×

Używamy ciasteczek, aby ulepszyć LingQ. Odwiedzając stronę wyrażasz zgodę na nasze polityka Cookie.

image

Crash Course Philisophy 17-46, Poverty & Our Response to It: Crash Course Philosophy #44

Poverty & Our Response to It: Crash Course Philosophy #44

UNICEF estimates that 12 children who live in extreme poverty die, every minute of every day.

They die because they don't have access to clean water.

They die because they don't have enough to eat.

They die of malaria, or of intestinal worms – something we don't even let our pets suffer from.

It's a horrifying truth, and what's maybe even more horrifying is that these deaths are easily preventable.

For $3, a child could get a mosquito net for her bed that would protect her from malaria.

To cure her of intestinal worms, a dose of medicine costs less than 50 cents.

As for food, you could probably feed her with the loose change in your pocket.

We have this money.

I definitely have it, you probably do.

So, why are all of these children dying?

[Theme Music]

The United States is an affluent country; we have enough money to easily stop world poverty – just end it.

But, why should we?

Why should I give any of my hard-earned money to strangers I will never meet?

What entitles them to a portion of what I have?

Thinking about world poverty, and whether we have an obligation to do something to stop it, really comes down to questions of obligation.

Most of us don't know anyone who's living in extreme, life-threatening poverty.

The victims of that kind of poverty aren't our family, or our friends.

So, according to an ethics of care, as we discussed last time, we have no real obligation to those people.

Or if we do, it's much, much less than the obligation we have to those who are near and dear to us.

So, many people argue that we simply don't have any obligation to help strangers in need.

We didn't make them poor, and we never agreed to help them.

So if we do choose to help, that's great, but such actions are supererogatory – they go above and beyond the call of moral duty.

In this view, giving money to charity is like getting moral extra credit –

if you do it, you can go ahead and pat yourself on the back, but if you don't, you have no reason to feel bad about it.

Contemporary Australian philosopher Peter Singer thinks differently, however.

To see how, let's head over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.

Singer offers a thought experiment that has seen many variations over the years, but a basic version goes like this:

Imagine you're walking to class, feeling pretty good about how great you look in your brand new $200 shoes.

And soon you pass by a shallow pond.

Suddenly, you notice a small child, flailing in the water.

No one else is around.

The pond is shallow, but the child has lost her footing, and she can't get her head above water.

As you watch, the flailing stops.

You realize there's very little time.

You could easily wade into the water and pull her to safety.

But if you take the time to remove your shoes, it'll be too late.

You know the muddy water will ruin your new purchase.

So what do you do?

Singer's pretty sure that we'd all give the same answer:

Shoes are replaceable; that child's life is not.

So, none of us would think twice about running in to save her.

But what exactly would be wrong if you decided not to save the child?

Singer says it comes down to costs and benefits.

The cost of your shoes is so low, compared to the value of the child's life, that it would be appalling not to make that sacrifice to value shoes over a person's life.

But here's the thing: we know children are dying right now – 12 every minute – and yet we do nothing.

So what's the difference, Singer asks, between a life in front of us and a life halfway around the world?

A life is a life, and both the child in the pond and the child dying of malaria are equally innocent.

If we do wrong in failing to save the child in the pond, Singer argues we do equally wrong in failing to save some of those children who we know are dying right now.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

Singer argues that, if you can prevent great harm, at a little cost to yourself, you should do it.

And when you look at it like that, it's hard to disagree with him.

But his thought experiment points out some huge inconsistencies in our moral thinking.

Most of us don't feel the weight of obligation to help dying children we can't see, but at the same time we think we would have an obligation to help a dying child in front of us.

What does it matter whether we can see the child or not?

Some people argue the difference is that, in the thought experiment, there's no one else around.

You're the only one who can help, so you must.

But what if there were many people standing around that pond, but no one else was willing to save the child?

Would that then make your inaction more excusable? Why would it?

Singer argues that it doesn't matter what everyone else is doing.

You are in control of you, and of your actions.

So if you see a need, and you know you can help, you must, even if there are others who could, but don't.

Now, is it fair for you to have to bear the burden of helping, while others sit idly by?

No. It's not fair at all.

But fair doesn't really matter in this case.

What matters is whether or not you choose to take action, to prevent great harm at little cost to yourself.

Whether you alone watch the child drown, or you and a crowd of people watch her drown,

either way, you've failed spectacularly as a moral agent.

And Singer says the same goes for world poverty.

If everyone in America donated just 1% of their income to help people in extreme poverty,

we could save so many lives.

Now, we know that everyone isn't going to do that, but according to Singer, each of us is responsible for our failure to help, regardless of what everyone else is doing.

Now, 20th century American philosopher and ecologist Garrett Hardin took issue with much of Singer's reasoning.

Instead, he offered what's known as the lifeboat analogy.

Imagine, Hardin said, that 50 people are on a lifeboat, with room for 10 more, and 100 people are in the water, begging to be let aboard.

Hardin said that if we understand that all life is equally valuable, then we have to admit all 100 of them.

But of course, that would be too many for the boat.

It would sink, and then we'd all die.

So maybe we only allow 10 people on board.

But which 10? How do we make that decision?

Even if we had some way to choose between lives, Hardin argued that filling our boat to capacity is still the wrong answer.

By leaving those 10 spaces empty, we'd have more resources for those on board, maximizing their chances of survival.

Those people in the water are doomed, Hardin said.

They're doomed because they don't have a boat, and they need a boat of their own if they're going to make it.

Helping a few of them out doesn't really solve any problems.

If anything, it draws out their suffering.

OK. Here's the thing about this analogy:

The lucky people in the lifeboat?

Hardin said: That's a nation.

And the people in the water?

They're other nations, ones living in such extreme poverty that they don't have their own boats.

The boat in this case represents a strong social structure, a safety net that provides for its citizens.

Hardin said that, just as the duty of a ship captain is to its passengers, a nation's obligations are to its citizens.

So a nation should never risk the well-being of its citizenry in order to help members of another nation.

Of course, some nations don't have the resources to help their citizens.

In others, people live under governments that are actively exploiting them, rather than protecting them.

But Hardin said, that's not our fault.

And to give aid to people who don't even have a boat, well, that's throwing away resources.

Who cares if your mosquito net saves a child from malaria, when that child will still be living in inescapable poverty?

The real problem, according to Hardin, is overpopulation.

And the hard truth is, if a nation has more citizens than it can support – just like a lifeboat that's filled beyond capacity – no amount of aid will solve that problem.

So, quite counter-intuitively, Hardin said the most compassionate response is to do nothing.

Yes, people will die, but if aid were to stop, Hardin said, populations would be reduced to a point where nations would be able to be sustain themselves.

Now, there are at least two pretty immediate responses to this line of thinking.

