Product Description

For the first time in history, it is within our reach to eradicate world poverty and the suffering it brings.

A billion people struggle to live each day on less than many of us pay for a bottle of water.

Nearly ten million children die each year from poverty-related causes.

Our current response to world poverty is not only insufficient but ethically indefensible.

If we are not to turn our backs on a fifth of the world’s population, we must become part of the solution.

This is the right time to ask yourself: ‘What should I be doing to help?’

Peter Singer’s unflinching, persuasive and rigorous book is a call to action. It not only suggests what you should be doing, but also shows you how you can do it.

It shows you the life you can save.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #13258 in Books
• Published on: 2009-03-20
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 214 pages

Review
'[A] radical voice... Australian philosopher Peter Singer throws out a challenge to western arrogance and apathy.' --The Irish Times

Review
'If you believe world poverty is far too big a problem to solve, this book will convince you otherwise. A 'can do' lifesaver... just one or two steps along the evolutionary tree from Nudge, the political bestseller on the art of guiding and nudging individual behaviour toward sensible lifestyle choices. Singer's is a Nudge solution: if millions of people each give a small percentage of their income toward the care of desperately poor children, we could shrink the problem of world poverty to something more manageable.'

Review
'Although this book is an easy read, I do not recommend it for bedtime. It is not that you won't be able to put it down, but that once you've done so, you won't be able to get to sleep. The book challenges us individually where it most hurts: in the pocket.'

Customer Reviews

Timely, powerful, needed, but ultimately flawed
The basic premise of this book is a simple question: "What would you give up to save someone's life?" Drawing from thought exercises you can do yourself, controlled psychological studies, the teaching of many religions, examples from the lives of the rich, the poor, and the in-between, and from the vast range of global statistics on giving and on poverty, philosopher Peter Singer paints a compelling picture of how inconsistent our moral theories are with our true behaviour, and how only a small amount of giving on our part can save lives in the poorest parts of the world.

Singer's writing is absolutely lucid throughout, and there is never a moment where he loses the reader, or asserts something as true which is not obviously and apparently so once he has explained it. In fact, this book could stand as an example of the most clear and compelling writing on really any subject. Singer is, of course, not the first person to write this kind of book, and he won't be the last, but this is not simply a rehash of North-South (The Brandt Report) or even Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Singer brings to bear the latest in psychological research, and the actions and successes of the generation that grew up after the 1970s upswing in global responsibility, and in doing so he is able to counter many of the arguments for doing nothing which have grown up in reaction.

The fundamental tenet of this book is very simple: giving a part of our income does work, and we should all do it. The case that Singer makes for this is more or less watertight.

And yet, as he himself points out, the book has a fundamental weakness: it is likely to be bought and read by those who are already convinced of its argument, and are probably already doing something about it. This is a great pity, because this is a book which we very much need to read and to heed, especially in a time of recession when the reasons to not give will seem stronger than ever.

If you're interested enough to be reading this review, then you probably already share Singer's underlying convictions. My advice is, buy the book anyway. Reading it may refresh a flagging commitment to world justice. It may prove a hard book to lend out to un-likeminded friends, but if it just convinces one other person to set aside part of their income to save lives, then it will have achieved its purpose.

Yes we can!
Unlike the usual doom and gloom predictions this serious treatise on world poverty is a book of hope. The subtitle of `The Life You Can Save' is `Acting Now to End World Poverty' and it explores how we can and how we must react. The author, Peter Singer, makes a point that for perhaps the first time ever we are in a position to not just reduce poverty but to eradicate it. He presents evidence as to the proportion of world population with far more than it needs set against the levels of food requirements, health care etc. elsewhere in the `third world'. He poses ethical questions and is convinced that philanthropy can provide the answers.

The author challenges readers to think about their obligations to others existing in poverty - in 2008 defined by the World Bank as living on less than $1.25 per day - and he succeeds in demonstrating that our current response is insufficient. He goes further with logically consistent moral argument that it is ethically indefensible not to give more. It would be nice if eloquent discourse was sufficient to bring about social change, but human psychology dictates otherwise. The title of the book stems from quoted examples and explanations on generous and selfless giving where donors have increased the meaning and value of their own lives - yet there are many reasons for our reluctance to contribute more.

People who read `The Life You Can Save' are likely to be predisposed to accepting we should do more, so Singer's book will meet the first of its twin goals in having readers think about their obligations to those trapped in extreme poverty. Awareness flows easily from understandable moral dilemma examples, from straightforward language, and from clear reasoning, though it makes uncomfortable reading. Feelings of guilt may be aroused but Singer is unlikely to achieve his second goal of convincing readers to donate enough of their wealth for the poor. I suspect he knows this is improbable to the degree quoted, and in his final chapter he acknowledges "there are objections to my basic argument we have yet to consider". Expectations may be unrealistic but the rationalization of Peter Singer's treatise is entirely sound and it deserves wide readership. The case is made that philanthropy can make a huge difference to the despairing lives of the poor without diminishing the quality of our own. Yes we can - but will we?

Do It
This is a short but powerful book. It is a campaigning book.

It is split into four sections: The Argument, Human Nature, The Facts About Aid and A New Standard For Giving.

Here's the basic argument:

First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical aid are bad.

Second premise: 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.

Third premise: 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.

From there, Peter Singer goes on to investigate common reasons for not giving, providing reasoned and logical explanations for the fallacy of such reasons.

In the Human Nature section, he provides some fascinating examples of how our minds and sensibilities determine whether we give and, more importantly, why we do not give more. He does this by summarising a range of scientific studies as well as looking at cultural and social factors. Just from a sociological/anthropological point of view, this is really interesting, but all this is there to serve a purpose.

In the west, Singer suggests, we have an ideology of 'self-interest' - we would be stupid to give to charities, and, if we did, we would be bad if we went around telling people that we did. But, it turns out, people give more to charities if they know that other people have also given. Thus, to increase charitable donations, we should tell people how much we have given. As he says "When corporations make giving normal behaviour, and when generous people speak openly about how much they give away, they do more than encourage others to do the same. They also challenge an assumption about our behaviour that permeates western culture, and particularly American culture: the norm of self-interest".

In 'The Facts About Aid', he discusses whether giving to charities is cost-effective. Do donations actually help to relieve poverty and suffering? And how do we know whether our donations to a particular charity are spent effectively. Inevitably, some of the judgements are rather subjective but even so, there are enough facts and figures here to present a convincing case. There is also a very interesting section on the differences between governmental and NGO aid - and NGOs come out rather better, as so much governmental aid is ringed with conditions and political motives (there were times that this reminded me very much of Naomi Klein).

In the last section, Peter Singer tries to set out a 'new standard for giving', discussing what we mean by a 'fair share', contrasting the contributions of the 'mega-rich' with the merely rich. (Bill Gates comes out of this pretty well, unlike Larry Ellison of Oracle). He proposes a sliding scale of donation, in a similar fashion to progressive taxation.

Finally, he proposes a seven point plan 'that will make you part of the solution to world poverty'.

So - as stated at the start, this is a campaigning book. Peter Singer is a professor of the philosophy of ethics and so, unsurprisingly, his campaign is couched in ethical language. As a treatise on the philosophy of ethics, I can't really judge it; as a set of reasoned and powerful arguments for charitable giving, I find it convincing.