Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

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

Peter Singer (Goodreads Author)

4.15 · Rating details · 4,443 ratings · 590 reviews

Using ethical arguments, provocative thought experiments, illuminating examples, and case studies of charitable giving, philosopher Peter Singer shows that our current response to world poverty is not only insufficient but ethically indefensible.

Singer contends that we need to change our views of what is involved in living an ethical life. To help us play our part in bring

...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 206 pages

Published March 10th 2009 by Random House (NY) (first published 2009)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Life You Can Save, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Most Good You Can Do by Peter Singer

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

Effective Altruism Books

173 books — 101 voters

Best Books To Frame Thinking

1,143 books — 1,463 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.15 ·

Rating details

· 4,443 ratings · 590 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty

Nov 21, 2011 Amanda rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: blog

I chose to read Singer's book because I've often wanted to do more for the world's poor, but I want to do so in an informed way and see to it that my money is going to be used in a meaningful way that does not have politically or religiously motivated strings attached. I've tried to research charities before, but quickly became frustrated with the the lack of solid evidence as to their efficacy that even the most well-known charities couldn't (or wouldn't) provide. So I was already sold on the i I chose to read Singer's book because I've often wanted to do more for the world's poor, but I want to do so in an informed way and see to it that my money is going to be used in a meaningful way that does not have politically or religiously motivated strings attached. I've tried to research charities before, but quickly became frustrated with the the lack of solid evidence as to their efficacy that even the most well-known charities couldn't (or wouldn't) provide. So I was already sold on the idea of giving to those in Third World countries, but didn't really know how to do so. I hoped Singer's book would offer me some practical advice as to which organizations to give to and some information regarding the difference these organizations are making.

The first part of the book is dedicated to making the philosophical case for our responsibility as a wealthy, industrialized nation to give to help end worldwide poverty. This part of the book I would give more of a 3 star rating, namely because this was a part of the book that I didn't really need. I was already convinced; I just wanted to know how. However, there are some interesting tidbits that explain our psychological and social aversion to giving, which helps explain why so many of us can turn a blind eye to the world's poor. For example, if we're on our way to work and a small child is drowning in a nearby lake, almost all of us would rush out to save the child. We wouldn't worry about being late to work or about risking our own life; we would simply act because we know a child's life is in danger. And yet 1 in 5 children living in Third World countries die before the age of 5. We know that, but statistics don't move us to act in the same way witnessing one particular child whose face we can see and whose voice we can hear can.

An argument that I found compelling in this part of the book is his case against the "give close to home" idea. While Singer is not advocating that we do nothing for those in our community (indeed, he does argue that we need to be more involved in our communities and give more of our time and resources to volunteering), he does argue that there is a difference between what poor in America looks like and what poor in Ethiopia, Nepal, or the Congo looks like. Whereas 1 in 5 children die before the age of 5 in impoverished countries, 1 in 100 children die of poverty in the U.S. (and, yes, that is definitely too much, but it does show where our money can do the most good). The American poor still have access to education, health care, and social services. 3/4 of their households have a car, air conditioning, and a VCR or DVD player. 97% of them own a color TV. American poverty has its own set of challenges and setbacks, but, as Singer points out, it's not necessarily the kind of poverty that kills as viciously and indiscriminately as it does in the Third World.

The last part of the book is the part that I found most effective for my purposes and, for those of you who are like me and just want some practical advice on how and to whom to give, you might want to skip ahead to this part of the book or you may just want to visit GiveWell.org, a website that reviews the effectiveness of various charities and advises as to which ones are efficiently making a true, quantifiable difference in the lives of the poor. I've already chosen two charities that I'll be giving to: The Fistula Foundation and The Small Enterprise Foundation.

What I found interesting about many of the negative reviews is that the number one reason cited for disliking the book was "it made me feel guilty about not doing more." Well, no shit, Sherlock. And, frankly, you should. I should. We all should. 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day--the Starbucks coffee I drank while reading this is approximately someone's salary for 4 days of work. If I have to skip the occasional Caramel Macchiato or bottled water or pair of shoes to help save a life, it's hardly a sacrifice on my part considering what's at stake.

Cross posted at This Insignificant Cinder ...more

flag 67 likes · Like · see review

Dec 31, 2013 howl of minerva rated it it was amazing

Shelves: medicine, colonialism-and-post, philosophy, economics-finance, aid-and-development

You are walking past a shallow pond and you see a small child has fallen in. No-one else is around. The child is in obvious distress and will drown without your immediate help. You are however, wearing a gorgeous set of clothes you have lusted over for months and have just managed to purchase. You are also running late for work. Do you wade in to help the child, ruining your clothes and being late for work, or do you walk on by?

This is the thought-experiment with which Peter Singer, a Professor ...more

flag 39 likes · Like · see review

Aug 11, 2019 Alex J. O'Connor added it

Like most of Singer's writings, this has ruined my life all over again, but in the best way possible.

