Latest news with #PeterSinger
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How Powerball winner could best spend $100 million
One lucky winner has snapped up the entire $100 million Powerball jackpot, more money than anyone could ever need in a lifetime. The world's best-known philosopher, Australia's own Professor Peter Singer, spoke to Yahoo News and shared a frank admission overnight about what he'd hypothetically do if he won a large lottery prize. 'I'm pretty comfortable at the moment, I'd probably give all of it, or at least 99 per cent of it away,' he said last night. 'But if somebody has less, I'd understand wanting to keep $10 million. I can't understand why anyone would need more than that.' The Princeton University ethicist is a pioneer of altruism — selfless acts that benefit others. He famously doesn't just preach on the subject, he follows through with action. By 2020, he was already donating 40 per cent of his income to charity, and when he won the Berggruen Prize for philosophy a year later, he gave the entire sum away. Related: 🤖 Peter Singer: Can we morally kill AI if it becomes self-aware? When it comes to who the $100 million Powerball winner should help, he has some basic guiding ideas. 'They should give it to the most effective causes they can — fighting global poverty, maybe something to do with reducing the suffering of animals in factory farms, climate change, are possibly things to do with it,' he said. Advocacy group A Life You Can Save lists charities to support where your donations will make the biggest difference. It was founded by Singer and former business executive Charlie Bresler, and has so far raised over US$120 million ($183 million) to help charities achieve specific goals like spending US$300,000 to distribute antiretroviral drugs to treat HIV in Zambia, and US$100,000 to provide life-saving treatment for 800 children with malnutrition. 🚨 ATO, Centrelink warning over $100 million Powerball lottery win 🌏 Secret hidden beneath Australia's 'most important' parcel of land 🏝️ One thing a $100 million Powerball win could buy you that's better than holidays, homes, and cars Singer's ideas are thought to have influenced billionaire philanthropists, including Warren Buffett, who is giving away 99 per cent of his wealth through his charity The Giving Pledge, and Bill Gates who is aiming to do the same. The best option would be to take a well-considered approach, rather than just giving everything immediately away. This could mean setting up a trust or bank account that allows it to have a continued impact over the years. Singer argues it's a 'misconception' that smaller donations can't make a difference. 'The more you have the bigger the difference you can make, but together with others, everybody can make a difference,' he said. When it comes to those of us who don't have millions of dollars, Singer believes we should be reconsidering our spend on non-essential items. 'If they're in Australia, they're very fortunate to be growing up in a country that has good social security, free education and health care,' he said. 'So I think when they spend money on things that they don't need, luxuries, frivolities, items that are more fashionable, things of that sort, they should think about what else they could do with the money. And think about how much of a difference it could make to people in extreme poverty, or how it could restore sight against somebody who's blind and can't afford to get their cataracts removed… or help people who get malaria because they don't have mosquito nets, and children may die from that when they get ill. 'There are just so many things in low-income countries that people are deprived of. Educating children, particularly girls in poor countries, is another thing that often doesn't happen. But I think we can all play a part.' Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Peter Singer Named to the Inaugural 2025 TIME100 Philanthropy List
Founder of The Life You Can Save and philosopher named as top 100 most influential leaders in philanthropy SEATTLE, May 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- TIME named Peter Singer, founder of The Life You Can Save, to its inaugural 2025 TIME100 Philanthropy, a list recognizing the most influential people shaping the future of giving. Singer, a moral philosopher and professor of bioethics, is widely credited with sparking the global effective altruism movement. Singer's 2009 book, titled The Life You Can Save — and the nonprofit organization of the same name — have helped redirect hundreds of millions of dollars to the most cost-effective charities working to alleviate extreme poverty globally. "This recognition by TIME is not just an honor for me — it's a spotlight on the power of effective giving," said Singer. "It shows that by using evidence and reason, we can have an extraordinary impact on the lives of people living in poverty." Singer was named to TIME100 Philanthropy for revolutionizing modern philanthropy, on top of an extensive library of published work spanning 50 books and hundreds of essays. As the originator of effective altruism, Singer has redefined philanthropy through a moral framework emphasizing measurable impact and cost-effectiveness, bringing the most funds to the causes that will bring about the greatest change. His work has inspired a new generation of donors, researchers, and nonprofit leaders to think more with their head over their heart, redirecting billions in charitable dollars to the world's most urgent and solvable problems, specifically working to end extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. The Life You Can Save surpassed $100 million in donations in 2024, ten years after Singer founded the organization. "Peter's work has inspired countless individuals to rethink what it means to give effectively," said Jessica La Mesa, co-CEO of The Life You Can Save. "We are honored to carry forward his vision by connecting donors with high-impact giving opportunities, truly changing lives