First, the lifeboat analogy breaks down when you realize that the problem really has nothing to do with the scarcity of resources.

In the real world, there are plenty of resources to go around – they're just distributed extremely unevenly.

So it seems that Hardin has committed what's known as the either/or fallacy.

He said, either protect yourself, or help others, but with the amount of wealth we have, we could actually, and easily, do both.

Second, Hardin cast his analogy in terms of nations, but that scale is totally arbitrary.

Any argument you could give for caring about your nation over others could also be given for caring about your state over others, or your city, or even your family.

And you might say, darn right I care about my family more than yours!

But be careful, because: Isn't that just like arguing that you only have to pull that kid out of the water if she happens to be related to you?

Morality calls for us to not draw arbitrary lines when it comes to who deserves help and who doesn't.

A lot of people, like Singer, think that the only non-arbitrary line is to say that there's really only one boat, and we're all in it, so we've all got to help. Everyone.

So, what do you think? Are you in your own boat?

One thing that might help you answer that question is the topic of our next – and next to last – lesson: the value of human life.

But today we talked about extreme poverty, and our responses to it.

We considered Singer's argument that we have an obligation to prevent harm through poverty when we can, and we also looked at Hardin's lifeboat analogy.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:

PBS Idea Channel, It's Okay to be Smart, and Physics Girl.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Poverty & Our Response to It: Crash Course Philosophy #44 Armut und unsere Antwort darauf: Crashkurs Philosophie #44 La pobreza y nuestra respuesta: Curso acelerado de filosofía nº 44 빈곤과 이에 대한 우리의 대응: 크래시 코스 철학 #44 Pobreza e a nossa resposta: Curso Rápido de Filosofia #44 Бедность и наша реакция на нее: Краткий курс философии #44 Бідність і наша відповідь на неї: прискорений курс філософії №44 贫困及其应对措施:哲学速成班#44 貧窮及其應對措施:哲學速成班#44

UNICEF estimates that 12 children who live in extreme poverty die, every minute of every day. وتقدر اليونيسيف أن 12 طفلا الذين يعيشون في فقر مدقع يموت، كل دقيقة من كل يوم UNICEF schat dat er per minuut 12 kinderen die in extreme armoede leven, doodgaan. A UNICEF estima que a cada minuto, todos os dias, 12 crianças que vivem em extrema pobreza morrem.

They die because they don't have access to clean water. إنهم يموتون لأنهم لا يحصلون على مياه نظيفة. Ze gaan dood omdat ze geen toegang tot schoon water hebben. Elas morrem porque não têm acesso a água potável.

They die because they don't have enough to eat. إنهم يموتون لأنهم لم يكن لديك ما يكفي من الطعام. Ze gaan dood omdat ze niet genoeg te eten hebben Elas morrem porque não têm o suficiente para comer.

They die of malaria, or of intestinal worms – something we don't even let our pets suffer from. وهم يموتون من الملاريا، أو من الديدان المعوية - شيء ونحن لا تسمح حتى الحيوانات الأليفة تعاني من. Ze gaan dood aan malaria, of aan wormen - iets waar we niet eens onze huisdieren aan laten lijden. Morrem de malária, ou de vermes intestinais - coisas que não permitimos nem nos nossos animais de estimação.

It's a horrifying truth, and what's maybe even more horrifying is that these deaths are easily preventable. انها الحقيقة المروعة، وما هو ربما حتى أكثر رعبا هو أن هذه الوفيات يمكن تجنبها بسهولة Het is een verschrikkelijke waarheid, en misschien nog verschrikkelijker is dat deze sterfgevallen makkelijk te voorkomen zijn. É uma verdade horrível, e mais horrível ainda é como essas mortes são facilmente preveníveis.

For $3, a child could get a mosquito net for her bed that would protect her from malaria. لمدة 3 $، يمكن أن يصاب الطفل ناموسية لسريرها التي من شأنها حماية لها من الملاريا. Por 3 dólares, una niña podía conseguir una mosquitera para su cama que la protegiera del paludismo. Voor $3 kan een kind een muskietennet voor haar bed krijgen, dat haar beschermt tegen malaria. Com três dólares, uma criança consegue um mosquiteiro que a protegeria da malária.

To cure her of intestinal worms, a dose of medicine costs less than 50 cents. لعلاج لها من الديدان المعوية، جرعة من الدواء تكلف أقل من 50 سنتا. Om haar van wormen te genezen kost een dosis medicijnen minder dan 50 cent. Para curá-la dos vermes intestinais, a medicação custa menos de 50 centavos.

As for food, you could probably feed her with the loose change in your pocket. وفيما يتعلق بالغذاء، هل يمكن أن ربما إطعامها مع الفكة في جيبك. Wat voedsel betreft, zou je haar waarschijnlijk kunnen voeden met het kleingeld in je zak. Quanto à comida, você provavelmente poderia alimentá-la com os trocados que tem no bolso.

We have this money. لدينا هذا المال Wij hebben dit geld. Nós temos este dinheiro.

I definitely have it, you probably do. أنا بالتأكيد لديك، وربما كنت تفعل. Ik heb het zeker, jij waarschijnlijk ook. Eu tenho com certeza, e você provavelmente tem.

So, why are all of these children dying? لذا، لماذا كل هؤلاء الأطفال يموتون؟ Waarom gaan al deze kinderen dan dood? Então, por que é que todas essas crianças estão morrendo?

[Theme Music] [موضوع الموسيقى] [Themamuziek] [Música]

The United States is an affluent country; we have enough money to easily stop world poverty – just end it. الولايات المتحدة هي دولة غنية. لدينا ما يكفي من المال لوقف بسهولة الفقر في العالم - مجرد وضع حد لها. De Verenigde Staten zijn een rijk land; we hebben genoeg geld om simpelweg wereldarmoede te stoppen - gewoon te beëindigen. Os Estados Unidos são um país rico; têm dinheiro suficiente para facilmente acabar com a pobreza no mundo - acabar com ela de uma vez por todas.

But, why should we? ولكن، لماذا يجب علينا؟ Maar waarom zouden we? Mas, por que é que deveríamos fazê-lo?

Why should I give any of my hard-earned money to strangers I will never meet? لماذا يجب أن أعطي أي من بلدي بشق الانفس المال للغرباء وسوف يلتقيان أبدا؟ Waarom zou ik mijn zuurverdiende geld geven aan vreemdelingen die ik nooit zal ontmoeten? Por que eu deveria dar parte de meu suado dinheiro a estranhos que nunca vou conhecer?

What entitles them to a portion of what I have? ما يعطيهم الحق في جزء من ما لدي؟ Wat geeft ze het recht op een deel van wat ik heb? O que lhes dá direito a uma porção do que tenho?