I have been spending a considerable amount of time carefully navigating the implications of this book and considering what moral obligation requires me to give. I have not found (and do not expect to find) a precise answer to this concern, yet, after reading The Life You Can Save, concluding that I should be doing and giving more to help the world's most vulnerable was one of the easiest developm ...more

flag 37 likes · Like · see review

Mar 29, 2009 Vegantrav rated it it was amazing

This book underscores why Peter Singer is the most influential philosopher living today. He takes his utilitarianism very seriously, and the implications of this philosophy, if followed, would radically change our world for the better. In this book, Singer lays out the case for why those of us in affluent nations should be giving to charity to help the poor worldwide. What is actually most surprising to me is the final section in which he lays out the numbers: if the richest 10% of those in the ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Casey rated it did not like it

Shelves: economics

Although this book provides a heart-felt argument on why you should donate 5-10% of your total income to the world's poorest people, it is sensationalized writing at best and lacks the depth of analysis on:

1. Why the global poor are poor
2. What organizations are currently doing
3. What organizations lack the capability to do
4. What goes wrong with in NGOs
5. Where your money will go if you do donate...

As a student of international development I will be the first to tell you that if you are donati ...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Apr 08, 2010 Ugh rated it liked it

I am not part of the target audience for this book, and neither, I suspect, are you. I'll come to why later...

I do like the way Singer approaches his books - he starts out by telling you where you're going to end up, and then proceeds to take you to your destination in a clear and concise manner, dealing with likely objections before they arise as he goes - but reading this I thought for a while that we were heading squarely for a two-star rating, partly because of that target audience problem I I am not part of the target audience for this book, and neither, I suspect, are you. I'll come to why later...

I do like the way Singer approaches his books - he starts out by telling you where you're going to end up, and then proceeds to take you to your destination in a clear and concise manner, dealing with likely objections before they arise as he goes - but reading this I thought for a while that we were heading squarely for a two-star rating, partly because of that target audience problem I mentioned at the start. Let me explain...

Singer starts out by stating the case for why it's morally wrong not to give, and give substantially, to those much less fortunate. But frankly, if any of what he says here hasn't already occurred to you, and subsequently seemed obvious and irrefutable, then what have you been thinking about all your life? He then goes on to tackle common objections to this view, which is a good approach, but few of the objections make you think "ooh, I wonder how Singer's going to refute THIS one!" when you read them - most of them are blatantly excuses right from the off. There are some interesting stats about foreign aid thrown in here, but mostly they're aimed at an American audience, which isn't what I'm refering to when I say you're probably not his target reader, I mention it just in case (like me) you aren't American...

Things pick up a bit in part 2, which is probably where I started to shift my opinion into three-star territory. Here Singer relates some of the psychology of giving, some of which may be familiar to you already but overall it's still quite interesting.

Part three, however, is definitely interesting, as Singer sums up attempts to determine how much it costs to save a life. Frankly, I was surprised. Not by how little it costs, but actually the complete opposite. Somehow I'd picked up the idea that donating twenty or thirty pounds or so to Oxfam was there or thereabouts enough to save a life, when in fact you'll see that that's not the case. Donate that much every month for a year or so and that's more like it...

It was when I got to part 4 that I realised just how far I was from being the target of Singer's arguments (although the extent to which he states the bleeding obvious in part 1 is a substantial clue). Here he sets out his guidelines for how much you should be giving based on your income. He considers the superrich, the rich, and the comfortable. How does he define comfortable? Anyone earning more than $105,000 per year. Ooooookay. Anything less than that he doesn't really bother with - there's a sentence or two about giving around one percent of your income, and he keeps banging on about water bottles for us mere mortals, as if he doesn't realise that people refill them with tap water dozens of times before buying a new one, but that's about it.

So there I was at around the halfway point, all ready to recommend that you instead buy something else with many more pages than this and then donate the money you would therefore save overall (by not spending thick-book money on something thin) to charity, when it turned out that Singer was thinking more in terms of yachts and supercars than paperback books and a dollar or two here or there.

And that is what I mean when I say that you're probably not his target audience. Yes, for a successful businessman or lawyer or doctor etc this book is a clear, concise, well reasoned, practical little handbook that ought to convince and may well set off a few light bulbs and therefore deserve four or five stars. For my imagined average user of GoodReads - already well read, thoughtful, probably not that well off (otherwise you'd be too busy drinking champagne and out of crystal goblets to bother reading this stuff) - it's a mildly interesting but largely redundant confirmation of things that you already figured out for yourself a long time ago...

Still, you can't fault his intentions.

...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Sep 18, 2013 Larry Bassett rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: anyone who wants to make the world a better place

Shelves: nonfiction, social-action, economics

The World Bank defines extreme poverty as not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care, and education. Many people are familiar with the statistic that 1 billion people are living on less than one dollar per day. That was the World Bank’s poverty line until 2008, when better data on international price comparisons enabled it to make a more accurate calculation of the amount people need to meet their basic needs.

...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 06, 2020 Sheri rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: poverty-class-issues, nonfiction

So I heard an interview with Singer on the Ezra Klein show and liked the premise and the idea of a free book so I grabbed it. It is certainly a very easy, quick read and worth the time and thought. I really like his moral position about why people should give more. However, as I've been recently reading so much stuff on race and class in America I'm not as convinced about saving the world's population.

Yes, America is a wealthy country and yes we built this wealth in large part by shitting on und So I heard an interview with Singer on the Ezra Klein show and liked the premise and the idea of a free book so I grabbed it. It is certainly a very easy, quick read and worth the time and thought. I really like his moral position about why people should give more. However, as I've been recently reading so much stuff on race and class in America I'm not as convinced about saving the world's population.

