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

~ (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. Part plea, part manifesto, part handbook, this short and surprisingly compelling book sets out to answer two difficult questions: why people in affluent countries should donate money to fight global poverty and how much each should give. Singer (Animal Liberation) dismantles the justifications people make for not giving and highlights the successes of such efforts as microfinance in Bangladesh, GiveWells charitable giving and the 50% League, where members donate more than half their wealth. Singer alternately cajoles and scolds: he pillories Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, who has given less than his former partner, Bill Gates, and lives far more extravagantly: His toys include a large collection of vintage military aircraft and a 413-foot oceangoing yacht called Octopus that cost him over $200 million and has a permanent crew of sixty. Singer contrasts Allens immoderation with the work of Paul Farmer (a cofounder of the international social justice organization Partners in Health) and the cost of basic health services in Haiti ($3,500 per life saved), or malaria nets ($623–$2,367 per life saved). Singer doesnt ask readers to choose between asceticism and self-indulgence; his solution can be found in the middle, and it is reasonable and rewarding for all. (Mar.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

Advance praise for The Life You Can Save

“Part plea, part manifesto, part handbook, this short and surprisingly compelling book sets out to answer two difficult questions: why people in affluent countries should donate money to fight global poverty and how much each should give. . . . Singer doesn’t ask readers to choose between asceticism and self-indulgence; his solution can be found in the middle, and it is reasonable and rewarding for all.”
–Publishers Weekly (starred review)

“If you think you can’t afford to give money to the needy, I urge you to read this book. If you think you’re already giving enough, and to the right places, still I urge you to read this book. In The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer makes a strong case–logical and factual, but also emotional–for why each of us should be doing more for the world’s impoverished. This book will challenge you to be a better person.”
–Holden Karnofsky, co-founder, GiveWell


“In The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer challenges each of us to ask: Am I willing to make poverty history? Skillfully weaving together parable, philosophy, and hard statistics, he tackles the most familiar moral, ethical, and ideological obstacles to building a global culture of philanthropy, and sets the bar for how we as citizens might do our part to empower the world’s poor.”
–Raymond C. Offenheiser, president, Oxfam America


From the Hardcover edition. --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 224 pages
• Publisher: Random House; First Edition edition (March 3, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1400067103
• ISBN-13: 978-1400067107
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (20 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #9,436 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #5 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Philanthropy & Charity
  #17 in	Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Ethics & Morality
  #22 in	Books > Nonfiction > Current Events > Poverty

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 43 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A brilliant work of philosophy that everyone should read! , March 11, 2009

By	Travis M. Timmerman "lechuza1386" (Tempe, Az) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

23 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Another cogent and timely argument from Singer, March 15, 2009

By	Nicholas Soucy (Lansing, Mi United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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 refrain from littering, I am not trying to guilt-trip them into environmental stewardship. It's an examination of the consequences of our actions and non-actions.

If, eventually, we agree to accept a lesser degree of entertainment and comfort in order to "make poverty history," then nearly everyone will enjoy a greater quality of life.

Examples: Think of the multibillion-dollar monument New York wants to build to memorialize 9/11 victims, or war monuments or on parades and athletic events. Or the billions we spend sending rockets and satellites to outer space. Or the $5 billion spent on the 2008 election cycle. Is it possible that money for monuments, fountains, statues, public art sculptures, trips to Mars, the Moon, elections, luxurious political and celebrity parties, etc. could better be spent taking care of our world's poor?

A final thought: you don't need to buy this $14 book either. Better to rent it from your library and give the $14 to an impoverished person. Or if you do buy it, share it with at least 10 other people before donating it to a library that doesn't have it.

9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Solid argument about giving, weak on strategies for execution, April 10, 2009

By	Frank J. Wassermann (Cincinnati, OH USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

The author presents a solid ethical argument for significantly increased charitable giving to combat poverty among the poorest of the poor. One can quibble with some of the simplifications in his key argument, but saving a life or relieving serious suffering through relatively modest sacrifice on one's part is hard to argue with. One of the critics of aid he addresses, William Easterly, responds to his presentation in an article in the Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2009. He makes the key qualification which is the question of efficacy. Singer addresses this but ends up rather glossing over it, especially if we take seriously the idea of scaling up aid at the level he advocates. Since there is an almost total lack of transparency and evaluation of results from even the most reputable international aid agencies, how could we justify a huge increase in their resources in the near term?

This doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't take seriously their personal responsibility, and even Easterly acknowledges there are many projects (if not agencies) whose effectiveness is demonstrable. But on a macro level Singer doesn't address how vast new amounts of aid would be used effectively.

Another caveat. There is more variability in individuals' capacity to give than accommodated by Singer's 5%+ plan, but he does acknowledge that his proposal is a guide. Bill Clinton's point about allowing for people to build up a nest egg before major giving makes sense, especially if you emphasize constraining consumption in order to make that happen sooner than later. One way Singer cites to accomplish that is a policy to match one's giving (or in this case saving for later giving) with "discretionary" expenses defined as those going beyond the basic lifestyle permitted by one's income. ( "Basic" expenses for a very wealthy person could be much higher than for a less wealthy person.)

Also, Singer doesn't make clear that income should include all income - investment and earned, taxable and non-taxable, as from retirement accounts. If accumulated wealth isn't taken into account, then earned income would be "taxed" unfairly relative to unearned income or non-income producing assets that nevertheless represent means of the potential donor.

Perhaps the most valuable part of the book is the survey of research showing why people do or do not give more - the importance of perceptions about giving, the role of our emotions and "connectedness" to the recipient, and social or reference group attitudes. The findings help peel away rationalizations, inhibitions and just plain misunderstanding that impede clear thinking about philanthropic commitment. That alone is a considerable service Singer performs for us and alone worth the read.