Peter Singer on the Ethics of Philanthropy – http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-singer-on-the-ethics-of-philanthropy-1428083293
Peter Singer would sooner donate a kidney than sponsor a concert hall. So when entertainment mogul David Geffen gave $100 million in early March for the renovation of Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in New York—it will soon be renamed David Geffen Hall—Mr. Singer questioned why people thought he was doing so much good.
Singer wants to control your thoughts. Statism.
Mr. Singer says that he doesn’t understand “how anyone could think that giving to the renovation of a concert hall that could impact the lives of generally well-off people living in Manhattan and well-off tourists that come to New York could be the best thing that you could do with $100 million.” He notes, for example, that a donation of less than $100 could restore sight to someone who is blind. Mr. Geffen declined to comment.
Singer knows better than you do how to spend your money. Statism.
Also, witness the stupidity of the statist. “He doesn’t understand” and anything a statist doesn’t understand is bad and must be eliminated. Such as math.
With his recent book’s focus on philanthropy, he hopes to change how we think about what it means to be ethical. “If you ask people what it means to live ethically, it’s a ‘Thou shalt not’ statement: ‘You shouldn’t cheat’ and ‘You shouldn’t lie,’ ” he says. “But if you’re fortunate enough to be part of the more affluent billion in the world, to live ethically, you have to do something to help those who are less fortunate, who just happened to have been born in impoverished countries, and that’s part of living an ethical life.”
The answer is to vote for Obama and kill the poor people with flying robots and bombs. And to give money to their oppressive governments that keep the people poor.
Mr. Singer rose to prominence with his 1975 book “Animal Liberation,” in which he argued that animals should be treated with the same respect as humans and that some animals are smarter than both children and severely impaired adults. The capacity to have conscious experiences, such as pleasure and pain, he says, is the key difference between beings that are morally significant and those that are not. He has drawn harsh criticism for his support of certain types of euthanasia and, in some circumstances, infanticide.
Yet Singer is a liberal Democrat who supports keeping the poor and handicapped alive via redistribution of wealth.
The author of more than a dozen books, including “Practical Ethics” (1979) and “Rethinking Life and Death” (1994), Mr. Singer has long argued that it is morally wrong for some people to live luxuriously while others starve. His new book, along with the “effective altruism” movement that he has helped to start, is an effort to put those beliefs into practice.
Yet Singer is rich and no homeless people are living in his home. Why does this matter? Because as I’ve said over and over and over – what you say, what you think, don’t matter. All that matters is what you do. Or don’t do.
Millennials, he says, are the most altruistic generation he has yet to come across, which he attributes in part to technology. “It connects them all over the world, so they’re more cosmopolitan, and the barriers between people in different countries and far away have declined,” he says. “Another factor is that with the IT revolution, a different kind of person makes a lot of money and…they’re extremely well paid, and they’re wondering what to do with that money.”
No. Millennials aren’t very smart. They don’t understand math and they thing Obama is going to be there to babysit them cradle to grave.
Born in Melbourne to parents who had escaped from Nazi-occupied Austria, Mr. Singer now splits his time between Princeton, N.J., and Melbourne. He and his wife have three adult children.
Another example of the Nazis failing. Had they only gotten Singer’s parents… “Adult” children. I’m sure they are.
As for how he has disposed of his own income over the years, Mr. Singer concedes that he did make family vacations a priority. “We spend money on [vacations] that no doubt could do more elsewhere, but that’s something that’s important…. I work pretty hard during the normal year, and my wife’s been working as well, so we think it’s worth making that time” for the family, he explains.
Singer gets a vacation because he works hard. You don’t work hard so fuck you.
“There are plenty of studies,” he adds, “showing that beyond a certain level—around $75,000—having more money doesn’t make much of a difference in well-being.”
And thus Singer should be able to take your money away from you via the government and spend it as he thinks it should be spent. Statism.