Yes, America is a wealthy country and yes we built this wealth in large part by shitting on under developed poor countries. BUT I am not completely convinced by Singer's argument that parochial giving is bad. There are plenty of poor Americans that are dying and starving and homeless. I like his model and think it makes a lot of sense for the top 1% (or 5% or 10%) to redistribute here and bring up the bottom. We don't have to work at reparations per say, but equalizing opportunity with better public education systems EVERYWHERE (not just in the suburbs) and increasing minimum wage and access to jobs that allow people to provide for themselves is more important for me than thinking about saving lives in far off places.

He frequently mentions that "in high income countries, when it comes to improving people's health, the low-hanging fruit has all been picked". However, improving people's lives is different than saving them and I would propose that increasing educational attainment and opportunity for the American underclass (after all there are still a lot of people in America living on less than $2/day) would result in more productive global members than increasing the population in poorer countries. I am not saying that American lives are worth more, just that the options and potential upside is probably greater. Efficiency is not just about saving the maximum number of people, it is increasing the likelihood that those people will in turn do more than simply survive.

I was also not entirely convinced by his "just forget about over population" argument. While I am not advocating for death, I feel like there is so much to do here and so much inequality in America that we need to focus on redistribution of our own assets before we start to send them off globally.

I really enjoyed his systemic arguments and the analysis of the different charities. I have heard of Givewell.com and am glad to have evidence based analysis form which to make decisions. And his list of reasons to give money to the poor (as in actual cash) meshes with my understanding and support for UBI as a way to redistribute to America's poor: "does not reduce the amount that adults work, but does reduce child labor; raises school attendance; increases economic autonomy; increases women's decision-making power; leads to greater diversity in diet; stimulates more use of health services".

Overall it is a very worthwhile read and will increase the amount of giving I do this year. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Mar 04, 2019 Mikaellyng rated it did not like it

Shelves: philosophy

Probably one of the worst works of Peter Singer. In this book he proposes that we should all donate 5% of out annual income (if we can) or more to organizations such as UNICEF and Oxfam to help with poverty relief. By stressing the individuals social responsibility of ending poverty he essentially totally misses any reasons for why there exists poverty in the first place by granting global capitalism legitimacy. Singer shows the typical data about millions being lifted out of extreme poverty the Probably one of the worst works of Peter Singer. In this book he proposes that we should all donate 5% of out annual income (if we can) or more to organizations such as UNICEF and Oxfam to help with poverty relief. By stressing the individuals social responsibility of ending poverty he essentially totally misses any reasons for why there exists poverty in the first place by granting global capitalism legitimacy. Singer shows the typical data about millions being lifted out of extreme poverty the last 40 years, something which is inherently false as the international poverty line is set extremly low, making it impossible to avoid malnutrition in many poor countries for example. This poverty line has also not been adjusted for inflation as there has been many market crashes which have created more poverty since roughly the 80s onwards making it arbitrary.

Singer doubts that millionaires and companies donates to good causes simply to better their imagery. As we've seen with many of these huge donations in the past it has been done directly to build investment and brand-loyalty etc. Singers main line of "everyone donating what they can" outright denies structural problems, predatory lending to foreign countries and the mechanisms of how large corporations function. Corporations always need to increase profits, something which can only be done by producing something under the average cost or by cheap or free labour. The inherent contradictions here is for Singer non-existent. Although Singer does makes some good moral points on why we should donate, he never seem to realize that ending world poverty and poverty relief are two quite different things. In the book he shys away from politics, with the exceptions of demanding taxes on the super-rich and increasing national spending on foreign aid. He essentially tries to solve an inherently political issue outside the realm of politics.

It is however true that the super-rich holds most of the wealth and that with that wealth we could essentially end poverty but this is in direct contradiction with the super-rich need for profit. The need for profit depends on unemployment and poverty in order to force wages lower in poor countries. Without realizing it, Singer kindaa supports the problem that he himself sets out to fix. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

May 25, 2009 Rory rated it it was ok

Shelves: gave-up-on, nonfiction

I'm not sure what I expected out of this book. Probably an articulate, super-strong inspiration to give money to charity...and instruction on how and where to give it so that my meager offerings would do the most "good." But instead I just felt guilty and shamed after reading the first few chapters, and frustrated after skimming the rest.

That's actually how Singer wants you to feel, believes everyone should feel--that it's a basic measure of humanity to give a significant portion of your dispos ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 28, 2009 Worthless Bum rated it it was amazing

Shelves: ethics, philosophy

This most recent work by my favorite philosopher is something of an expanded and up to date version of the ideas expressed in his seminal 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". The idea being, people in wealthy countries give pitifully small amounts of money to those in abject poverty in the third world - people who are so poor that their lives are in jeopardy - and thus they should give much more generously. Singer employs the familiar "Pond" thought experiment in adducing his argument, ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Feb 11, 2015 bethany rated it did not like it

A summary: "You spent money to read this book and you probably drink soda or water occasionally, so you're murdering children. Now I'm going to throw a million statistics in your face to show you that I'm right and you're living your life wrong. Here's how much you need to donate. Do it or you're a bad person (did I mention you murder children?).The end."

