https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA
Sorry, I had to disable comments on this particular video because quite a few of them were inappropriate, even threatening. The views expressed in this video

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/videos-books-and-essays/famine-affluence-and-morality-peter-singer
Peter Singer's core argument in 'Famine, Affluence and Morality' is as follows: ... that we need to have a basic moral code which is not too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man, for otherwise there will be a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code. ... I think, swept aside by the extreme evil of people starving to death

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality
Peter Singer "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written by Peter Singer in 1971 and published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1972. It argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western cultures.The essay was inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, and uses their

https://www.reddit.com/r/ConfrontingChaos/comments/12n1kdl/peter_singer_ordinary_people_are_evil_34_mins/
Peter Singer and the Effective Altruism movement have undoubtedly made a lot of people's lives better, and his is an important contribution to philosophy. But if you spend just 5 minutes seriously coming up with critiques, it's clearly not unassailably good, nor is it an end to philosophy. You are absolutely right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE3If61qvp0
Join me as I delve deep into the thought-provoking philosophy of Peter Singer, renowned moral philosopher and bioethicist. In this video, titled "Why Ordinar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbgFbZmldeY
Talks at Google was honoured to host the esteemed philosopher Peter Singer to discuss his seminal work Famine, Affluence, and Morality and what it means to l

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Peter Albert David Singer AC FAHA (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher who is Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.Singer's work specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He wrote the book Animal Liberation (1975), in which he argues for vegetarianism, and the essay "Famine, Affluence, and

https://www.timesofisrael.com/peter-singer-worlds-most-dangerous-man-or-hero-of-morality/
Coleman has called Singer "a public advocate of genocide and the most dangerous man on earth.". Singer says of critics who use the Nazi label about him, "It's absurd and it makes me sad

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/4yh3vn/what_are_some_criticisms_of_peter_singers/
These view obviously enrage those who hold human life to be sacred. Philosophical criticism of some of Singer's views on abortion/infanticide and animals are presented in Jeff McMahan's 'The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life'. See for example the discussion on replaceability of non-persons. Reply reply.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/6/20992100/peter-singer-effective-altruism-lives-you-can-save-animal-liberation
The thought experiment you propose makes vividly clear that some of the very ordinary decisions of our lives — like my decision to buy a coffee at Starbucks this morning — can be viewed as evil.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/Peter_Singer_Says_You_Are_a_Bad_Person
It's getting harder to have a good time. Peter Singer has argued in Practical Ethics (1993) that you are morally deficient if you eat meat, or if you fail to give a good bit of your income - 5% if you earn more than $100,000, and at least 10% of income over $150,000 - to help the world's most destitute. It's actually worse than that.

https://medium.com/@snowythefirst/ordinary-people-are-actually-evil-is-the-claim-of-singers-highly-controversial-ethics-paper-6639cf7ae657
Ordinary people are actually evil, which is the claim of Singer's highly controversial ethics paper. ... Peter Singer lives his life kinda like this. He is still alive and doesn't live a very

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil308/Singer2.pdf
%PDF-1.4 %äüöß 2 0 obj > stream xœ¥\Ënå¸ Ý÷WÜõ·#'"% Æ |Ýö"» È"È.3 ² Ùä÷#'õ8EJ¢ Û-ñQd½N ‹š¾»Û ¾ýû6ÝîÓþgr~ÿ¹lùç ¿ÝþòËí_åeþ÷Ç?¾= ~sËô}»-Sú¾Þ~þýö§ wsóíçï }™ÜãîÜËä ~{™Âã ^¦ùqßÿŽ ýqzÜãË´" ëãî¹áÞk-¾[ùÏëã¾ä žº>k _º»dûÇÒøm âøExìƒü( ¾—·µåVç˜Ë‹ "› ûùçoï

https://www.reddit.com/r/misanthropy/comments/125js6j/ordinary_people_are_evil/
Ordinary people are evil. I don't think we have the individual ability to care about all of the people of the world. If we don't have the ability, we can't be blamed for not being able IMO. It's like blaming a dog for not having a job. The banality of evil applies to everyone, not just the Nazis. "The argument seems like a good one, and it has

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-Singer
Peter Singer (born July 6, 1946, Melbourne, Australia) is an Australian ethical and political philosopher best known for his work in bioethics and his role as one of the intellectual founders of the modern animal rights movement. (Read Peter Singer's Britannica entry on ethics.) Singer's Jewish parents immigrated to Australia from Vienna in

https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Ten_Reasons_Why_I_Love_Hate_Peter_Singer
Five Reasons To Love Singer. 1) Because his main aim is to reduce the suffering of sentient beings in the world, human or non-human. "If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThiU6zH4R7E
Full episode with Peter Singer (Jul 2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llh-2pqSGrsClips channel (Lex Clips): https://www.youtube.com/lexclipsMain channel

https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/The_President_of_Good_and_Evil_by_Peter_Singer
Peter Singer, one of the world's best-known philosophers, has taken up this daunting challenge in his The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush, and the result is a superbly instructive lesson on the strengths and limits of applying the methods of philosophy to current events. Immanuel Kant once wrote that "out of the

https://laataiasu.github.io/post/2023-11-30-ordinary-people-are-evil/
Peter Singer - Ordinary People Are Evil. November 30, 2023 · 3 min · 543 words · laataiasu. ... The ultimate solution to loneliness lies in a totalitarian Muslim surveillance government, monitoring every aspect of people's lives: their movements, behavior, genetics, beliefs, and environmental conditions.

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf
PETER SINGER Famine, Affluence, and Morality As I write this, in November Ig7I, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The suffering and death that are occurring there now are not inevitable, not unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term. Constant poverty, a cyclone, and a

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer
Bespectacled, balding, and thin, the Australian scholar Peter Singer has the looks of a stereotypical college professor. You would never be able to tell simply by his unassuming persona that his mind holds some of the most controversial ideas in American academia. Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/54sbo2/peter_singers_short_summary_of_the_problem_of/
The perfect world of Peter Singer has free will but no way to exercise it in a meaningful fashion and, as such, is a worse world among possible worlds than this one. Reply reply oklos • That's a rather disturbing perspective though. ... The problem of evil is only a problem for people who claim to believe in a God who is all-powerful, all

https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/1caazu3/peter_singer_ordinary_people_are_evil/
Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil. i watched this a year ago. i think the logic is pretty flawless here but it'd bee too ridiculous to genuinely expect people to care about something that's happening far away from them and has no direct impact on them. 7.9K subscribers in the Efilism community. EFIL is Life spelt backwards.

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapze/comments/11pms0s/peter_singer_ordinary_people_are_evil/
The issue is Singer doesn't understand basic human psychology, (maybe he's autistic) and so he finds himself in this conundrum like a logic-proficient chimp. The correct conclusion shouldn't be that humans are evil, instead it should be realized simply that for humans, PROXIMITY MATTERS.