The Life You Can Save: How To Do Your Part To End World Poverty

In 2009, Peter Singer, philosopher and ethicist at Princeton University, published The Life You Can Save, a short treatise on the obligations of affluent persons to alleviate the suffering of those experiencing extreme poverty on a global scale. By this time in his career, Singer had spent several decades on ethical questions related to global poverty. In 1972, he produced a seminal essay in the field, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” After a much more recent publication in the New York Times (for which Singer received significant positive feedback), he decided to write The Life You Can Save, the culmination of a life’s work on this particular issue. Though Singer has published books and articles on fields as diverse as animal welfare, practical ethics, and bioethics, The Life You Can Save has arguably had the widest impact and is one of the achievements for which Singer is best known. Singer’s associated charity, also called The Life You Can Save, issued an updated 10th anniversary edition of the book in 2019. A free audiobook, featuring celebrity narration from Kristen Bell, Paul Simon, Stephen Fry, and others, is available for download here. This guide refers to the 2009 Random House edition of The Life You Can Save.

The Life You Can Save makes the case that the average, moderately affluent individual in an affluent society has ethical obligations to fight global poverty and its attendant malnutrition and diseases. The most frequently debated aspect of Singer’s claim is that affluent persons have the obligation to sacrifice much more than they generally do. Singer questions the value of vacations, new wardrobes, and even unnecessary bottled water. The point is that all lives matter equally, and relatively small amounts of money could radically transform the lives of those in extreme poverty. When affluent persons choose to spend their money on unnecessary things for themselves, they are implicitly valuing their own luxury over the health and well-being of those in deep need.

Singer is a moral philosopher whose filter for ethical theory is a brand of utilitarianism concerned primarily with the alleviation of suffering. This has led him to advocate for higher animal welfare standards and decreased global poverty. Utilitarian philosophy, broadly construed, seeks to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people (or sentient creatures), wherein the “good” is generally considered pleasure. In other words, utilitarians hope to increase the amount of pleasure (or happiness) in the world and eliminate as much suffering and pain as possible. The right thing to do is whatever is most useful in achieving this outcome. Singer sees the suffering of the extremely poor as of exceptional moral importance. Since the suffering of all persons counts equally, the problem of this extreme suffering is something that everyone has a responsibility to alleviate in proportion to their ability to do so.

Summary

The Life You Can Save is divided into four parts. The first part develops the argument as to why the relatively affluent have significant obligations to the globally impoverished. The second discusses aspects of human nature that limit rational giving and strategies to make human psychology work for effective charity. Then Singer discusses the nitty-gritty of global aid, especially the issue of charity accountability. Finally, he outlines “a new standard for giving,” in which he provides rough calculations determining how much a person should give depending on their income, wealth, etc., as well as advice on where to donate (169). The Life You Can Save bridges the space between theoretical ethical philosophy and practical guidance for charity evaluation and donation.

Part 1, “The Argument,” presents the most theoretical aspect of the book. Singer makes use of several thought experiments, the most prominent of which asks readers to imagine a drowning child. The reader should imagine themself as the only person around capable of saving the child. The only catch is that doing so will destroy their expensive tennis shoes. Of course, the moral imperative to save the child overrides the reader’s self-interest in preserving the shoes. The moral conclusion is that anyone in this position must save the drowning child. Singer writes that the same can be said of starving children in Africa and Asia. Those in affluent societies are in a strong position to save the lives of children in extreme poverty at a cost comparable to that of a new pair of shoes. To not do so is an unconscionable moral crime. For Singer, the problem is that most people don’t think in these terms.

Singer provides a basic argument that structures the remainder of the book. The second premise of the argument is the most controversial and thoroughly elaborated. It reads: “[I]f it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so” (19). On this basis, Singer concludes that it is wrong for affluent people not to donate significant sums to “effective” charities, by which he means charities that yield meaningful results for the most underserved populations. Singer then lists arguments typically given in opposition to charitable giving. He systematically counters each argument in order to reinforce his view.

Part 2, “Human Nature,” discusses the reasons why humans do not contribute to effective charities, as well as ways to address this problem. Singer discusses issues like the “identifiable victim” that lead people away from the most rational methods of giving. Other issues, like parochialism and futility, prevent altruistic people from giving global aid. Singer also references additional psychological factors, such as a sense of fairness about one’s earnings and the massive diffusion of responsibility accompanying global problems, to explain the problem. He then discusses ways to counter human nature and “create a culture of giving” (64). Among other things, this includes publicizing charitable donations instead of giving anonymously. He details how governmental and corporate defaults can “nudge" people to a more moral life. Singer also challenges the assumption that humans are naturally self-interested, outlining ways in which altruism comes naturally.

Part 3, “The Facts About Aid,” includes two chapters concerning the practical implementation of effective aid. Singer discusses the issue of determining how much it costs to save a life and the complications that arise in such calculations. He includes several charities that are particularly cost-effective and explains the tools he utilized in order to come to those conclusions. Afterward, Singer discusses ways to improve global aid and considers common criticisms of the current state of aid. He evaluates various methods of aid that have proven effective or promising, such as microfinancing.

The final part of The Life You Can Save, “A New Standard of Giving,” applies factual evidence to the basic moral argument of the book. It combines ethical theory with the lessons of the actual state of global aid and human nature. Singer includes a discussion of the moral conundrum in navigating competing responsibilities to one’s own children and the children of the world. He asks if people should value their own children’s lives more than the lives of multiple other children, etc. Singer reiterates the reasons for the high moral standards his theory enforces. The moral standard requires that people do more than their fair share when some (or many) neglect to help at all. This is a function of the gravity of the suffering of those in extreme poverty. This section includes a lot of mathematical figuring, the purpose of which is to determine roughly how much individuals should contribute to aid based on personal wealth and total need. In the final chapter, Singer reiterates reasons for giving, including a new standard for self-esteem. He also presents “realistic” standards of giving. These fall short of the moral standard Singer’s argument demands but are still significant enough to seriously address the problems of extreme (or “absolute”) poverty. Singer includes an appendix that outlines charitable giving on a sliding income scale.