Really don't understand why this got so many positive reviews when the entire book was literally demanding people donate more money. I think ev ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 26, 2017 Sarah rated it really liked it

This was the book I needed to read after my trip to Ecuador. Raises difficult ethical questions and prompts one to pay attention of the effectiveness of their donations. "I recommend that instead of worrying about how much you would have to do in order to live a fully ethical life, you do something that is significantly more than you have been doing so far. Then see how that feels. You may find it more rewarding than you imagined possible." ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Dec 17, 2020 Kirs rated it it was amazing

I just binged this both through the audiobook and the e-book and I have to say that this might be one of my favorite books of 2020, if not all time. Singer really magnified giving, why we ought to give, and how we can do so most effectively. I’m already acquainted with the ideas of effective altruism, so I really didn’t expect how much I would still grapple with the ideas Singer presented. He presented everything with a clear logical flow, and it really ties up the idea of EA being a pair of the ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Nov 11, 2020 Caroline rated it liked it

made some good points that i ... sorta already learned from NBC’s the good place oop. perhaps that is why i found it... a little recursive???

ALSO i found myself repeatedly a little put off by the palpable eurocentrism running through the book. i understand its intellectual goal—that we should work to level wealth inequality across the world—but I found that this consideration of global poverty missed colonialism completely (the underlying cause of much poverty) and instead affirmed white savior ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Aug 04, 2019 Zarina added it

Why is this over 4 stars??????????????????????????? It was fine, mostly because Singer put himself in a position where I don't have much to disagree with and not because it changed my life in any way. The whole theme of the book was "Please if you are rich then give like 5% of your money to poor people. Please! You will help people and feel good about it and it won't even affect you that much because you already have so much money!", said in a hundred different ways, supported by some mildly int Why is this over 4 stars??????????????????????????? It was fine, mostly because Singer put himself in a position where I don't have much to disagree with and not because it changed my life in any way. The whole theme of the book was "Please if you are rich then give like 5% of your money to poor people. Please! You will help people and feel good about it and it won't even affect you that much because you already have so much money!", said in a hundred different ways, supported by some mildly interesting psychological studies anyone will have read about in an introductory psych course.

His target reader is the individual with an income of over 100k in the West who either wants to help the world and doesn't know exactly how, or who needs some convincing that their money is needed to help the poor. It's hard to say this book is "bad", or that it doesn't achieve its flimsy purpose. His approach on the level of many individuals making many individual contributions can only be a net positive for the world: at worst they'll ignore the book, at best they'll choose to donate more than they would have if they hadn't read it.

Annoyingly, he explicitly says he is "not arguing here for higher taxation or any other coercive means of increasing aid." Why not?????? Because apparently the role of government in aid is "separate" from the argument he's making, which he says is to convince the individual reader. Honestly I think this is stupid—he spends an ample amount of time shitting on how billionaires like Larry Ellison spend their money on extravagant luxuries that pollute the Earth, even says that we should "judge them accordingly", but doesn't want to go so far as to argue for higher taxes. He's the kind of author that'll spend more time convincing a thousand people to go vegan to offset Larry's yacht emissions, when really all we need to do is take the yacht away from Larry.

Analysis of why people live in poverty is also extremely lacking in this book. Instead of delegitimizing the ideology that keeps so many people very poor and so few people very rich, Singer's band-aid solution is to literally calculate exactly how much money poor people need to get out of poverty, and have the very rich each exercise their free will and happily choose to donate a little bit more and make up that sum. This is somehow more utopian than any communist literature I've ever read. The worst part is that he does recognize some of the reasons that have driven developing nations into poverty—the West exploits their natural resources and their labour, supports their dictators, and takes away their ability to reinvest their wealth into developing their own countries—but he never once argues that we should just....stop doing those things. It's almost a disservice to the poor to not address the system that keeps them that way.

Maybe this book will convince some people to donate their money, but I'm just annoyed and feel like it's full of misguided energy. If you're some seedy businessman or like, some corporate lawyer with the metaphorical blood under your fingernails, maybe this book will help you repent??? Otherwise, if you're already convinced of the ethics of giving, don't spend your money on this book—just donate it to literally any good cause.
...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jul 23, 2009 Brenda Pike rated it liked it

I feel bad giving this only three stars, because Peter Singer is my idol. And when I read the article it's based on in the NY Times, I was deeply affected by it. It prompted Jason and I to decide to increase our donations from 1% to 5% of our income once we pay off our student loans this year. But I don't think the book adds that much to the article, except length. Certainly not clarity. I was looking forward to a discussion of the most effective ways to improve the lives of the world's poor, an ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Dec 08, 2017 Nick Klagge rated it really liked it

A very quick read and a compelling argument. Singer argues that middle-to-upper-class people in developed countries (and upper class people in developing countries) have a moral obligation to give significantly more than we do to help the poorest people in the developing world. Although it is easy (and fair) to argue over exactly how much should be required of us, Singer pretty convincingly argues that, using any reasonable standard, the number should be much higher than it currently is. Singer' A very quick read and a compelling argument. Singer argues that middle-to-upper-class people in developed countries (and upper class people in developing countries) have a moral obligation to give significantly more than we do to help the poorest people in the developing world. Although it is easy (and fair) to argue over exactly how much should be required of us, Singer pretty convincingly argues that, using any reasonable standard, the number should be much higher than it currently is. Singer's "reasonable standard" is essentially that, at minimum, we should be giving as long as it doesn't make a significant difference to our quality of life. Although many Americans do give a reasonable amount to charity, very little of it is directed to the poorest people in the world (with most going to our own religious, educational, and cultural institutions). The reason for focusing on the global poor is not merely that they have a worse quality of life than the poor in our own countries (although that is true), but also that interventions can be made much more cheaply for them, so that any given amount can go much farther in alleviating human suffering.