Thinking about world poverty, and whether we have an obligation to do something to stop it, really comes down to questions of obligation. التفكير في الفقر في العالم، وإذا كان لدينا واجب أن تفعل شيئا لوقفه، ويأتي في الواقع إلى مسائل الالتزام Nadenken over wereldarmoede, en of we verplicht zijn iets te doen om het te stoppen, komt eigenlijk neer op vragen over plicht. Pensar sobre a pobreza mundial e se temos obrigação de fazer algo para pará-la na verdade se resume a questões de obrigação.

Most of us don't know anyone who's living in extreme, life-threatening poverty. ما يعطيهم الحق في جزء من ما لدي؟ De meesten van ons kennen niemand die in extreme, levensbedreigende armoede leeft. A maioria de nós não conhece quem está vivendo em pobreza extrema.

The victims of that kind of poverty aren't our family, or our friends. ضحايا هذا النوع من الفقر ليست عائلتنا أو أصدقائنا. Slachtoffers van dat soort armoede zijn niet onze familie of onze vrienden. As vítimas desse tipo de pobreza não são da nossa família ou nossos amigos.

So, according to an ethics of care, as we discussed last time, we have no real obligation to those people. لذلك، وفقا لأخلاقيات الرعاية، كما ناقشنا آخر مرة، ليس لدينا أي التزام حقيقي لهؤلاء الناس Dus, volgens zorgethiek, zoals we laatst besproken hebben, hebben we geen plicht jegens die mensen. Assim, de acordo com uma ética do cuidado, como discutimos na última vez, não temos qualquer real obrigação para com essas pessoas.

Or if we do, it's much, much less than the obligation we have to those who are near and dear to us. أو إذا فعلنا ذلك، فإنه من ذلك بكثير، أقل بكثير من واجب علينا أن أولئك الذين هم أقرب وأحب إلينا. Of als we dat wel hebben, is het veel, veel minder dan de plicht die we hebben jegens onze dierbaren. Ou se temos, é muito, muito menos do que a obrigação que temos com aqueles que são próximos a nós.

So, many people argue that we simply don't have any obligation to help strangers in need. لذلك، وكثير من الناس يقولون أننا ببساطة لم يكن لديك أي التزام للمساعدة الغرباء المحتاجين. Dus, veel mensen vinden dat we simpelweg niet verplicht zijn om vreemdelingen in nood te helpen. Assim, muitas pessoas argumentam que nós simplesmente não temos qualquer obrigação de ajudar estranhos em necessidade.

We didn't make them poor, and we never agreed to help them. ونحن لم يجعل منهم فقراء، ونحن لم توافق قط على مساعدتهم. Wij hebben ze niet arm gemaakt, en we hebben nooit toegestemd ze te helpen. Nós não os tornamos pobres, e nunca concordamos em ajudá-los.

So if we do choose to help, that's great, but such actions are supererogatory – they go above and beyond the call of moral duty. لذلك إذا كنا لا اختيار للمساعدة، وهذا عظيم، ولكن مثل هذه الأعمال هم نافلة - يذهبون إلى أبعد الحدود نداء الواجب الأخلاقي. Dus als we ervoor kiezen wel te helpen, is dat mooi, maar zulke acties zijn overdadig - ze gaan boven wat er moreel van ons gevraagd wordt. Então, se escolhermos ajudar, isso é ótimo, mas tais ações são "extras"- elas vão acima e além do chamado dever moral.

In this view, giving money to charity is like getting moral extra credit – في هذا الرأي، وإعطاء المال للجمعيات الخيرية مثل الحصول على رصيد إضافي الأخلاقي - In deze zienswijze is geld aan het goede doel geven alsof je extra morele punten krijgt. Neste ponto de vista, dar dinheiro para a caridade é como obter crédito moral extra -

if you do it, you can go ahead and pat yourself on the back, but if you don't, you have no reason to feel bad about it. إذا كنت تفعل ذلك، يمكنك ان تمضي قدما وبات نفسك على ظهره، ولكن إذا لم تقم بذلك، لديك أي سبب للشعور سيء حول هذا الموضوع. Als je het doet mag je jezelf een schouderklopje geven, maar als je het niet doet is er geen reden om je slecht te voelen. se você fizer, pode ir em frente e se dar um tapinha nas costas, mas se você não fizer, não tem nenhuma razão para se sentir mal com isso.

Contemporary Australian philosopher Peter Singer thinks differently, however. المعاصر الفيلسوف الاسترالي بيتر سنجر يفكر بطريقة مختلفة، ولكن De moderne Australische filosoof Peter Singer denkt er echter anders over. O filósofo contemporâneo australiano Peter Singer pensa diferente, no entanto.

To see how, let's head over to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy. لنرى كيف، دعونا رئيس لأكثر من فقاعة الفكر لبعض فلاش الفلسفة. Laten we naar de Thought Bubble gaan voor wat Flash Philosophy om te zien hoe. Para ver como, vamos à Bolha do Pensamento para um pouco de Filosofia Flash.

Singer offers a thought experiment that has seen many variations over the years, but a basic version goes like this: يقدم المغني تجربة الفكر الذي شهد العديد من التغيرات على مر السنين، ولكن النسخة الأساسية وغني عن مثل هذا: Singer biedt een gedachte-experiment dat vele variaties heeft gezien gedurende de jaren, maar een eenvoudige versie gaat zo: Singer oferece um experimento mental que tem tido muitas variações ao longo dos anos, mas uma versão básica é a seguinte:

Imagine you're walking to class, feeling pretty good about how great you look in your brand new $200 shoes. تخيل أنك سيرا على الاقدام الى الدرجة، شعور جيد حول كيفية كبيرة نظرتم في العلامة التجارية الخاصة بك جديدة 200 $ الأحذية. Stel je voor dat je naar school loopt, en vindt dat je er goed uitziet in je splinternieuwe schoenen van $200. Imagine que você está indo para a aula se sentindo muito bem sobre o quão legal você parece com seus novíssimos tênis de 200 dólares.

And soon you pass by a shallow pond. وسرعان ما تمر بركة ضحلة. En je loopt langs een ondiepe vijver. Você passa por uma lagoa rasa.

Suddenly, you notice a small child, flailing in the water. فجأة، لاحظت وجود طفل صغير، الضرب في الماء Opeens merk je een klein kind op, spartelend in het water. De repente, você percebe uma criança pequena se agitando na água.

No one else is around. لا أحد آخر هو حول. Er is niemand anders in de buurt. Ninguém mais está por perto.

The pond is shallow, but the child has lost her footing, and she can't get her head above water. بركة ضحلة، ولكن الطفل قد فقد قدم لها، وأنها لا تستطيع الحصول على رأسها فوق الماء. De vijver is ondiep, maar het kind kan er niet staan en ze krijgt haar hoofd niet boven water. A lagoa é rasa, mas a criança perdeu o equilíbrio, e não consegue por a cabeça fora d'água.

