“E: Why don't you believe in God?
L: Because it is a man-made concept.”
link
“Mayo cannot be eaten by itself. Neither does ketchup.”
link
“Wisdom is the ability to enjoy life. You are happy watching a football match? You are wise. Unless it is an escape, of course.”
link

E: I would love to get back in time when I was in love with her. Just for a moment. So I could appreciate it more than I did then. I would give anything for that.
L: Would you really want that? Maybe the true appreciation can only come after it irrevocably ends? Do you want to go back in time? Do you really want her back? Or is this just a sad reminder of temporariness of life that you cannot deal with?
E: This pain is the most beautiful thing in the universe... I finally can see it.
link
“I love people. They are magical.”
link
“You can know the truth and ignore it. That is what happiness is all about. Series of delusions must be manufactured.”
link
“Love heals all. Love is all.”
link
“Never ever give up on love. Once you do, you are not a human anymore.”
link

People in the West are indoctrinated by the ideas of individualism and capitalism. In simple terms: the harder you work, the more rewards you receive (earlier retirement, fancy toys etc.). Most of the time people work hard just to get those rewards. Ideology of individualism and capitalism produce vast affluence. However, maybe quite ironically, you cannot change this kind of society to be charitable. You work hard, you get rewards, but then you are supposed to give a big chunk of those rewards to others? It is contradictory. You remove the incentive, you remove the affluence.

Now, let's go to comparing a drowning girl in the pond that you can see and save to starving kids far far away. Does this comparison actually make sense? Let's ask, why would most people immediately jump into the pond without any worries to get their clothes muddy to save a child. Is it because most of us believe a child's death is wrong? Or is it because we are scared to be judged by others (and ourselves) for not taking a specific action? If it's the latter, the comparison is invalid.

Are we sure human nature is not to be completely selfish? Don't we only care about our status and our well-being? Could it be that Peter Singer's proposed moral obligations is just his virtue signalling to others? Could it be that his deepest true motivation for writing the essay was just to climb the hierarchy to cultivate power and have access to more sex? How much good has he actually done in his life? That might seem very judgemental, but doesn't his essay propose immense judgement of others?

Obviously we should donate and help the poor around the world. But this will not happen. The system of the West is not designed to be compassionate.

Philosophical discussions of what is morally right or wrong will not bring the change. Want more compassion and philantrophy? Create better stories and better role models. That might very possibly lead to the collapse of the West. Although, it would not prevail for long. The deepest motivation of ours is selfish benefit. That will not change.
link
“Your inclination is to support ideas that benefit you.”
link