Singer's discussion of the relevant considerations is both straightforward and fascinating. One of the biggest takeaways for me is that, really within the last 20 years or so, it has become much more feasible for us to verify that money given is truly (a) getting where it's meant to go, and (b) having a meaningful positive impact on people's lives. This is due to the enhanced level of analysis and transparency championed most prominently by GiveWell, as well as by the proliferation of randomized controlled trials championed by organizations such as Innovations for Poverty Action. Our current cultural ideas about giving are inherited from (say) the 18th through 20th centuries, when this type of verification was not possible. The reasonable result of this information shortage was a focus on giving "close to home" and "in the community," where it was easier to verify impact. A less obvious corollary is that this local focus effectively lowers the equilibrium expected level of giving, because the gap in life circumstances between the rich and the poor in a single community, along with the associated effectiveness multiplier, is by and large going to be much smaller than the gap between the global rich and global poor. (Singer allows that it may be reasonable for us to value our own well-being more highly than that of others, but not by very large multiples.) In addition, issues of desert (whatever one may think of them overall) are much less plausibly raised in a global context than in a local context--one can hardly argue that someone in a developing country who lacks access to clean drinking water just isn't working hard enough.

Indeed, Singer's focus in this book is less on changing individual minds (though that is important), and more on shaping the cultural mores around giving so that a higher level is expected of the well-off. I think he takes an admirably pragmatic view on this matter. One problem with the moral issue he raises is that the obligation can feel practically unlimited, and therefore overwhelming--I could give away virtually all of the money I make and still be very much better off than the people it would be going to help. Singer recognizes that ultimately the "right" level is something that each of us will have to decide individually. Instead, he proposes a societal standard that is significantly higher than the status quo, yet low enough that it is difficult to argue credibly that it's too high. (In other words, it's difficult to argue that the amounts he proposes would meaningfully lower the givers' well-being--in fact, given what we know about the psychology of giving, it's quite plausible to argue that they would raise it.) It's roughly as follows (using marginal brackets as with taxes, such that an increase in gross income across a bracket boundary never results in a decrease in take-home income):
-0% of income if you're below the poverty line, then
-a sliding scale of 1% to 5% of your income between the poverty line and about $100k, then
-5% up to $150k, then
-10% up to about $400k
-and several higher brackets above that

Note that all the way up to $400k, which covers the vast majority of people I know (maybe everyone??), this standard is less stringent than the traditional "tithe" standard--the key distinction being that it is much more specifically targeted toward effectively alleviating the maximum amount of human suffering. Singer based his standard brackets on a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation of the total amount needed to end extreme poverty (as articulated in the UN development goals), spread across the wealthy population of the planet, with some judgment to set the brackets at levels that seemed reasonable.

While it's easy to pick at any one premise of Singer's argument, I find it pretty difficult to argue with his general conclusion. For myself, I plan to at least meet Singer's standard for my own income for this year, as well as to try and "backfill" some of what I would have given if I had been meeting it since starting to work. I'll see what that feels like, and think about whether I should set a higher personal standard.

I encourage others reading this to do the same, especially if your income is in the 6-figure range (or more!). If my paraphrase isn't totally compelling, pick up Singer's book and read it in a weekend. You can check out his website (thelifeyoucansave.org) to find a list of 10-20 organizations that meet his standards of (a) working on behalf of the poorest people in the world, and (b) having produced strong evidence of their effectiveness. Some of them really do save lives; others do non-life-saving things that can nonetheless have a profound impact on quality of life, such as surgery for blindness or for obstetric fistulas. At the beginning of reading about this general topic, I was really focused on just how much it costs to actually save a life. It's obviously very difficult to estimate this precisely, but the order of magnitude for the most cost effective interventions (e.g. against malaria) is somewhere north of $1k and south of $10k. But the more I read about it, the less I focused on that specific outcome. Some of the quality-of-life interventions are hugely important and much more easy to price out--for example, something like $350 pays for a cataract surgery. If you gave $3500 (about what Singer recommends for a gross income of $90k), you could know with pretty high certainty that your gift restored sight to 10 people. To me that is even more compelling than a statistical one-ish life saved (although that is also pretty cool too!). ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 06, 2020 Sallie Dunn rated it liked it · review of another edition

This is a hard book to “rate”. It’s basically an appeal to open your heart (and your wallet) to the plight of the world’s most economically disadvantaged people. One story after another of people who are living on under $2 a day. They are hungry, they are malnourished, they are dying of malaria, and their prospects for a better life are bleak. We, the citizens of first world countries, are not doing out share to lift these people out of their disheartening circumstances. I found the appendix at ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 30, 2020 Abel Johannes Grage Jakobsen rated it really liked it · review of another edition