As you watch, the flailing stops. كما يمكنك مشاهدة، يتوقف الضرب Terwijl je toekijkt, stopt het spartelen. Você percebe que a agitação parou.

You realize there's very little time. كنت أدرك هناك القليل جدا من الوقت Je realiseert je dat er weinig tijd is. Você percebe que há muito pouco tempo.

You could easily wade into the water and pull her to safety. هل يمكن الخوض بسهولة في الماء وسحب لها إلى بر الأمان. Je kan makkelijk het water inlopen en haar in veiligheid brengen. Você poderia facilmente entrar na água e salvá-la.

But if you take the time to remove your shoes, it'll be too late. ولكن إذا كنت تأخذ من الوقت لإزالة حذائك، وأنها سوف يكون متأخرا جدا. Maar als je de tijd neemt om je schoenen uit te doen, zal het te laat zijn. Mas se você parar pra retirar seus sapatos, será tarde demais.

You know the muddy water will ruin your new purchase. كما تعلمون فإن المياه الموحلة الخراب شراء الجديد الخاص بك. Je weet dat het modderige water je nieuwe aankoop zal verpesten. Você sabe que a água barrenta vai arruinar a sua nova aquisição.

So what do you do? فماذا عليك أن تفعل؟ Dus wat doe je? Então o que você faz?

Singer's pretty sure that we'd all give the same answer: المغني متأكد من أننا كنا جميعا إعطاء نفس الإجابة: Singer is er vrij zeker van dat we allemaal het zelfde antwoord zouden geven: Singer tem certeza que nós daríamos a mesma resposta:

Shoes are replaceable; that child's life is not. الأحذية هي استبدال. حياة هذا الطفل ليست كذلك. Schoenen zijn vervangbaar; het leven van dat kind niet. Sapatos são substituíveis; a vida dessa criança não é.

So, none of us would think twice about running in to save her. لذلك، فإن أيا منا يفكرون مرتين قبل أن تعمل في لانقاذ حياتها. Dus niemand zou er over twijfelen om haar te redden. Então, nenhum de nós pensaria duas vezes antes de correr para salvá-la.

But what exactly would be wrong if you decided not to save the child? ولكن ما هي بالضبط سيكون خطأ إذا كنت قررت عدم حفظ الطفل؟ Maar wat zou er eigenlijk verkeerd aan zijn als je besloot het kind niet te redden? Mas o que exatamente seria errado se você decidisse não salvar a criança?

Singer says it comes down to costs and benefits. يقول المغني يتعلق الأمر الى انخفاض التكاليف والفوائد. Singer dice que todo se reduce a costes y beneficios. Singer zegt dat het neerkomt op kosten en baten. Singer diz que se resume a custos e benefícios.

The cost of your shoes is so low, compared to the value of the child's life, that it would be appalling not to make that sacrifice to value shoes over a person's life. تكلفة حذائك منخفضة جدا، مقارنة مع قيمة حياة الطفل، وأنه سيتم المزرية عدم جعل تلك التضحية والاحذية القيمة خلال حياة الشخص. De kosten van je schoenen zijn zo laag vergeleken met de waarde van het leven van het kind, dat het verschrikkelijk zou zijn om dat offer niet te maken, om meer waarde te hechten aan schoenen dan aan een mensenleven. O custo de seus sapatos é tão baixo comparado com o valor da vida da criança que seria espantoso não fazer esse sacrifício por dar mais valor a sapatos do que a vida de uma pessoa.

But here's the thing: we know children are dying right now – 12 every minute – and yet we do nothing. ولكن هنا الشيء: نحن نعلم الأطفال يموتون الآن - 12 كل دقيقة - وبعد نفعل شيئا. Maar het punt is: we weten dat kinderen op dit moment doodgaan - 12 per minuut - en toch doen we niets. Mas olha só: sabemos que crianças estão morrendo agora - 12 a cada minuto - e ainda assim não fazemos nada.

So what's the difference, Singer asks, between a life in front of us and a life halfway around the world? إذن ما هو الفرق، المغني يسأل، بين الحياة أمامنا وفي منتصف الطريق الحياة في جميع أنحاء العالم؟ Dus wat is het verschil, vraagt Singer, tussen een leven recht voor ons en een leven aan de andere kant van de wereld? Então, qual é a diferença, Singer pergunta, entre uma vida na nossa frente e uma do outro lado do mundo?

A life is a life, and both the child in the pond and the child dying of malaria are equally innocent. الحياة هي الحياة، وكلا من الأطفال في البركة والطفل يموتون من الملاريا أبرياء على حد سواء. Een leven is een leven, en zowel het kind in de vijver als het kind dat doodgaat aan malaria zijn even onschuldig. Uma vida é uma vida, e tanto a criança na lagoa quanto a criança morrendo de malária são igualmente inocentes.

If we do wrong in failing to save the child in the pond, Singer argues we do equally wrong in failing to save some of those children who we know are dying right now. اذا لم نفعل خطأ في عدم حفظ الطفل في البركة، يقول المغني نقوم به خطأ على قدم المساواة في فشلها في حفظ بعض من هؤلاء الأطفال الذين نعلم يموتون الآن. Als het verkeerd is om het kind in de vijver niet te redden, dan is het volgens Singer even verkeerd om niet het leven te redden van kinderen waarvan we weten dat ze nu doodgaan. Se erramos em não salvar a criança na lagoa, Singer argumenta que fazemos igualmente errado ao não salvar algumas dessas crianças que sabemos que estão morrendo agora.

Thanks, Thought Bubble. شكرا، الفكر فقاعة. Bedankt, Thought Bubble. Obrigado, Bolha do Pensamento.

Singer argues that, if you can prevent great harm, at a little cost to yourself, you should do it. يقول المغني أنه إذا كنت يمكن أن تمنع ضررا كبيرا، بتكلفة ضئيلة لنفسك، عليك أن تفعل ذلك. Singer zegt dat als je groot lijden kan voorkomen voor een kleine eigen prijs, dat je het zou moeten doen. Singer argumenta que, se você pode evitar grandes danos,com um pequeno custo para si mesmo, você deve fazê-lo.

And when you look at it like that, it's hard to disagree with him. وعندما ننظر إليها من هذا القبيل، فإنه من الصعب أن نختلف معه. En als je er zo naar kijkt, is het moeilijk hem ongelijk te geven. E quando você olha desse jeito, é difícil discordar com dele.

But his thought experiment points out some huge inconsistencies in our moral thinking. إلا أن تجربة الفكر وتشير بعض التناقضات الهائلة في التفكير الأخلاقي. Maar zijn gedachte-experiment laat zien dat er grote tegenstrijdigheden in ons moreel denken zitten. Mas seus experimentos mentais revelam algumas grandes inconsistências na nossa moralidade.

