Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Life You Can Save
    The Life You Can Save
    The Life You Can Save
    Audiobook7 hours

    The Life You Can Save

    Written by Peter Singer

    Narrated by Full Cast

    4/5

    ()

    About this audiobook

    In this Tenth Anniversary Edition of The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer brings his landmark book up to date. In addition to restating his compelling arguments about how we should respond to extreme poverty, he examines the progress we are making and recounts how the first edition transformed the lives both of readers and the people they helped. Learn how you can be part of the solution, doing good for others while adding fulfillment to your own life.
    This special audio edition is read by Peter Singer, Kristen Bell, Michael Schur, Paul Simon, Marc Evan Jackson, Natalia Vodianova, Stephen Fry, Nick D'Agosto, Winnie Auma, Shabana Azmi, & Charlie Bresler
    What's new in the 10th Anniversary Edition of THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE?-A foreword by Mike Schur, the Creator of the acclaimed NBC show The Good Place-An afterword by Charlie Bresler, Ph.D., The Life You Can Save's Executive Director-A multinational cast of celebrity readers for the audiobook-Updates reflecting progress in the fight to end poverty and the challenges that remain-New case studies that highlight current effective interventions and charities-Calls-to-Action designed to make it as easy as possible for people to act
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherHachette Audio
    Release dateDec 3, 2019
    ISBN9781549182815
    The Life You Can Save
    Author

    Peter Singer

    Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne’s School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. The most prominent ethicist of our time, he is the author of more than twenty books, including Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and The Life You Can Save. Singer divides his time between New York City and Melbourne, Australia.

    More audiobooks from Peter Singer

    Related to The Life You Can Save

    Related audiobooks

    Social Science For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Life You Can Save

    4/5

    119 ratings12 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      Here I stand, still unconverted. And yet, this book is controversial, important, compelling. In a way I read this as a continuation of the consequentialist themes in Scott Alexander's Unsong.
    • 5/5
      The kind of book you want to put into the hand of everyone you know. Can't recommend highly enough, has definitely made me seriously reflect upon aspects of my life and my attitude towards charity.
    • 4/5
      Got the message and it is a good one. Our giving dollars have much more leverage in cultures of great poverty than they have here. Makes sense, I am acting accordingly.
    • 4/5
      I've wanted to read this book for a long time, and finally found a copy. The book does what it says---makes the case for extreme levels of charity to help the poor. Yet I found it disappointing. Most of the arguments, as well as the facts and figures, are in the air—common knowledge today. I can't say I learned much. Still, the points are presented well and thoughtfully, and it is a good read.

      Singer's arguments are also less convincing because he does not seriously present arguments from the other side. He just gives a fairly shallow, one-sided view; it is easy to argue with Singer while reading, and none of my major objections were addressed.

      Some minor quibbles: Singer shows naiveté in discussing Sachs's Millennium Villages project; it's too bad Munk's "The Idealist" wasn't out before this book. Also, Singer underestimates the cost of saving lives, e.g., with malaria nets Givewell estimates the cost to save a life at $3000-5000, while Singer claims $200-3000. (Of course, this was a decade ago, and again this is a quibble.)
    • 5/5
      This book can be purchased for a song used and will change the way you look at your life, your spending decisions, and your place in the world community.
    • 4/5
      Singer is a philosopher with a particular interest - and reputation - in the field of ethics. I was familiar with his work on human relations with animals prior to picking up this book. There's not much to add to other reviews here. There is no doubt that this is one of the best books on the principles, and indeed practice of, modern international humanitarian aid. Singer applies reason and logic to demonstrate the effectiveness of well directed aid from from the (relatively) modest resources of individuals. He brings into play powerful examples of where this has succeeded, and it must be said that the power of these examples is that they focus not just on the work of billionaires, but of people the reader can probably identify with.

      What I found weakest in this book, was Singer's discussion about the psychological motivation towards charity and altruism among humans. One of the experiments that he quoted to reinforce his views that there is a strong unselfish streak potentially in all of us seemed (at least to me) to rely on participants 'playing along' with the scenario that their individual choice to be either selfish or generous would 'never be known'. The intention being of course to eliminate the 'public adulation factor', which would erode the argument that humans have the capacity to be purely altruistic with no thought of reward or honor flowing to themselves for their actions. I wasn't convinced that if someone had asked the participants in this experiment whether they believed the researcher's promise of anonymity that they might not have said they believed that their choices would be subsequently 'outed' by the researchers. Even if they were assured of their individual anonymity, they must have known that they were part of a small group of participants and that at least SOME of the 'glory' or 'ignominy' of being part of a 'on average' generous or selfish group would reflect on them as individuals.

      In the end I could not accept anything Singer postulated about 'those who seek to do good without fame or reward', and in the whole scheme of the book it was in fact a fairly pointless issue. Singer himself concludes that it doesn't matter if the donor wants fame - despite his slight disdain for that approach. All that matters, by his own logic, is that as much assistance gets to those who need it. And that logic is powerfully put. I am simply disappointed that the shortcomings of psychological experiments relating to motivation are seldom fully presented to the lay person, and the purported results are frequently used by others to much worse effect than Singer has done here. But philosophy and psychology can never shake off the 'difficult' aspects of their science (or art), and it diminishes our respect for them to simplify them too often.

