LFranc

Going back to your first intuition: the only way to defend it, as far as I understood it, would be showing that the life of a person in a developing c...

No, in that case, you're not wrong. Singer writes (I highlight the important part) : "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, w...

I see where you're going but to me that's a digression. We're talking about very poor people here - including children: people who didn't even have en...

Well, you've just admitted that you'll never give 1 dollar to any humanitarian organization, without knowing all of them and without having a global a...

True

Then you should probably talk with Illuminatis and Reptilians etc., not philosophers please. Thanks for talking about this thing that you can't talk a...

Thank you, you spent a lot of time gathering all those sources, to manage not to answer my question whatsoever. This is a masterpiece. Once again, I a...

Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? What if we released them in an appropriate environment? What if...

Could we know this "inside knowledge"?

Any solid proof? And not just isolated cases, but a systemic critique: embezzlement... And what about other organizations?

I agree (and I'm not immune to this criticism myself)

So, about relative poverty, you mean that the non-poor might become poor if they give only 3,15 dollars every year so that no one dies from starvation...

But the money to be donated by the non-poor is so ridiculously small that almost anyone without a job could make this donation. It's not a question of...

May I hear some arguments about this please? Why would you be (or others) morally more valuable than the starving child in Guatemala?

Hm, okay... And what's the ratio of “victim kind of poor” to “lazy poor who deserved it”?

I'll believe you when you've managed to refute the studies and facts (but it's hard to refute facts...) carried out by numerous experts over many, man...

Thank you, interesting article.

For example? And how would this be an objection? Singer would just add: use your discretionary dollars to help people in need, whether it is through h...

Not sure I understand. Isn't it obvious that all the money I give to one domain is money I didn't give to another?

Not everyone. All it takes is enough people to solve the hunger problem (not offer caviar). That's not a lot of money, is it? To be calculated. Accord...

But the question isn't: do we want it? But rather: should we do it? Replacing “should” with “want” doesn't answer a moral question, it kills the whole...

Societies are made up of individuals. We can't separate the two by saying that individuals can't change society. What's more, individual action can co...

Actually interesting! How could we refute this argument? I guess this way (?): We can't be sure that this child that we save will keep having a misera...

Well, first, it would be hard to survive in my society without a phone, so this is not really luxury. Second, this is an ad hominem argument. I know I...

Yes it could exist (waiting for the animal to die naturally until we eat it, etc.) but it wouldn't be economically viable. Also extended lactation on ...

To be honest, I'm more and more convinced it's possible to show that livestock farming as a whole is negative (when it's physically and economically p...

But doesn't "being human" mean "not being just natural"?

Interesting answer. I guess it's a matter of degree (between "just being" and "existing with angst"). By the way, unfortunately (I guess) some humans ...

Sorry there was a misunderstanding, I didn't mean plant-based food that looks like meat

Thank you very much. It was likely a discussion about this had been created already but I couldn't find it.These arguments didn't convince me but it w...

"sub specie aeternitatis" is not poetry, it's an approach that is logically deduced from the fact of necessary causality. For Spinoza, time is somethi...

I'll try to rephrase it. The effect comes from the cause (by definition), so the effect includes the cause. For example, the plant includes its seed, ...

I think it was right to talk about Descartes in this thread, as long as we also see the limits of Descartes's reasoning. The beginning of Heidegger's ...

First, we should point out that, not only the first cause but any cause is supposed to be necessary. But this necessity kills causality itself: it's a...

When two 86-year-old Russian women talk about this thread while being interviewed...! Have a look at the end -> "Irina and Ioulia, both 86 and childho...

I think we're going round in circles, or that people defend what they want to defend before knowing whether they can defend it. I'd also like to think...

But it's not a belief. The world really exists. And it really exists precisely because there is nothing outside of ideas or perceptions. Since there i...

In my view, Hegel has very convincingly criticised Kantian criticism, thereby answering the question posed in this thread. In particular, he explains:...

I don't have time to answer all messages, so I selected just a few ones. Of course feel free to keep this debate going without me anyway (except if yo...

Indeed, and this is what Berkeley said. Something that would exist independently of a perceiving mind is unverifiable. Because, if you check that such...

I’m a bit confused because you first want to defend that citizens aren’t responsible for the crimes of their leaders, but using an argument that actua...

I need to think about it more. (Hence the fact I asked the question). What is your own answer, by the way? Are citizens responsible for the crimes of ...

Yes, exactly. The famous Dostoevsky’s quote: "Each of us is guilty of everything against all." The fact that it is unpleasant to hear doesn't make it ...

A purely physical nothing would be a nothing that stays so without us even needing to think about it. It would be independent of thought. But that is ...

"we can not have any knowledge about the external world." That is true. But, if we can not have any knowledge about the external world, then we can't ...

This question cannot be solved without first defining what an existence would be

That is correct but a more direct way to prove this would be to show that "nothing" (nothingness) is already not possible logically anyway. If I think...