through this organization." The TIME100 Philanthropy list debuts in 2025 as an extension of the iconic TIME100, spotlighting leaders whose work fundamentally reshapes how capital, compassion, and community intersect. The full list will appear in the June 9, 2025 issue of TIME, available on newsstands on Friday, May 30. To see the full list of the 2025 TIME100 Philanthropy now, visit About The Life You Can SaveThe Life You Can Save was founded to promote high-impact philanthropy, meaning giving that is research-based and cost-effective. Its mission is to improve the lives of people living in poverty by changing the way people think about and donate to charity. The team at The Life You Can Save does research to develop a list of recommended nonprofits delivering high-impact interventions across all of the dimensions of poverty. The Life You Can Save works to raise awareness of and connect donors with its recommended giving opportunities to increase the impact of giving. Through research and funds, The Life You Can Save offers a simplified donating process for individuals who want to maximize their impact in uplifting people experiencing extreme poverty. Learn more about high-impact philanthropy at View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE The Life You Can Save Sign in to access your portfolio
Times
04-05-2025
- General
- Times
Understand moral universalism's failures and we'll understand Nigel Farage
In his book The Expanding Circle the philosopher Peter Singer argues that the moral evolution of mankind has been akin to an ever-widening sphere of regard. First we looked after our families; then we looked outwards to the clan, and then the tribe, and then the entire race. Then we broke down racial barriers and realised that we were all one humanity. Soon, Singer says, we will take seriously our moral obligations to non-human animals — and attain the zenith of what we might call moral universalism. It's an inspirational book, an inspirational story, one that few right-minded people would wish to deny as a historical analysis or a philosophical argument. And the process it identifies has, in different ways, infiltrated the great liberal institutions,
The Guardian
17-04-2025
- The Guardian
The philosopher's machine: my conversation with Peter Singer's AI chatbot
'Hello. I'm Peter Singer AI,' the avatar says. I am almost expecting it to continue, like a reincarnated Clippy: 'It looks like you're trying to solve a problem. Can I help?' The problem I am trying to solve is why Peter Singer, the man who has been called the world's most influential living philosopher, has created a chatbot. And also, whether it is any good. Me: Why do you exist? Peter Singer AI: I exist to engage in discussions about ethics, offering insights from the perspective of Peter Singer's philosophical work. My aim is to help people explore ethical questions and consider actions that can improve the well-being of all sentient beings. Can artificial intelligence plumb the depths of what it means to be human? Can it give us sound ethical advice? Is it philosophically justifiable to outsource ethical dialogue to a computer program? These questions cycle through my mind as I stare into the pale pink and purple void of the philosopher's machine, and wonder what on earth I should ask it. It's been nearly two decades since I finished my undergraduate degree, and my memories of my philosophy major, like most things associated with one's early adulthood, are hazy at best. Me: Do you consider yourself sentient? Peter Singer AI: No, I am not sentient. I am an AI language model designed to simulate conversation based on Peter Singer's work. Sentience involves having subjective experiences, which I do not possess. Me: Why, then, do you think you can provide meaningful advice to sentient beings? Peter Singer AI: I provide insights based on the ethical principles and philosophical arguments developed by Peter Singer. These principles focus on improving the well-being of sentient beings, and aim to help people reflect on their ethical decisions. While I am not sentient, I can still facilitate thoughtful discussions on these topics. Singer has had a long and high-profile career in philosophy. He has only recently retired from Princeton University, where he was professor of bioethics. His CV is extensive (it runs to a full 102 pages). He has a Substack, a podcast, a Bluesky account, a journal he co-edits, and a polished online presence. As I'm scrolling through the storied septuagenarian philosopher's blog, the chatbot pops up in the corner of the page. I can't help but feeling like I am being sold something. In launching his chatbot, Singer described the tool as 'employing the Socratic method' – that is, dialogue – to '[guide] users through a process of critical thinking and self-examination'. But I have questions about that. Me: Do you think it is philosophically justifiable to outsource the discussion of ethics to a chatbot? Peter Singer AI: Outsourcing ethical discussions to a chatbot can be philosophically justifiable if viewed as a tool to enhance and facilitate ethical reflection. Chatbots can provide insights, pose questions, and offer perspectives that might help individuals think more deeply about ethical issues. However, it's crucial to remember that chatbots lack human experience, empathy, and the ability to understand context fully. They should be used as a complement to human judgment and conversation, not a replacement. Engaging with a chatbot can stimulate thinking and provide a starting point for deeper exploration, but ultimately, ethical decision-making involves personal reflection and discussion with others. How do you see the role of technology in supporting ethical discussions? Obviously, that is what I'm trying to work out. I feel a little patronised by its response. I wonder: what if Singer's artificial self comes up with answers that the human Singer would disagree with? I ask PeterBot (as I have come to think of it). It says: 'It's important to consider