Most of us don't feel the weight of obligation to help dying children we can't see, but at the same time we think we would have an obligation to help a dying child in front of us. معظمنا لا يشعر الوزن من الالتزام بمساعدة يموت الأطفال لا نستطيع أن نرى، ولكن في الوقت نفسه نعتقد أن لدينا التزام لمساعدة الأطفال يموتون أمامنا. De meeste mensen voelen zich niet verplicht om kinderen te helpen die we niet zien, maar tegelijkertijd vinden we dat we wel de plicht zouden hebben om een kind dat doodgaat voor onze neus te helpen. A maioria de nós não sente o peso da obrigação de ajudar crianças morrendo que não podemos ver, ao mesmo tempo que pensamos que teríamos a obrigação de ajudar uma criança morrendo na frente de nós.

What does it matter whether we can see the child or not? ماذا يهم ما إذا كنا نستطيع رؤية الطفل أم لا؟ Wat maakt het uit of we het kind wel of niet kunnen zien? O que importa se podemos ver a criança ou não?

Some people argue the difference is that, in the thought experiment, there's no one else around. بعض الناس يقولون الفرق هو أنه، في تجربة فكرية، وليس هناك أحد آخر حولها. Sommige mensen zeggen dat het verschil is dat er, in het gedachte-experiment, niemand in de buurt is. Algumas pessoas argumentam que a diferença é que, no exemplo anterior, não há ninguém por perto.

You're the only one who can help, so you must. كنت الوحيد الذي يمكن أن يساعد، لذلك يجب عليك. Jij bent de enige die kan helpen, dus moet je ook. Você é o único que pode ajudar; então você deve.

But what if there were many people standing around that pond, but no one else was willing to save the child? ولكن ماذا لو كان هناك العديد من الناس يقفون حول هذه البركة، ولكن آخر لم يكن أحد على استعداد لإنقاذ الطفل؟ Maar wat als er veel mensen rond de vijver stonden, maar niemand anders wilde het kind redden? Mas e se houvessem muitas pessoas em pé em torno dessa lagoa, mas ninguém disposto a salvar a criança?

Would that then make your inaction more excusable? Why would it? التي من شأنها أن تجعل ثم التقاعس عن العمل بشكل أكثر عذر؟ لماذا يفعل ذلك؟ Zou dat je nalatigheid rechtvaardigen? Waarom zou het? Aquilo significaria que a sua inação foi mais desculpável? Por que seria?

Singer argues that it doesn't matter what everyone else is doing. يقول المغني أنه لا يهم ما يفعله الآخرون. Singer zegt dat het niet uitmaakt wat anderen doen. Singer argumenta que não importa o que todo mundo está fazendo.

You are in control of you, and of your actions. كنت في السيطرة على لك، والإجراءات الخاصة بك. Jij hebt controle over jezelf en je acties. Você está no controle de você e de suas ações.

So if you see a need, and you know you can help, you must, even if there are others who could, but don't. حتى إذا كنت ترى حاجة، وكنت أعلم أنك يمكن أن تساعد، يجب عليك، حتى لو كانت هناك غيرهم ممن يمكن، ولكن لا تفعل ذلك. Dus als je nood ziet, en je weet dat je kan helpen, dan moet je ook, zelfs als er anderen zijn die zouden kunnen helpen maar dat niet doen. Então, se você vê uma necessidade, e você sabe que pode ajudar, você deve, mesmo se há outros que podem, mas não o fazem.

Now, is it fair for you to have to bear the burden of helping, while others sit idly by? الآن، هل من العدل أن يكون لديك لتحمل عبء مساعدة، في حين يجلس آخرون مكتوفي الأيدي؟ Is het nu eerlijk dat jij de last van het helpen moet dragen, terwijl anderen nietsdoen? Agora, é justo para você ter de suportar o fardo de ajudar, enquanto outros ficam de braços cruzados?

No. It's not fair at all. رقم انها ليست عادلة على الإطلاق. Nee. Dat is helemaal niet eerlijk. Não. Não é nada justo.

But fair doesn't really matter in this case. ولكن المعرض لا يهم حقا في هذه الحالة. Maar eerlijk is niet belangrijk in dit geval. Mas "justo" não importa neste caso.

What matters is whether or not you choose to take action, to prevent great harm at little cost to yourself. ما يهم هو ما إذا كان أو لم يكن لاختيار لاتخاذ الإجراءات اللازمة، لمنع وقوع ضرر كبير وبتكلفة قليلة لنفسك. Waar het om gaat is of je ervoor kiest om te handelen, om groot lijden te voorkomen voor een kleine eigen prijs. O que importa é se você optou ou não por agir, por prevenir grandes danos com pouco custo para si mesmo.

Whether you alone watch the child drown, or you and a crowd of people watch her drown, إذا كنت مشاهدة وحده الطفل يغرق، أو أنت وحشد من الناس يشاهدون لها يغرق، Of je nu alleen toekijkt hoe het kind verdrinkt, of dat je met een groep mensen toekijkt hoe ze verdrinkt, Seja você sozinho assistindo à criança se afogar, ou você e uma multidão verem ela se afogar,

either way, you've failed spectacularly as a moral agent. في كلتا الحالتين، وكنت قد فشلت فشلا ذريعا كعامل الأخلاقي. in beide gevallen heb je spectaculair gefaald als moreel agent. de qualquer forma, você falhou espetacularmente como um agente moral.

And Singer says the same goes for world poverty. ويقول المغني الشيء نفسه ينطبق على الفقر في العالم. En Singer zegt dat hetzelfde geldt voor wereldarmoede. E Singer diz que o mesmo vale para a pobreza mundial.

If everyone in America donated just 1% of their income to help people in extreme poverty, إذا كان الجميع في أمريكا تبرعت فقط 1٪ من دخلها لمساعدة الناس في فقر مدقع، Als iedereen in Amerika slechts 1% van hun inkomen zou doneren om mensen in extreme armoede te helpen, Se todos nos Estados Unidos doassem apenas 1% de sua renda para ajudar as pessoas em situação de pobreza extrema,

we could save so many lives. فإننا يمكن أن ينقذ العديد من الأرواح. konden we zo veel levens redden. poderíamos salvar muitas vidas.

Now, we know that everyone isn't going to do that, but according to Singer, each of us is responsible for our failure to help, regardless of what everyone else is doing. الآن، ونحن نعلم أن الجميع لن نفعل ذلك، ولكن وفقا لسينغر، كل واحد منا مسؤول عن فشلنا للمساعدة، بغض النظر عن ما يفعله الآخرون. We weten dat niet iedereen dat gaat doen, maar volgens Singer is iedereen verantwoordelijk voor zijn nalatigheid, ongeacht wat anderen doen. Agora, sabemos que nem todo mundo fará isso, mas segundo Singer, cada um de nós é responsável por nossa falha em ajudar, independentemente do que todo mundo está fazendo.