In this illuminating book, moral philosopher Peter Singer examines the responsibility that people living in affluent nations have to act to end the hunger, decease and extreme poverty that still exists in parts of the world today. Rather than presenting us with haunting images of starving children or long descriptions of the evils of poverty, Singer makes use of provocative thought experiments and philosophical reasoning to develop a rational argument that we ought to give more, significantly mo In this illuminating book, moral philosopher Peter Singer examines the responsibility that people living in affluent nations have to act to end the hunger, decease and extreme poverty that still exists in parts of the world today. Rather than presenting us with haunting images of starving children or long descriptions of the evils of poverty, Singer makes use of provocative thought experiments and philosophical reasoning to develop a rational argument that we ought to give more, significantly more, to those in need.

Singer posits that if we were to come upon a drowning child and we had the opportunity to intervene, without significant cost to ourselves, we would have a moral obligation to save that child. Virtually everyone would support this proposition and the reason for this, according to Singer, is that every decent person agrees with the notion that if it’s within our power to save lives without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is in fact wrong not to do so.

But in reality, we are clearly not applying this ethic in our daily lives. In fact, as Singer argues, we are constantly, whether consciously or not, placing a higher value on trivial pleasures and material things than on the value of human beings in need. Whenever we buy the newest phone or an expensive pair of sunglasses, we are effectively saying that those objects are more important to us than the lives which we could have saved or the suffering we could have prevented with that same amount of money by donating to effective charities.

Singer argues that if we are to live a morally consistent life we ought to recognize that this is the kind of moral dilemma with which we are faced every single day and that if we would feel obliged to save the drowning child, for the reasons mentioned earlier, we should apply the exact same reasoning to children dying far away from us.

This is of course a view which has radical implications for our daily lives. Essentially it entails that we ought to keep giving to those in need until we reach a point at which, by giving any further, we could honestly say that we would be sacrificing something nearly as important as the life of a child.

To illustrate the counterintuitive implications of this argument, let’s suppose you donated most of the money in your bank account and on top of that worked tirelessly as a volunteer for a charity for a full year. Come the end of the year wouldn’t you be perfectly justified in celebrating your good deed with a glass of champagne? No, says Singer. You would still have to face the choice of whether that bottle of champagne is worth more to you than the good you could do by donating that extra money to charity.

When we fail to apply this ethic in our daily lives, it is, according to Singer, a consequence of a host of cultural, biological, and psychological reasons that make us unable to look at the pain and suffering of ‘unidentifiable victims’ with the same importance as we would look at the pain and suffering of people whom we can see or know. Though understandable, this is, on Singers view, a failure of ethical thinking which is, at bottom, the ability to see things from others perspective and recognise that their experience is just as real as that of yourself or your children.

Singer does recognize the difficulty of operating under a moral standard which makes so large demands of people, which is why he, at the end of the book, suggests a much more moderate standard for giving. But even if the argument put forward by Singer might seem impossible to implement in practice it can still be true in a moral sense and striving for that standard might nevertheless be useful even if the standard can never be fully reached.

On top of this rich philosophical content, Singer discusses the efficacy of various forms of governmental and non- governmental aid, the nature of affluence and poverty and much more.

The Life You Can Save was easily one of the most eye opening and provocative books I have ever read. It is especially refreshing how Singer doesn’t simply talk about the failures of ‘society’, ‘the rich’ or ‘structures’ but instead focuses on the moral obligations of the individual and the impact we can have through our everyday choices. Needless to say this book will give you a lot to think about. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 17, 2020 Bianca A. rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2020, speed-read

A powerful and informative work designed to build awareness and inspire action.
This book will make you think twice about what it means to live an ethical life.

I've grown an interest over 2020 for books that cover activism for causes such as world hunger and social and racial inequality, animal cruelty and extinction, climate change and other very relevant components of our modern reality.
There are many forms of activism: with a gun, with a street protest, or with literature and information. I' ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 29, 2020 Shwetha Macheri rated it it was amazing

One of the most influential book of all time. This book gives a practical attitude and a quantifiable effort to combat global poverty and provide "basic needs" for everyone. I had watched Peter singer's interviews which motivated me to go vegan and contribute 1% of my salary to effective charity. Now I am determined to do more. A must read book for everyone. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 17, 2020 Timothy Mikulski rated it it was amazing

Singer's entire work challenged me, personally, in ways that I have never before experienced with a book. Singer challenges each and every one of us, through sound philosophical and moral reasoning, to be better people and to truly care for each other. An intensely emotional and inspriational book, very well written, and one that I consistently think about almost daily since having read it a few months back. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 30, 2020 Iman Shabani rated it it was amazing

Shelves: non-fiction, read-in-2020, one-sitting, favorites

One of the best books I've read in 2020. The topic might seem too common and repetitive, but the content, not so much. You might want to give this one a read. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 27, 2021 Rashae rated it really liked it

I really liked this book because it made me uncomfortable. It caused me to face myself point blank and honestly ask difficult questions about my willingness to give to the poor. I have asked myself how much I would really be willing to sacrifice if it meant saving the life of people across the world that I had never met.

