Peter Singer would not be a particularly engaging shopping partner. “Sure,” he would say, “buy that pair of designer shoes, instead of using the money to help a malnourished child.”
In his latest book, The Life You Can Save, Singer, an applied ethicist, argues that in order to end global poverty, we should all give five percent of our income to those in need.
This is nothing new, since we all know that we should give more to charity. Unfortunately, though, not everybody is aware of how little effort and money it can take to help people in developing nations. And the most compelling aspects of Singer’s book deal with the various psychologies of giving.
Whereas we aren’t all in the position of donating Buffet/Gates sums of money, Singer argues that every little bit does count. For example, few people are likely to have a concert hall named after them (”philanthropic graffiti“). But by skipping a $50 concert, a person would save the money it takes to buy a cataract operation for a child living in Africa. Taking it one step further, $450 can help a thirteen-year-old girl with a fistula who needs an operation.
This paltry sum cannot end poverty altogether, but it can reduce a single person’s misery. In this way, Singer shows that people are less willing to donate to total strangers, especially if they are on the opposite side of the globe. He points out that Americans gave considerably more help after Hurricane Katrina than after the Southeast Asia tsunami. He further explores the emotions and rationalizations behind giving by discussing whether it is worth taking money away from your own kids to save children you have never met.
Other chapters of interest are those dedicated to showing the most beneficial organizations for donations. Singer also cites major instances of philanthropic commitment, such as the Millennium Villages Projects, The 50% League, and Oscar Meyer’s great-grandson, who gave away most of his inheritance at the age of 26.
Singer’s writing is at its best when he serves as devil’s advocate. And in educating readers about saving lives and meeting people’s fundamental needs, he strives to create a culture of giving. It’s pretty hard to disagree with that.
As he writes, “I am not arguing here for higher taxation or any other coercive means of increasing aid. I am talking about what we should choose to do with our money if we are to live ethically.”
To that point, it might not be worth dropping $15 on this book, knowing that the money would be better spent on a clean water filter for a village in need.
CATEGORIES: Ethics, Global Health
Related Posts:
Stay Informed with TakePart:
Get Blog Updates:
Blogroll
- AlterNet
- Amnesty International Livewire
- b-listed
- Boing Boing
- Brave New Films
- CauseCast
- Changents
- Climate Crisis
- Democracy Now!
- Ecorazzi
- EdNews
- Environmental News Network
- Ethicurean
- GOOD
- Grist
- Harvard World Health News
- Huffington Post
- Human Rights Watch
- Inhabitat
- Meatless Monday
- Media Matters
- NewsTrust
- NRDC Switchboard
- Rock The Vote
- SEED Magazine
- SocialVibe
- Sustainablog
- TechPresident
- The Daily Dish
- The Democracy Center
- Think Progress
- TreeHugger
- Truthout
- Why Tuesday?
- Worldchanging
This blogger should win a Pulitzer.
It’s got to be a tiring, and at times thankless, job to be an ethicist…sounds like a good read, though.
peter singer never wants anyone to have any fun. don’t eat meat and give all your money to the poor. be a self-righteous intellectual ethicist, or don’t bother existing at all.
Very interesting review. I wonder if any of the books profits go to charity. Seems like that would be appropriate, and would probably increase sales because the target audience would be even more interested in buying it.
Singer has stated in the past that he does give quite a bit of his own income to charity, but the percentage escapes me. As well, here’s a truncated version of some of the views he gives in the book - well worth a read. http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html
I’d be really interested in the chapters on different organizations. My biggest hurdle in donating more is having a savvy understanding of which orgs spend a huge chunk of my donation on administrative orverhead, and which actually route that money to the needy/causes.
Sorry, Singer, but throwing money at a problem usually doesn’t solve it. The two examples above (for fistula and cataract operations) are actually good in showing how for the dollar amount spent, you really might “change someone’s life”. Unfortunately it’s not as simple as donating money- and donors really ought to research what organizations do w/ their funds, and how effective they are at fulfilling their mission. The folks at http://www.givewell.net/ are probably making better use of their time & energy in this than Singer has in writing this book, in my opinion.
Don’t ya wonder how Singer came up with the 5%? Why 5%…Why not 10, 25, 50%…? Hell: Why not have Everyone on the planet sharing all resources equally. Where does one draw a line?? And who’s responsible for drawing that line? The Govrnment? The Church? Jimminy Crickett?
I’m a proponent for donating time instead of money since I really don’t have that much to spare. Of course if I was a weiner heir I’d donate the dough.
i’m going to disagree with jimbo, i think the point is you can give away small amounts and make a difference and not to let it be discouraging that you’re not going to live like a monk but that you can still make a difference
This is all fine and well — and I agree that we (and by “we”, I mean “I”) should do more to help — but what is the long-term effect of handouts? I am reminded of aid sent to Ethiopia led to longer-term aid dependency. I think a more interesting question than whether or not we should give is how we should give and how we can really help people. To answer this, I prefer an approach more similar to the microfinance approach of organizations like ACCION International and Muhammad Yanus.
Cool site, love the info.
There’s good info here. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Keep up the good work mate!