Now, 20th century American philosopher and ecologist Garrett Hardin took issue with much of Singer's reasoning. الآن، تولى القرن 20th الفيلسوف الأمريكي وعالم البيئة غاريت هاردين المسألة مع الكثير من المنطق سينجر. De 20e-eeuwse Amerikaanse filosoof en ecoloog Garrett Hardin maakte bezwaar tegen veel van Singers redeneringen. Agora, o filósofo americano e ecologista do século 20, Garrett Hardin, se incomodou com boa parte do raciocínio de Singer.

Instead, he offered what's known as the lifeboat analogy. بدلا من ذلك، وعرض ما يعرف القياس قارب نجاة. In plaats daarvan bood hij wat bekend staat als de lifeboat analogy. Em vez disso, ele ofereceu o que é conhecido como a analogia do barco salva-vidas.

Imagine, Hardin said, that 50 people are on a lifeboat, with room for 10 more, and 100 people are in the water, begging to be let aboard. تخيل، قال هاردن، أن 50 شخصا هم على متن قارب نجاة، مع الغرفة لمدة 10 أكثر، و 100 الناس في الماء، والتسول إلى أن السماح كانوا على متنها. Stel je voor, zei Hardin, dat er 50 mensen in een reddingsboot zijn, met ruimte voor nog 10 mensen, en 100 mensen in het water, die smeken om aan boord te komen. Imagine, Hardin disse, que 50 pessoas estão em um barco salva-vidas, com espaço para mais 10, e 100 pessoas estão na água, implorando para entrar.

Hardin said that if we understand that all life is equally valuable, then we have to admit all 100 of them. وقال هاردن أنه إذا كنا نفهم أن كل حياة ثمينة على حد سواء، ثم علينا أن نعترف عن 100 منهم. Hardin zei dat als we elk leven even kostbaar achten, dan moeten we ze alle 100 toelaten. Hardin disse que se nós entendemos que toda a vida é igualmente valiosa, então temos de resgatar todas as 100 pessoas.

But of course, that would be too many for the boat. ولكن بطبيعة الحال، التي من شأنها أن تكون كثيرة جدا عن المركب. Maar dat zou natuurlijk te veel zijn voor de boot. Mas é claro que isso seria demais para o barco.

It would sink, and then we'd all die. فإنه يغرق، ومن ثم كنا نموت جميعا. Hij zou zinken, en dan gaan we allemaal dood. Ele afundaria, e depois nós todos morreríamos.

So maybe we only allow 10 people on board. ربما لذلك نحن تسمح فقط 10 شخصا كانوا على متنها. Dus misschien laten we maar 10 mensen toe aan boord. Então talvez nós só permitíssemos mais 10 pessoas a bordo.

But which 10? How do we make that decision? ولكن منها 10؟ كيف يمكننا أن نجعل هذا القرار؟ Maar welke 10? Hoe maken we die keuze? Mas quais 10? Como tomamos essa decisão?

Even if we had some way to choose between lives, Hardin argued that filling our boat to capacity is still the wrong answer. حتى لو كان لدينا بعض طريقة لاختيار بين الأرواح، وقال هاردن أن يملأ زورقنا إلى قدرة لا يزال إجابة خاطئة. Zelfs als we tussen levens zouden kunnen kiezen, zegt Hardin dat het verkeerd is om de boot volledig te vullen. Mesmo se tivéssemos alguma forma de escolher entre vidas, Hardin argumenta que preencher o barco até o limite ainda é a resposta errada.

By leaving those 10 spaces empty, we'd have more resources for those on board, maximizing their chances of survival. من خلال ترك تلك المساحات 10 فارغة، سيكون لدينا المزيد من الموارد لكانوا على متنها، وتعظيم فرصهم في البقاء على قيد الحياة. Door die 10 plaatsen onbezet te laten, hebben we meer middelen voor degenen aan boord, wat hun kans om te overleven maximaliseert. Ao deixar os 10 espaços vazios, teremos mais recursos para as pessoas a bordo, maximizando suas chances de sobrevivência.

Those people in the water are doomed, Hardin said. وقال هاردن محكوم هؤلاء الناس في الماء De mensen in het water zijn gedoemd, zegt Hardin. Aquelas pessoas na água estão condenadas, Hardin disse.

They're doomed because they don't have a boat, and they need a boat of their own if they're going to make it. انهم محكوم لأنهم لم يكن لديك قارب، وانهم في حاجة الى قارب من تلقاء نفسها إذا انهم ذاهبون لتحقيق ذلك. Ze zijn gedoemd omdat ze geen boot hebben, en ze hebben een eigen boot nodig om te overleven. Elas estão condenadas porque não têm um barco, e elas precisam de um barco próprio para sobreviver.

Helping a few of them out doesn't really solve any problems. مساعدة عدد قليل منهم من لا يحل حقا أي مشاكل. Ze helpen lost eigenlijk geen problemen op. Ajudar alguns deles realmente não resolve quaisquer problemas.

If anything, it draws out their suffering. إذا كان أي شيء، فإنه يرسم من معاناتهم. En todo caso, aumenta su sufrimiento. Het verlengd hun lijden allen maar. Talvez até prolongue seu sofrimento.

OK. Here's the thing about this analogy: حسنا. وهنا شيء عن هذا التشبيه: Ok. Dit is het punt van deze analogie: Ok. A ideia da analogia é esta:

The lucky people in the lifeboat? الناس المحظوظين في قارب نجاة؟ De gelukkige mensen in de reddingsboot? As pessoas de sorte no barco salva-vidas?

Hardin said: That's a nation. وقال هاردن: وهذا الوطن. Hardin zei: Dat is een natie. Hardin disse: Isso é uma nação.

And the people in the water? والناس في الماء؟ En de mensen in het water? E as pessoas na água?

They're other nations, ones living in such extreme poverty that they don't have their own boats. انهم الأمم، تلك الأخرى التي تعيش في مثل هذا الفقر المدقع الذي لم يكن لديهم قواربهم الخاصة. Dat zijn andere naties, degene die in zulke extreme armoede leven dat ze geen eigen boten hebben. Eles são outras nações, que vivem em tanta extrema pobreza que eles não têm seus próprios barcos.

The boat in this case represents a strong social structure, a safety net that provides for its citizens. القارب في هذه الحالة يمثل بنية اجتماعية قوية، وشبكة الأمان التي توفر لمواطنيها. De boot stelt in dit geval een sterke sociale structuur voor, een vangnet dat zorgt voor zijn burgers. O barco aqui representa uma forte estrutura social, uma rede de segurança que provê seus cidadãos.