I like the way it changed me. I completely agree that those in better positions of life with better income ought to be obligated to help those less fortunate. Heaven knows in the ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 08, 2011 Tonya rated it it was amazing

I DARE YOU TO READ THIS BOOK! It will make you uncomfortable. It will challenge any claims you make that you are already generous. It might even make you mad. But you should still read it because it will change you in good ways.

Dylan and I come from book-people, and are book-people ourselves. There are more books in our parents' homes than in many rural libraries, I am sure...and I am grateful for that! One of my favorite Christmas treats is the pile of books that Hal and JeNeal wrap up each ye I DARE YOU TO READ THIS BOOK! It will make you uncomfortable. It will challenge any claims you make that you are already generous. It might even make you mad. But you should still read it because it will change you in good ways.

Dylan and I come from book-people, and are book-people ourselves. There are more books in our parents' homes than in many rural libraries, I am sure...and I am grateful for that! One of my favorite Christmas treats is the pile of books that Hal and JeNeal wrap up each year. So, last year, a copy of this book ended up under the tree...I think one for each of their eight children. It sat on a shelf in the library until I grabbed it on a whim last month...and now, after reading it, part of me wants to say "Ugh! Why did you give this to me?! Like I need more guilt in my life!" and part of me wants to say "This is exactly what I needed...thank you"!

Brief synopsis: In this book, Singer (possible the foremost ethicist of our time) treats you to a crash course in understanding the causes and results of, and possible solutions to global poverty. He does this by employing tools of his trade; extrapolation from situational ethics, dazzling and disarming use of statistics, backed up by observations about human behavior in general. His conclusions are that 1) people from wealthy countries are morally obligated to prevent/eradicate poverty; 2) for the first time in the history of the world, there is enough wealth on the planet to make this possible; 3) people from wealthy countries are slackers when it comes to important causes. I agree with him on all counts...but I didn't when I opened the cover for the first time.

Things l liked about this book: 1) It supports my basic belief that the antidote for affliction is service. 2) Singer is adamant that throwing money at poverty will not solve anything...teaching people, providing opportunities for education, growth are the key. 3) If you're not giving so much it hurts, you're not giving enough. 4) Wealthy nations need to do more than just help their own...the obligation extends to impoverished people around the globe...we are the ones who took the fish from the sea. 5) He acknowledges that not all aid agencies are created equal and encourages identifying and supporting those that actually get things done (I am proud to say that the humanitarian arm of my church is one of these organizations).

Things that rubbed me the wrong way: 1) Sometimes trying to follow Singer's logic is a little bit like trying to keep up with the Sicilian in "The Princess Bride"...there were a number of times that I just wanted to say "You lost me there, buddy." Accompanying this confusion is the gnawing feeling that there is some sleight of hand, as it were, going on. 2) Fuzzy numbers. Singer is a total pro at trying to confuse his readers with fuzzy math...for instance, when he compares the cost of cataract surgery in a third world country (about $200), which would put an individual back in the work force, to the cost of an American life ($7ish million).

I believe that because I am an American and because I am a Mormon, I am trained to be uncomfortable with the idea that I am a predictable human animal. The idea flies in the face of freedom, agency, etc. All those lovely ideas that I hold dear. But the bottom line is that, regardless of how we got this way, we humans behave in predictable ways. And those predictable ways can be influenced and ultimately changed by those around us...for good or bad. I love the idea of using positive peer pressure to convince others to do MORE for those we cannot see, will never meet, can't imagine. That's what Singer did in this book, and what I hope to do by writing this really long, probably boring review :-) I approached this book thinking I would be giving myself a pat on the back for already being so generous...only to come to the conclusion that I am doing far, far less than I SHOULD be doing. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 20, 2020 Justus rated it it was amazing

I read The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically back to back, so this is a sort of comparative/roundup review of all three.

If you are paying for something to drink when safe drinking water comes out of the tap, you have money to spend on things you don’t really need.

This one isn't technically about Effective Altruis ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 15, 2019 Grady rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

‘We must act’ - assessing the facts and ethical arguments about poverty

Australian author Peter Singer earned his degrees from the University of Melbourne and University of Oxford, has been an educator in England, the United States, and Australia, and serves as Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Professor Laureate at University of Melbourne. The initial edition of this book –THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE – was published in 2009 and served as the impetus to his founding of the non-profit o ‘We must act’ - assessing the facts and ethical arguments about poverty

Australian author Peter Singer earned his degrees from the University of Melbourne and University of Oxford, has been an educator in England, the United States, and Australia, and serves as Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Professor Laureate at University of Melbourne. The initial edition of this book –THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE – was published in 2009 and served as the impetus to his founding of the non-profit organization of the same name. His many important books address social needs for change, ethics, animal liberation, and significant philosophical issues.

In this compelling book Peter Singer addresses the global crisis of poverty, and a more timely source of information would be difficult to discover. The grievous and increasingly obvious problem of the homeless forced to live on the streets or in meager tents in the outskirts of neighborhoods is all too apparent as we walk through cities, drive along highways, watch social media and television, and read newspapers - not to mention the tragic conditions of immigrants who cross borders searching for a better life and find sufferable living conditions instead. But as Peter writes, it is not enough to simply be aware and feel compassionate about these conditions and situations: there is something each of us can do to ameliorate the problem.

