The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty

The finale of the now classic movie "Schindler's List" features Liam Neeson portraying the much renowned industrialist Oskar Schnindler, credited with saving some 1,200 Jews from certain death during the Holocaust. In this scene, Schindler points at his car and says "this car, why did I keep the car? Ten people right there." He then grabs a pin from his coat, stares at it almost in horror, and says "Two people... this is gold... two more people." Breaking down, he pleads "I could have done more." One of the shocking aspects of this amazing scene is the valuing of material things in terms of human lives. It prompts a deeper question about how we value life, which evokes an even more disturbing question: how much would someone pay to save your life? Or even, what am I worth? It should come as no surprise that in our heavily monetized culture some government agencies have indeed made estimates on what you're worth. In chapter six of "the Life You Can Save," the philosopher Peter Singer quotes the 2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency value of "a generic American life" as $7.22 million. The Department of Transportation estimated $5.8 million. One of the main themes running through Singer's book is that it actually doesn't cost the affluent much to save the the lives of people living in the world's poorest areas. The preface's first page dives right into this idea. Singer says outright that if you have a bottle of water or soda on a table beside you as you read his book, then you already have money to spend on things that you don't need. As his argument develops, it becomes clear that, given his premises, those things we buy that we don't need do translate into human lives that could be saved by the simple act of giving to a charity that works with the poorest of the poor. After discussing the countless people who die each year from preventable diseases and conditions, he states: "we can reasonably believe that the cost of saving a life through one of these charities is somewhere between $200 and $2,000." Though Singer never explicitly connects the two, that can of soda from the preface, especially considering the average annual spending on soft drinks, begins to acquire a potentially sinister aura. The implications of Singer's claims will shock many. Some will doubtlessly deny their cogency. At root level the book claims that spending money on things we don't need instead of supporting life saving charities is outright wrong. Even downright immoral. Of course, who would argue with this? Well, some people do, so chapter 3 gets dedicated to answering many common objections to charitable donating. Not only that, Singer provides figures that the U.S., in terms of Gross National Income (GNI), falls next to last (just above Greece) in overall giving (only 18 cents of every $100 earned in 2006). He then addresses the obvious follow-up question in chapter 4, aptly titled "Why Don't We Give More?" Human nature itself receives scrutiny, and Singer identi

The most expensive book I've ever read, since it's motivated me to contribute more to charity. A must-read.

Dr. Singer has a knack for finding ways to engage others in reasoned, principled, critical thought on difficult moral issues without resorting to name calling, arrogance, or emotional tantrum. Dr. Singer uses concrete language to share an argument in favor of acting to end world poverty. He offers his best summary of the evidence in favor of his argument. He outlines possible counter arguments. He shares further evidence to challenge these counter arguments. Then, he wraps things up by offering is own thoughts on how a reasonable, ethical person might choose to put his principles into daily practice. He doesn't demand. He simply shares his arguments and offers evidence. He leaves it up to me to decide how I mght act (if at all) to end world poverty. What more could I ask for? I wanted to read a work of philosophy that would engage me in reasoned reflection. Dr. Singer's book gave me exactly what I wanted.

In high school philosophy, we read Singer's brief article that has been called the "Singer Solution to Poverty," (actually entitled "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"). I first read it in 2001 but he authored it in 1971. It changed the way I think of poverty. "The Life You Can Save" is an extrapolation of the above-mentioned argument, and a response to the critics who dismissed his 1971 argument as unfair, unrealistic or simply unnecessary. His credentials: Singer has been lecturing, writing and researching world poverty for more than 30 years, and, as with his 30-year study and defense of animal rights, Singer is able to convince most any reasonable critic that his positions have unassailable merit. You can simplify this book's thesis by saying that if you fail to share the part of your income that is beyond what you need for a comfortable life, then that failure to share is a moral wrongdoing. In other words, if you can meet all of your shelter, food, education, transportation and other practical needs with $200 weekly, then any additional dollars you make above $200 should be given to responsible charities like Oxfam or to low-interest micro-lending institutions like Yunus's Grameen Bank. So, whom do you share your money with? With what Singer calls the "extreme poor"-- those with little access to food or clean water, health care, education, protection from guerrilla warfare, etc. (Check out sites like Give Well and Charity Navigator to help determine which groups make the most of your money.) This is in contrast to Europe's and North America's "relative poor" who are hard-off, but still usually have shelter and clean water/food. One way I like to describe his thesis is as a `redefinition of luxury.' We may think mostly of sports cars, jewelry, iPods, plasma TVs and the like as the only luxuries, but as Singer points out, if you're drinking bottled water while you read this even though you have access to clean tap water then you are spending money on at least one thing you don't need. That said, no one, not Singer or anyone else, would argue that money solves all problems. What does help is a cultural mind-shift. If we consume fewer luxuries, we are better off, and if we share our extra wealth with organizations that feed, shelter and medicate the poor, then we are also better off, globally. In this case, money can help get things going, but it's not a panacea; our actions will change the world, not just our cash. Of course, you can spend locally as well. I prefer to donate time and labor to causes like homelessness and such, because your money gets stretched much farther in Haiti or Cameroon through Oxfam than it does in the U.S. I also think it's worth considering that U.S. shelters do get some gov't assistance from HUD and other sources, whereas a village in Belize probably doesn't get any grants at all. It's important to understand that this isn't a guilt-focused book. If I teach my children that they ought to

In this relatively short book, Professor Singer makes an extremely compelling case for why it is morally obligatory for capable individuals to aid beings that suffer. Those that are familiar with his previous work will recognize his basic arguments on poverty, which he has been expanding upon for over three decades. For those who are unfamiliar with Peter Singer, the argument he expands upon in this book is quoted as follows... 1.) "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad." 2.) "If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so." 3.) "By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Conclusion - "Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong." This argument is valid, and I think sound, so if one is to reject the conclusion, one MUST reject one (or more) of the premises. If they accept the premises, then they MUST accept the conclusion. Professor Singer's logic is solid throughout. His writing is both lucid and entertaining, making this work accessible, absorbing and crucially important to philosophers and philosophical novices alike. This is simply a must read for everyone.