Hardin said that, just as the duty of a ship captain is to its passengers, a nation's obligations are to its citizens. وقال هاردن ذلك، تماما كما من واجب قائد السفينة لركابها، والتزامات دولة هي لمواطنيها. Hardin zei dat, net als een kapitein verplicht is jegens zijn passagiers, een natie is verplicht tegenover zijn burgers. Hardin disse que, assim como o dever de um capitão de navio para com seus passageiros, as obrigações de uma nação são para com seus cidadãos.

So a nation should never risk the well-being of its citizenry in order to help members of another nation. ولذلك فإن الأمة لا ينبغي أبدا خطر رفاه مواطنيها من أجل مساعدة أفراد أمة أخرى. Dus een natie mag nooit het welzijn van haar burgers in gevaar brengen om de leden van een andere natie te helpen. Assim, uma nação nunca deve arriscar o bem-estar dos seus cidadãos, a fim de ajudar os membros de outra nação.

Of course, some nations don't have the resources to help their citizens. وبطبيعة الحال، فإن بعض الدول لا تملك الموارد اللازمة لمساعدة مواطنيها. Natuurlijk hebben sommige naties niet de middelen om hun burgers te helpen. Claro, algumas nações não têm recursos para ajudar seus cidadãos.

In others, people live under governments that are actively exploiting them, rather than protecting them. وفي حالات أخرى، يعيش الناس في ظل الحكومات التي يتم استغلالها بنشاط، بدلا من حمايتهم. In andere naties leven mensen onder regeringen die hen actief uitbuiten, in plaats van ze te beschermen. Em outras, as pessoas vivem sob governos que estão as explorando ativamente, ao invés de protegê-las.

But Hardin said, that's not our fault. لكن هاردن قال، وهذا ليس خطأنا. Maar volgens Hardin is dat niet onze schuld. Mas Hardin disse, isso não é nossa culpa.

And to give aid to people who don't even have a boat, well, that's throwing away resources. ولتقديم المساعدات للأشخاص الذين لم يكن لديهم حتى قارب، حسنا، هذا هو رمي الموارد. En om mensen te helpen die niet eens een eigen boot hebben, nou, dat is het weggooien van middelen. E dar auxílio a pessoas que não têm sequer um barco, bem, é jogar recursos fora.

Who cares if your mosquito net saves a child from malaria, when that child will still be living in inescapable poverty? من يهتم إذا ناموسية الخاص يحفظ الطفل من الملاريا، عندما يكون الطفل سيظل يعيش في فقر لا مفر منه؟ Wat maakt het uit dat je muskietennet een kind tegen malaria beschermt, als dat kind toch in onontkoombare armoede leeft? Quem se importa se o seu mosquiteiro salva uma criança de malária, quando essa criança ainda estará vivendo em pobreza inevitável?

The real problem, according to Hardin, is overpopulation. المشكلة الحقيقية، وفقا لهاردن، هو الاكتظاظ السكاني. Het echte probleem is, volgens Hardin, overbevolking. O verdadeiro problema, diz Hardin, é a superpopulação.

And the hard truth is, if a nation has more citizens than it can support – just like a lifeboat that's filled beyond capacity – no amount of aid will solve that problem. والحقيقة المرة هي، إذا كانت أمة لها المزيد من المواطنين مما يمكن أن تدعم - تماما مثل قارب نجاة التي شغلها بما يفوق طاقتها - لا يمكن لأي قدر من المساعدات حل هذه المشكلة. En de harde waarheid is, als een natie meer burgers heeft dan ze kan dragen - net als een reddingsboot die overvol is - dan bestaat er geen hulp die dat probleem kan oplossen. E a dura verdade é que, se um país tem mais cidadãos do que ele pode suportar - tal como um bote salva-vidas superlotado - nenhum montante de ajuda vai resolver esse problema.

So, quite counter-intuitively, Hardin said the most compassionate response is to do nothing. لذلك، تماما مكافحة حدسي، قال هاردن رد الفعل الأكثر إنسانية هو أن تفعل شيئا. Dus, Hardin zei verrassend genoeg dat niets doen het meest barmhartig is. Assim, contra-intuitivamente, Hardin disse que a resposta mais compassiva é não fazer nada.

Yes, people will die, but if aid were to stop, Hardin said, populations would be reduced to a point where nations would be able to be sustain themselves. نعم، والناس سوف يموتون، ولكن إذا كانت المساعدات لوقف وقال هاردن، سينخفض السكان إلى نقطة حيث الدول سوف تكون قادرة على إعالة أنفسهم. Ja, mensen zullen sterven, maar als hulp stopt, zouden bevolkingen gereduceerd worden tot een punt waar naties zichzelf zouden kunnen onderhouden. Sim, as pessoas morrerão, mas se a ajuda parasse - Hardin disse - as populações seriam reduzidas a um ponto em que as nações poderiam se autossustentar.

Now, there are at least two pretty immediate responses to this line of thinking. الآن، هناك اثنين على الأقل الاستجابات الفورية جدا لهذا الخط من التفكير. Er zijn minstens twee directe antwoorden op deze manier van denken. Agora, há pelo menos duas respostas imediatas a esta linha de pensamento.

First, the lifeboat analogy breaks down when you realize that the problem really has nothing to do with the scarcity of resources. أولا، قياسا على قارب نجاة ينهار عندما كنت أدرك أن المشكلة لها حقا أن تفعل مع ندرة الموارد لا شيء. Ten eerste houdt de reddingsbootanalogie geen stand als je bedenkt dat het probleem eigenlijk niks te maken heeft met met schaarsheid van middelen. Em primeiro lugar, a analogia do barco salva-vidas falha quando se percebe que o problema, na realidade, não tem nada a ver com a escassez de recursos.

In the real world, there are plenty of resources to go around – they're just distributed extremely unevenly. في العالم الحقيقي، وهناك الكثير من الموارد ليرحل - انهم مجرد توزيع غير متساو للغاية. In de echte wereld zijn er meer dan genoeg middelen - ze zijn gewoon extreem oneven verdeeld. No mundo real, há abundância de recursos disponíveis - eles apenas são distribuídos extremamente desigual.

So it seems that Hardin has committed what's known as the either/or fallacy. لذلك يبدو أن هاردن قد ارتكب ما يعرف باسم إما / أو مغالطة. Así que parece que Hardin ha cometido lo que se conoce como la falacia de o lo uno o lo otro. Het lijkt er dus op dat Hardin een drogreden begaat, namelijk het vals dilemma. Assim, parece que Hardin cometeu o que é conhecido como a "falácia da falsa dicotomia".

He said, either protect yourself, or help others, but with the amount of wealth we have, we could actually, and easily, do both. وقال: إما حماية نفسك، أو مساعدة الآخرين، ولكن مع كمية من ثروة لدينا، يمكننا في الواقع، وبسهولة، القيام بالأمرين معا. Hij zei, óf je helpt jezelf, óf je helpt anderen, maar met de welvaart die we hebben zouden we eigenlijk gemakkelijk beide kunnen doen. Ele disse: "ou se proteja ou ajude os outros"; mas, com a quantidade de riqueza que temos, na verdade, poderíamos, e facilmente, fazer ambos.