The tenor of the message of this exceptional book is set in the Preface, and perhaps sharing a portion of that will encourage reading Peter’s guide – ‘When he saw the man fall onto the subway tracks, Wesley Autry didn’t hesitate. With the lights of the oncoming train visible, Autry, a construction worker, jumped down to the tracks and pushed the man down into a drainage ditch between the rails, covering him with his own body. The train passed over them, leaving a trail of grease on Autry’s cap. Autry, later invited to the State of the Union Address and praised by the president for his bravery, downplayed his actions: “I don’t feel like I did something spectacular. I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right.” That is the manner in which Peter shares his philosophy – commonsense approaches to changing a global problem.

His goals – to challenge us to think about our obligations to those trapped in extreme poverty, and to convince us to give more of our income to help the poor. The case studies and examples he submits are warmly shared with compassion and with a stern insistence that each of us, no matter our financial situation from billionaires to working class, can contribute money to help eradicate poverty – even small amounts (i.e. 1% of our income!) make a difference. He also suggests reputable charities worthy of contributions. Sage ethical advice from one of our most important philosophers of the day. Very Highly Recommended for all readers. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 24, 2012 Jessica rated it really liked it

Years ago, I'd read an article by Peter Singer in the New York Times Magazine about poverty, and I'd been struck at how much he demanded people do in order to act ethically in a world where people (and children in particular) are dying from preventable causes. This was an old article -- a web search suggests he wrote another in 2008 on the same theme -- that posed a hypothetical question about whether one should flip the switch to prevent a racing train from crushing a child, if doing so would e Years ago, I'd read an article by Peter Singer in the New York Times Magazine about poverty, and I'd been struck at how much he demanded people do in order to act ethically in a world where people (and children in particular) are dying from preventable causes. This was an old article -- a web search suggests he wrote another in 2008 on the same theme -- that posed a hypothetical question about whether one should flip the switch to prevent a racing train from crushing a child, if doing so would eliminate one's retirement savings which had been invested in an expensive car, intended to be sold to pay for living expenses in one's golden years. Of course, the instinct is to choose the child over the car -- but, I wondered, what does that mean for everyday conduct where we choose between investing in our retirement and eliminating poverty and suffering from preventable disease? Is the only ethical solution to sacrifice our own welfare and that of our children for others?

In The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer sets forth a radical proposition: that an ethical life requires giving until what you would sacrifice is of nearly as much value as what it could provide to another person. He defends this idea by demonstrating why many people's objections to giving are unfounded (although, unfortunately, not fully engaging with objections based in concerns over western/cultural imperialism), and he puts faces on the problems our world faces. Lest one think that the burden is too heavy, he also specifies just how little it costs to save a life ($1,000) or greatly improve one ($50 for cataract surgery, or $450 for fistula repair).

His book is an easy and interesting read -- which is a good thing, since his ideal is demanding. Ultimately, Singer proposes a more modest plan to the reader, asking for a commitment to give money to international relief efforts, speak publicly about charitable giving, and ask elected officials to direct foreign aid to the poorest nations. Nothing about his plan is unreasonable -- donation amounts for many families would be considerably lower than the tithes that many churches strongly encourage (amounts are based on income, on a graduated, tax-like basis) -- and yet, it would still make a significant change in our world.

Ultimately, I'm not sure I'll sign onto the Singer Plan, as I found myself more attracted to another approach he touches upon, which requires contributing an amount equal to one's discretionary spending. But regardless of the ultimate approach readers choose to adopt, Singer's fundamental theme is an important one: we can all prevent suffering more than we are, and we can change today. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 19, 2017 Lynn rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I bought this book because I was early for a doctor's appointment and wanted something to pass the time. Clearly I'm not poverty stricken, financially or physically, but possibly intellectually as I'm finding it hard to formulate a response to the arguments in the book.

Peter Singer starts the book by describing an event where one man selflessly rescues another man who has fallen onto train tracks, a real event where both men were safe after the train passed over them. Singer then goes on to outl ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Genres

Philosophy

326 users

Nonfiction

275 users

Politics

63 users

Economics

39 users

Social Movements > Social Justice

37 users

Social Issues > Poverty

37 users

Sociology

20 users

Social Issues > Activism

18 users

Social Issues

17 users

International Rel... > International Development

11 users

See top shelves…

About Peter Singer

Peter Singer

2,003 followers

Peter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.

 In 2005 Time mag Peter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.

 In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.  

Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.

Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.  

Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour. ...more

Books by Peter Singer

The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter

The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically

Ethics in the Real World: 86 Brief Essays on Things that Matter

More…

News & Interviews

6 Great Books Hitting Shelves This Week

Need another excuse to treat yourself to a new book this week? We've got you covered with the buzziest new releases of the day. To create our...

Trivia About The Life You Can ...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The Life You Can ...

“Hebrew word for "charity" tzedakah, simply means "justice" and as this suggests, for Jews, giving to the poor is no optional extra but an essential part of living a just life.” — 76 likes

“Extreme poverty is not only a condition of unsatisfied material needs. It is often accompanied by a degrading state of powerlessness. ” — 29 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer

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

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Videos About This Book

Genres

About Peter Singer

Books by Peter Singer

News & Interviews

Trivia About The Life You Can ...

Quotes from The Life You Can ...