In "The Life You Can Save," philosopher Peter Singer presents a compelling argument for why those of us living in affluent countries have an ethical obligation to donate more of our income to help those living in extreme poverty. The book challenges readers to reconsider their views on charitable giving and offers practical advice for how we can make a significant positive impact on the lives of the world's poorest people.
Singer begins with a thought experiment that forms the ethical foundation for his arguments:
Imagine you're walking past a shallow pond and see a small child drowning. You could easily wade in and rescue the child, but doing so would ruin your expensive new shoes and clothes. Most people agree they would have a moral obligation to save the child, regardless of the cost to their clothing. Singer then asks: if we accept this moral reasoning, don't we have the same obligation to save the lives of children dying from poverty-related causes in developing countries, even if it means sacrificing some of our luxuries?
This sets up the core ethical argument that Singer develops throughout the book: that those of us with disposable income have a moral duty to donate a significant portion of it to effective charities working to alleviate global poverty. He systematically addresses common objections and rationalizations people use to avoid giving, while making a passionate case that we can and should do much more to help those in extreme need.
The Reality of Global Poverty
Singer begins by laying out some stark facts about the current state of global poverty and the vast inequalities that exist in the world today:
- As of 2018, over 700 million people live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.90 per day.
- Poverty is the primary driver of premature deaths in developing countries. In Sierra Leone, 1 in 13 children die before age 5, compared to 1 in 263 in Australia.
- Millions die each year from easily preventable or treatable conditions like malaria, diarrhea, and malnutrition.
However, Singer also notes that significant progress has been made in recent decades:
- The rate of extreme poverty has nearly halved since 1993.
- In East Asia, poverty rates fell from 60% in 1990 to just 2.3% in 2015.
- About half of all people globally are now considered middle class or above.
This progress shows that reducing poverty is possible. But Singer argues we have a moral imperative to do much more, given the vast resources available in wealthy countries. He points out that there are now over 2,000 billionaires globally - twice as many as 10 years ago. The stark contrast between extreme wealth and extreme poverty forms the ethical dilemma at the heart of the book.
The Ethical Argument for Giving
Singer lays out a straightforward ethical argument for why we are morally obligated to donate much more to effective poverty-relief charities:
- Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are very bad.
- If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, we ought to do it.
- By donating to effective charities, we can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
- Therefore, we ought to donate much more to effective charities working to reduce poverty.
He argues that if we accept these premises, the conclusion logically follows that we are behaving unethically if we don't donate more. This challenges common assumptions that we are free to spend our money however we want.
Singer acknowledges this can be an uncomfortable conclusion, as it implies many of our everyday purchases and luxuries are ethically dubious. But he argues we need to seriously grapple with this reasoning rather than dismissing it.
He notes that many major religious and ethical traditions - from Christianity and Judaism to Islam and Confucianism - teach that we have a moral duty to help the poor. So while his argument may seem radical, it aligns with long-standing ethical principles.
Psychological Barriers to Giving
If the ethical case for giving more is so clear, why don't more people donate larger amounts to effective charities? Singer explores various psychological factors that prevent us from acting in line with our ethical beliefs:
Identifiable victim effect: We're more motivated to help specific individuals than abstract groups. For example, people donate more when shown a photo and story of a single child in need versus general statistics about poverty.
Sense of futility: When a problem seems overwhelming, we're less likely to help. In one study, people donated more to help 1,500 refugees when told the camp had 3,000 total people versus 10,000 - even though the same number would be helped either way.
Out of sight, out of mind: We're more moved by suffering we can see directly in front of us than by distant poverty. This explains why a child drowning nearby feels more urgent than children dying of preventable causes globally.
Diffusion of responsibility: When others aren't helping, we feel less obligated to act ourselves. This can create a vicious cycle where everyone waits for others to step up.
Singer argues we need to recognize and overcome these psychological biases. While it's natural to be more emotionally moved by nearby suffering, rationally we should care just as much about distant strangers. And even if we can't solve the entire problem of global poverty, we can still make an enormous positive impact.
Creating a Culture of Giving
To increase charitable giving, Singer advocates for creating social norms and structures that encourage and celebrate generosity. Some strategies he suggests:
Promote existing generosity: Studies show people give more when they believe others are also donating. Publicizing charitable giving can create positive peer pressure.
Giving communities: Organizations like Giving What We Can ask members to pledge to donate at least 10% of their income. This creates social support and accountability.
Opt-out systems: Some companies automatically deduct a small percentage of employee salaries for charity unless workers opt-out. This leverages the power of default options.
Public commitments: The Giving Pledge has gotten dozens of billionaires to commit to donating most of their wealth. This sets an example for others.
Singer argues that if giving becomes seen as a normal, expected part of life - rather than an exceptional act - it will become much more widespread. He believes we can shift cultural values away from materialism and toward generosity.
Effective Altruism and Finding the Best Charities
A key part of Singer's argument is that we should focus on donating to the most effective charities - those that do the most good per dollar donated. He highlights the work of organizations like GiveWell that rigorously evaluate charities to find the most cost-effective ways to save and improve lives.
Some examples of highly effective interventions:
- Distributing insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent malaria (~$5 per net)
- Providing vitamin A supplements to prevent childhood blindness (~$1 per person)
- Treating parasitic worm infections (~50 cents per child)
- Providing direct cash transfers to extremely poor families
These kinds of interventions can often save a life for just a few thousand dollars or less. This is far more cost-effective than many charities in wealthy countries.
Singer argues we should evaluate charities based on their actual impact per dollar, not metrics like overhead costs. A charity with higher admin costs but more effective programs may do far more good overall.
