doing so, like at The Life You Can Save.

Being a decent person who holds herself/himself and her/his family and lookout for them and having some basic moral is not enough now. You would be still evil. Ohh those crazy man and their lovable and agreeable romantic bullshit ideas. You have to uphold to those whatever standards proposed by different mad man wearing enlightened one clothes. So catchy and itchy. My advice do not take such man too seriously. Try to live by some basic code and morals, be a charitable person from time to time as he suggested if you have the luxury to do so, if not so be it. Listen to those mad people and try to live up to their standards and expect others to do so as well and whole world will go crazy, since there is no shortage of those man and especially their ideas and standards. Worst is you will not end up only with Peter Singer, there are bunch out there with other funny ideas. They are trying to create their own religion and expect us to fall into their small frame/boundaries of rules. A notion sounding romantic is generally not a good idea my friends, go live your lives with some common dignity and you are good to go I say.

"do charities even work though?" Is a deflective question i have heard time and time again to get the asker off the hook as for why they have more than they need and still dont give any to charity. It allows them to keep their political and moral values without taking any action to live in accordance with those values

God what a load of neoliberal capitalism. I hated him ever since I read "Animal Liberation" but now it's just cemented in my mind that he's a man deeply beset by guilt and hoping that he can buy his way out of those feelings.

Please explain to me how encouraging people to save children's lives is a disgusting thing.

I gave 1.2 million to charity so far but I feel that much richer. Excellent video that puts things into perspective.

I adore Peter Singer and what he has done. Great points he has made by Affective Altruism.

Loving science, atheism, education when young I thought I had won life; I solved my family's faults; victory. But it was only a first step. Human beings hurt without connecting to others. Even when I don't like humanity, never mind love it, I know this to be true; helping others helps me. Getting outside of your own mind and making the nagging in your conscience match your daily actions is hard, but it works in a way no Ted talk ever will. Apathy is waking death. Volunteer. Give. Reach out.

Sem palavras. Simplesmente fantástico!.

Dear Peter Singer, with All my Respects - please allow me to say some words. Thank you. In the parliamentary debate with Jeremy Corbyn Boris Johnson said that his government would uphold the rights of journalists and whistleblowers. This means that he is going to support Julian Assange who is a journalist and offers a platform for whistleblowers exposing war crimes, constructed war reasons and other crimes. To defend freedom of information is important. Hence I would like to ask you to say some sentences supporting the freedom of Julian Assange. Sincerely and FREEDOM for Assange! Michael Haas

*LIVING LEGEND*

Ali Abdaal brought me here

You have inspired me thank you sir.

Joey Savoie, it is not that I disagree to what your are saying. But understand that various people go through different experiences in life and that is what makes up their mindset. I am a kind who can't believe a middleman (like a website). In India I have read news of beggars who have died wealthier than me and seen how beggars are created and utilized. It's a business over there. So, I have learned not to give anything to beggars.

I agree, although people should be able to decide for themselves. It just seems a bit unfair to criticise someone's choice. How does he know what reason someone may have for giving to a charity that isn't deemed as effective? It could have saved their lives or the life of a friend. It just seems a bit odd that he's basically saying, 'the more lives you save the better you will feel.' Which I disagree with. A life is a life regardless of how many you save. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

Wow, that's amazing! How did you decide what charities to give to?

"All live have equal value"

Yeah he obviously can't tailor the talk to everyone. I agree that some people will be drawn to causes that affect them personally and that's ok. He's right for me that knowing im helping more people makes me feel good. I think he made his point that there is stuff we can do, and if your goal is simply to help people these groups are a great guide.

He is brilliant

Is there a company that distributes birth control to 3rd world countries. I think that would be a way of eliminating potential suffering, while not adding to the problem of overpopulation. Just a thought.

I really like Singer - though I do think the distance between two people matters a whole lot. First of, value is created in relations. If you have no relations to something there is no inherit value to it. A car, a piece of clothing, another human being. And could one really demand that we care about all things equal, without any personal relations to them? If that would be the case a chinese car and a chinese child should be able to demand the same rights and respects. Which is nonsense. So seeing the child in a pond, drowning, you're looking around, you gain a personal relationship with that child. And it is in that moment you have a relationship you gain a moral obligation. Just my 2 cents.