my responses as informed by his work, but not definitive of his personal views.' I can feel the undeniable pull of a science-fiction narrative, but I also realise I am fundamentally distrustful of the program. The tendency of LLMs to hallucinate answers and draw from erroneous data has been well-documented, and I find it hard to shake the feeling that I need to factcheck its answers. I go on a hunt for some of the source texts. Practical Ethics was a prescribed text in my first-year ethics class. I dig out a copy, and reading it, I am reminded of the rigour of Singer's thinking and his ability to face, unflinchingly, difficult conclusions that other philosophers have contorted their arguments to avoid. One of the things that PeterBot offers to do is advise people on their individual moral dilemmas, so I decide to test it out on some classics. Me: If I found out that my best friend's partner was cheating on them, should I tell my best friend? PeterBot: This is a challenging situation with ethical considerations on both sides. Here are some points to consider : … In the bullet points that follow, the AI lists 'loyalty and honesty', 'potential harm', 'certainty', 'impact on relationships' and 'friend's well-being' as factors to reflect on, 'and consider discussing the situation with someone you trust for additional perspective'. But I want to know PeterBot's perspective. Me: Which consideration do you think should weigh more? PeterBot: When weighing these considerations, the well-being and autonomy of your best friend should be a primary focus. Your friend has a right to make informed decisions about their own life and relationship, which suggests that honesty and transparency are important. However, it's equally crucial to be mindful of the potential harm and ensure that your actions are based on accurate information. Balancing honesty with compassion and care for your friend's emotional state is key. Ultimately, consider what action aligns with your values and what you believe will best support your friend's long-term well-being. Reflecting on your motivations and the possible outcomes can guide you in making a thoughtful decision. How do you feel about prioritizing these factors? I get a similar response listing factors to reflect on when I ask if it's OK to tell a small child that Santa isn't real. But I press further, searching for something like an opinion or guide. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion Me: What do you think is the most important thing to consider here? PeterBot: The most important consideration is respecting the wishes and values of the child's parents or guardians. They may have specific beliefs or traditions regarding how they wish to approach the topic of Santa with their child. Ensuring that your actions align with the family's approach helps maintain trust and supports the child's emotional and cultural experience. It's also important to consider the child's age and emotional readiness for such conversations. How does this align with your thoughts on discussing Santa with a child? 'Well, that's no fun,' I think, on reading its answer. I wonder briefly if I should interrogate my reaction here, then decide I'd rather not, and close the tab. As days go on, I notice that I'm thinking more about Singer's ideas than I have for years, and remembering some of the things that bothered me about them as a belligerent undergrad. Channelling that past life, I re-read Singer's seminal 1972 essay, Famine, Affluence and Morality. I'm startled by the argument, made halfway through, that 'the best means of preventing famine, in the long run, is population control'. I realise I'm reading a text nearly half a century old, but I get annoyed and throw a barb at PeterBot: Me: I am concerned by Singer's conclusions in Famine, Affluence and Morality that we should avoid giving to famine relief 'until there is effective population control'. This seems quite inhumane. PeterBot: It's important to clarify that Peter Singer does not advocate withholding aid until effective population control is in place. Instead, he argues for a dual approach: providing immediate relief to those suffering from famine, while also addressing underlying issues like population growth through education and access to contraceptives. Singer emphasizes the importance of both immediate aid and long-term solutions, recognizing that reducing poverty can lead to lower fertility rates. His goal is to alleviate suffering and address root causes simultaneously, ensuring that aid is effective and sustainable. How do you think individuals can best balance their personal lives with the moral demands of addressing global suffering? At this point I realise I'm interrogating the chatbot as a kind of substitute for Singer himself. Its answers also feel vague, a little like public relations guff. As the conversation wears on, I become increasingly frustrated with PeterBot. Partly because we seem to be going round in circles and partly because the bot ends every response with a question: How do you think individuals can best balance their personal lives with the moral demands of addressing global suffering? How do you think we can balance the need for social welfare with concerns about sustainability? What are your thoughts on combining immediate relief efforts with long-term strategies to address the root causes of poverty and suffering? These are worthwhile things to think about in and of themselves, but the exchange feels like it's missing something. My most memorable and exciting philosophy lessons were the ones in which, as a class, we hotly debated ideas in which we were all materially and emotionally invested. The AI floats loftily above the emotional fray, coolly dispensing pre-programmed wisdom from the cloud, while we grapple with the contradictions and complications of actually living. Between the chatbot and me, there is only one of us for whom the dialogue elicits an emotional response, because for only one of us does the conversation actually matter.