He acknowledges criticisms of international aid, but argues these mainly apply to poorly designed government programs. Carefully vetted charities with proven results can have an enormous positive impact.
How Much Should We Give?
Given the ethical arguments for donating more, how much should people actually give? Singer explores different perspectives:
Give until it hurts: Some philosophers argue we're obligated to keep giving until we reach the point where giving more would significantly harm our own wellbeing.
Give 10%: Many religious traditions suggest tithing 10% of income.
Give an increasing percentage: Singer proposes a sliding scale where the wealthy give a much higher percentage than those with lower incomes.
As a practical recommendation, Singer suggests most people in wealthy countries should aim to give at least 5% of their income to effective charities. For the very wealthy, he recommends 50% or more.
He acknowledges this is far less than his ethical arguments would suggest is truly required. But he believes it's a good starting point that could do enormous good if widely adopted, while still being achievable for most people.
Addressing Common Objections
Singer systematically addresses common arguments people use to avoid giving more:
"I worked hard for my money, I can spend it how I want" Singer argues this confuses legal rights with ethical obligations. We may have the right to spend frivolously, but that doesn't make it ethical given the opportunity to save lives instead.
"I already pay taxes for foreign aid" Government aid is often ineffective and a tiny fraction of GDP. Our personal donations to effective charities can do far more good.
"Charities are inefficient/corrupt" While some are, many thoroughly vetted charities do enormous good very cost-effectively. We should seek out the best ones.
"I need to save for my children's future" It's reasonable to provide for your family's basic needs. But at a certain point, additional luxuries matter far less than saving lives.
"Small donations don't make a difference" Even small amounts can have a big impact through effective charities. And if everyone gave, it would add up to an enormous difference.
By anticipating and countering these objections, Singer aims to remove the mental barriers we use to avoid confronting our ethical obligations.
The Joy of Giving
While much of the book focuses on our ethical duty to give more, Singer also highlights the personal benefits of generosity:
- Studies show giving to others makes us happier than spending on ourselves
- Donating can provide a sense of meaning and purpose
- Generous people tend to be viewed more positively by others
- Giving can help us feel more grateful for what we have
He argues that once we overcome our initial reluctance, most people find that giving is deeply rewarding. Rather than a burden, it can become a source of joy and fulfillment.
Putting It Into Practice
In the final sections, Singer offers practical advice for increasing our positive impact:
Start small and build: Begin by donating small amounts and gradually increase over time as you get more comfortable.
Make it automatic: Set up recurring donations to remove the need for ongoing decisions.
Do your research: Carefully evaluate charities to ensure your donations do the most good possible.
Talk about it: Discuss charitable giving with friends and family to normalize and encourage it.
Consider your career: Beyond donating, consider pursuing a career focused on doing good in the world.
He emphasizes that even if we fall short of the ethical ideal, any increase in our giving can have an enormous positive impact. The goal is progress, not perfection.
Conclusion
Singer concludes by reiterating his core argument: those of us in wealthy countries have an ethical obligation to do much more to help those living in extreme poverty. While it may feel uncomfortable or seem to require real sacrifice, the opportunity to save lives and reduce suffering is so immense that we must take it seriously.
He challenges readers to deeply consider the arguments presented and to take action - whether that means increasing donations, volunteering, spreading awareness, or reconsidering career choices. Even small changes in our behavior can have an enormous positive impact on the world's poorest people.
Ultimately, Singer presents giving not as a burden, but as an opportunity - a chance to live a more ethical life, to connect with our deepest values, and to truly make a difference in the world. By expanding our circle of moral concern and taking action to help others, we can find greater meaning and fulfillment in our own lives.
The book leaves us with a profound challenge: knowing what we now know about global poverty and our ability to help, how will we choose to live our lives? Will we continue with business as usual, or will we seize the opportunity to save lives and reduce suffering? The choice is ours - and the stakes could not be higher.
Key Takeaways
Those of us in wealthy countries have an ethical obligation to donate much more to effective charities fighting global poverty.
Common psychological biases and rationalizations prevent us from giving as much as we ethically should.
Creating a culture of giving through social norms and structures can increase charitable donations.
We should focus on the most effective charities that do the most good per dollar donated.
Most people in wealthy countries should aim to give at least 5% of their income to effective charities.
Giving not only fulfills our ethical duties but can also increase our own happiness and sense of meaning.
Any increase in giving, even if small, can have an enormous positive impact on those in extreme poverty.
Final Thoughts
"The Life You Can Save" presents a challenging but ultimately inspiring message. It forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about global inequality and our own spending habits. But it also offers a path toward living a more ethical and meaningful life.
Singer's arguments are rigorous and difficult to dismiss, even if we may struggle to fully live up to the ethical standard he proposes. The book serves as an important call to action, pushing us to expand our moral circle and take concrete steps to help those in extreme need.
While the problems of global poverty can seem overwhelming, the book leaves us with a sense of hope and empowerment. Through the simple act of redirecting some of our income to effective charities, each of us has the power to save lives and dramatically improve the wellbeing of people around the world.
Ultimately, "The Life You Can Save" asks us to imagine the kind of world we want to live in - one where we turn away from those in desperate need, or one where we recognize our common humanity and do what we can to help. It challenges us to live up to our highest ethical ideals and to seize the opportunity we have to make a real difference.
Whether or not we fully embrace Singer's conclusions, the book succeeds in forcing us to seriously grapple with our obligations to others. It's a powerful and potentially life-changing read for anyone concerned with living an ethical life in today's globalized world.