Second, Hardin cast his analogy in terms of nations, but that scale is totally arbitrary. ثانيا، يلقي هاردن قياسا له من حيث الدول، ولكن هذا الجدول هو إجراء تعسفي تماما. Ten tweede spreekt Hardin in zijn analogie in termen van naties, maar die schaal is totaal willekeurig. Em segundo lugar, Hardin lançou sua analogia em termos de nações, mas esta escala é totalmente arbitrária.

Any argument you could give for caring about your nation over others could also be given for caring about your state over others, or your city, or even your family. ويمكن أيضا أن تعطى أي حجة يمكن أن تقدم لرعاية حول أمتك على الآخرين لرعاية حول دولتكم على الآخرين، أو مدينتك، أو حتى عائلتك. Elk argument dat je kan geven voor het voortrekken van je eigen natie kan ook gegeven worden voor het voortrekken van je staat, je stad of zelfs je familie. Qualquer argumento que você poderia dar para se preocupar com sua nação acima de outras também pode ser dada para se preocupar com seu estado sobre os outros, ou sua cidade, ou até mesmo sua família.

And you might say, darn right I care about my family more than yours! ويمكن أن نقول الحق الرتق يهمني عائلتي أكثر من لك! En je kunt zeggen, zeker weten geef ik meer om mijn familie dan om de jouwe! E você pode dizer: "óbvio que me importo mais com minha família do que a sua!"

But be careful, because: Isn't that just like arguing that you only have to pull that kid out of the water if she happens to be related to you? ولكن كن حذرا، لأن: أليس هذا مجرد مثل بحجة أن لديك فقط لسحب هذا الطفل من الماء إذا كانت يحدث أن تكون ذات صلة بالنسبة لك؟ Maar wees voorzichtig, want: is dat niet hetzelfde als redeneren dat je alleen dat kind uit het water hoeft te redden als ze toevallig familie van je is? Mas cuidado, porque isso não seria como dizer que você só tiraria aquela criança da água se ela fosse parente sua?

Morality calls for us to not draw arbitrary lines when it comes to who deserves help and who doesn't. يدعو الأخلاق بالنسبة لنا ليست رسم خطوط التعسفي عندما يتعلق الأمر الذي يستحق المساعدة والذين لا. Moraliteit vraagt van ons dat we geen willekeurige grenzen stellen op het gebied van wie hulp verdient en wie niet. A moralidade nos convoca a não desenhar arbitrariamente limites quanto a quem merece ajuda e quem não.

A lot of people, like Singer, think that the only non-arbitrary line is to say that there's really only one boat, and we're all in it, so we've all got to help. Everyone. وهناك الكثير من الناس، مثل المغني، واعتقد ان الخط غير التعسفي الوحيد هو أن نقول أن هناك حقا قارب واحد فقط، ونحن جميعا في ذلك، ولذا فإننا قد حصلت على كل المساعدة. كل واحد. Veel mensen, zoals Singer, vinden dat de enige niet-willekeurige grens is om te zeggen dat er eigenlijk maar één boot is, waar we allemaal in zitten, dus we moeten allemaal helpen. Iedereen. Muitas pessoas, como Singer, acham que a única linha não-arbitrária é dizer que há realmente apenas um barco, e estamos todos nele, de modo que todos nós temos de ajudar. Todos.

So, what do you think? Are you in your own boat? فما رأيك؟ أنت في القارب الخاص بك؟ Dus, wat denk jij? Zit je in je eigen boot? Então, o que você acha? Você está em seu próprio barco?

One thing that might help you answer that question is the topic of our next – and next to last – lesson: the value of human life. الشيء الوحيد الذي يمكن أن تساعدك على الإجابة على هذا السؤال هو موضوع لدينا القادمة - والقادمة إلى آخر - الدرس: قيمة الحياة البشرية. Iets dat kan helpen bij het beantwoorden van die vraag is het onderwerp van onze volgende - en een-na-laatste - les: de waarde van een mensenleven. Uma coisa que pode ajudá-lo a responder a essa pergunta é o tema da nossa próxima - e penúltima - lição: o valor da vida humana.

But today we talked about extreme poverty, and our responses to it. ولكن اليوم تحدثنا عن الفقر المدقع، وردودنا على ذلك. Maar vandaag hebben we het gehad over extreme armoede, en ons antwoord daarop. Mas hoje nós falamos sobre a pobreza extrema, e as nossas respostas a ela.

We considered Singer's argument that we have an obligation to prevent harm through poverty when we can, and we also looked at Hardin's lifeboat analogy. رأيناها حجة المغني أن علينا واجب لمنع الضرر من خلال الفقر عندما نستطيع، ونحن ننظر أيضا في القياس قارب نجاة هاردن We overwogen Singers argument dat we verplicht zijn lijden door armoede te voorkomen waar we kunnen, en we bekeken Hardins reddingsbootanalogie. Consideramos o argumento de Singer de que temos a obrigação de prevenir os danos da pobreza quando podemos, e também analisamos a analogia do barco salva-vidas de Hardin.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. وينتج تحطم دورة الفلسفة بالتعاون مع برنامج تلفزيوني استوديوهات رقمية. Crash Course Philosophy wordt gemaakt in samenwerking met PBS Digital Studios O Crash Course Filosofia é produzido em associação com a PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like: يمكنك رئيس لأكثر من قناتهم للتحقق من قائمة تشغيل أحدث حلقة من البرامج مثل: Je kunt naar hun kanaal gaan om een afspeellijst te bekijken met de laatste afleveringen van shows als: Você pode ir ao canal deles ver a playlist dos episódios mais recentes de séries como:

PBS Idea Channel, It's Okay to be Smart, and Physics Girl. برنامج تلفزيوني فكرة القناة، لا بأس أن تكون ذكية، والفيزياء فتاة. PBS Idea Channel, It's Okay to be Smart, and Physics Girl. PBS Idea Channel, It's Okay to be Smart, e Physics Girl

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio وقد تم تصوير هذه الحلقة من دورة مكثفة في طبيب شيريل جيم كيني تحطم ستوديو دورة Deze aflevering van Crash Course is gefilmd in de Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio Este episódio de Crash Couse foi filmado no Dr. Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe. مع مساعدة من كل هؤلاء الناس رائع وفريق رسومات رائعة على قدم المساواة لدينا هو الفكر مقهى. met behulp van al deze geweldige mensen en ons even geweldige graphics team is Thought Cafe. com a ajuda de todas essas pessoas incríveis e nossa igualmente fantástica equipe gráfica do Thought Cafe.