I don’t have the means to help kids all over the world but I do try to help at home and remain communicative with politicians to try to solve the problems and help everyone here at home.

The Sisyphus analogy at the end of this video is spot on.

Peter is amazing :)

If my class are watching this, hi

Singer dramatically overstates his case, esp about distance being irrelevant. We would stop to help a child. But what if there was 16,000 dying children between you and your office? If we stopped for all of them, no one would get to work. If no one got around to doing their work, the entire system would collapse and we'd have far more dying children on our hands.

By the way, all the profits from his book go to charity. It's funny how some people on here are saying that Singer's not going to get anyone to change by making them feel bad and others are saying that he's not going to get anyone to change by making them feel good!

You are right, I don´t know anything about Singer, and I´m glad to hear he is part of the animal rights movement. I just said I don´t think Bill Gates is an example in this issue at all. Everything else Singer says is remarkable, I would just exclude Gates name in his speech.

Wonder if he still thinks the same about Bill Gates in 23

No no, TELL everyone how noble you've been! It helps to change the norm. I think one of the biggest reasons why people don't give more is that they think people generally aren't giving much. Sure, it feels more self-important to say "Hey look at me giving all my money away" but I think there's a good argument that doing that will help others more in the long run....so risk annoying people and tell the world :P

Since when did I say I hate freedom and mankind? I want to help people enjoy their lives and be able to do what they want with them like us. I don't actually advocate population lowering as a main cause to focus on. People's need to control other is a major issue. If you can point to an established way of fixing this it would be great, in the meantime however I will try and help those born into an unfortunate situation live somewhat better.

I’m only here for a class and now they’re showing me dead kids

So one should use any means to become a billionaire (or another wealth point) to be able to be an effective altruist? Making millions in finance has enormous moral implications when thinking about how that money is made. Any denial of this is not taking into account the collective quality of life. Why ignore these questions when giving a talk like this?

I have always helped and thought about others then myself and it has deteriorated my health vastly

It matters in a practical way sometimes, but not in a moral way. i.e there are different opportunities available based on how far the person is from you, but a life in Africa still has the same value as a life in the developed world. Also, in this world it is actually much easier to save people in developing world than someone in the developed world.

We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of hamburgers." Peter Singer

I feel so weird after hearing about the blind dog training as opposed to giving money for charities that offer cheap medication... It feels like you are doing the right thing by saving a lot of people but at the same time you'd think to yourself... What about the blind man that needs a guide dog? Whos gonna help him if everyone wants to create the "biggest impact" with the money that they have? I wouldnt take this idea into account I am donating money

It is possible to make this world a better place. Our problem is that with the system we live in, kindness and peace isnt valued. There is very little profit to be had if everyone shared everything is there? So what I say is. Whoever you are out there, hurry up and devise a new system for humanity, and we will help you implement it. A system that rewards sharing, rewards compassion, kindness and gentleness, and yet keeps the aggression and competition where it is useful (e.g space exploration)

youre right in a sense,i think what patschenko is saying is that he feels the ultimate amount of possible love for any person, therefore there is no more emotion evoked by more people. if you are scientifically oriented then imagine that one person makes his heart race at the speed of light, two people cannot make his heart race faster as its at the universal speed limit (in accepted theories)

This is totally wrong on so many levels. Of course the proximity of the case matters. It's all about having a practical perspective, or you'll just die yourself because there's so much pain and suffering and unfairness in the world. You can't take on all of it. Why would you? Then you'll just die yourself and be depressed all the time. You have to be pragmatic. I'm not walking past a hurt child, but I'm not going to feel bad about ALL the hurt children in Africa, Asia and all over the planet. That's just crazy. Using billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is another huge hit and miss. They could donate millions and they wouldn't even notice it. But if a normal person donate even 100 dollars it could mean they're not having their own need met that month. You need to calibrate yourself to a practical normality. Or you could just be totally nihilistic all the time and say noting matters and I'm doing nothing because the sun will eventually become a red giant and burn up the whole solar system and everything is meaningless. Of course that'd be stupid, but that's my point. You need to calibrate yourself to a practical normality. Which basically means to not walk past a hurt child, but also not taking the responsibilty of all the suffering on this planet.

And Effective Animal Activism :)

This was excellent!

A remarkable speech and video.