      I also found it interesting, actually fascinating, that Singer spoke at considerable length about individual and government and non-government charities, but only in passing about religious charity - and specifically the obligations (or expectations) that religion imposes on its faithful. He mentioned the tithe (a 10% obligation on individuals) that used to drive the wealth of churches in the middle ages, and provide the only social support at the time to the ill and destitute, but said less about how it worked than I have done here. Nor did he mention that the tithe is an obligation shared in former times by Christians and orthodox Jews, and even in ancient babylonian culture. Now the tithe in all of these instances is a 'tax' paid to an institution, and sometimes a government, and it was not specifically promised to support the poor. But the Zakat, which is the Islamic equivalent and still largely followed today is explicitly directed toward the poor. According to some sources the value of the Zakat paid each year in the Muslim world exceeds the formal international aid budget by a factor of 15.

      My interest in this omission is not just that the scale of religious charity (outside of the NGO's) is skipped over, but that the history and particularly the development of the concept is completely bypassed by Singer. I find it extremely interesting that societies have evolved an expectation (in religion) over time that between five and ten percent of a person's wealth should be given over to community support. Which coincides remarkably with the figure tha Singer believes to be 'fair' after taking the reader through his relentless logic. It is almost as if Singer didn't want to mention the 'elephant in the room' in case anyone came to the conclusion that he'd got his figure from the elephant.

      But, those two quibbles aside Singer is putting forward a 'great idea' and he sustains the argument well enough to get it over the line. But I'd have to say that for the lack of a completely rounded history of charity and a more critical examination of human (and societal) motives, this in not a 'great book'. But it's good enough.
    • 5/5
      I read this after I saw the author interviewed on the Stephen Colbert Report. Singer, an ethicist and philosopher offers compelling arguments and humbling challenges for changing our lifestyles in very reasonable ways that could have a tremendous impact upon the poorest of the poor in the world.
    • 4/5
      A very utilitarian view of charity. If you can do something to help out others and save lives, you must. Those who live in the first world can, efficient charities can do good, therefore one must donate. He even suggests percentile values based on your income. Those with more can afford to give away more.

      Some statistical analysis is necessary to make sure that the methods you donate to and the charity itself are worth your money.

      Singer may be controversial for other reasons, but this book makes a whole lot of sense. Time to sign up for volunteer work.

    • 3/5
      I really felt engaged and persuaded by this book until the last bit. That last bit really didn't sit well with me. You see, the book, up until that point, seems aimed at everyone in the first world, regardless of income level, and our obligations as members of these richer countries towards the world's poorest people, whose situation is so dire that every day is a question of life or death. I really did feel quite moved. But, at the very end, the plan that is proposed for giving is largely aimed at the top 10% income earners in the United States. It seemed like an unexpected about face. Up until then, I thought the moral argument had not only been aimed at everyone in the first world, but was also empowering because all of us could save lives. Then, in the end, it honed in on the rich and showed how, if the top 10% earners made significant contributions of their wealth towards world poverty, then the problem of life-threatening poverty could be entirely funded just by these folks. I found this last bit so ineffective that it really watered down the rest of the message which had been so powerful.
    • 4/5
      I chose to read Singer's book because I've often wanted to do more for the world's poor, but I wanted to do so in an informed way and see to it that my money was going to be used in a meaningful way that did not have politically or religiously motivated strings attached. I've tried to research charities before, but quickly became frustrated with the lack of information out there and the lack of solid evidence as to their efficacy that even the most well-known charities couldn'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 and 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 do help 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 do nothing for those in your 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 of 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. There's 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 in 2011: 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.
    • 4/5
      I confess that I have read very little of Peter Singer’s work before this book, persuaded by his many critics that his style of philosophical reasoning and utilitarian values are blunt instruments more likely to do harm than good. But here Singer wields these blunt instruments to very good effect against the wall of complacency and convenient pessimism that the affluent use to deny their responsibility for the problem of global poverty.

      Singer’s argument is simple, premised on the obvious truth that if we are in a situation where we could save someone who is dying, we are morally obliged to do so unless in so doing we would be sacrificing something very nearly as valuable as the person's life. For example, failure to save the life of a drowning child because we do not want to risk ruining our shoes would be morally reprehensible. Singer then points out that globally 27,000 children per day die from causes related to extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $1.25 per day), and that these children could easily be saved by funding the expansion of existing health and development programs that are demonstrably effective. Doing so would not require affluent individuals to give up more than a trivial amount of the money that they spend on luxuries, nor would it significantly harm the economy of affluent societies. Singer thus concludes that failure to save these children is morally unacceptable, and challenges the reader to commit to supporting any of the charities that work effectively to eradicate global poverty.

      To my mind, Singer effectively counters every conceivable objection to this argument. He is not naïve about the problems associated with global relief and development agencies. He is skeptical of government efforts, arguing that they are generally too entangled with the economic and political interests of wealthy nations to provide effective help. He argues that non-governmental organizations are much better, though he argues that they must be scrutinized carefully to make sure that they are working effectively.

      So how much giving is enough? Singer argues that in principle, we are obliged to give to the point where we would be risking the loss of something nearly as valuable as the lives that are lost due to causes associated with extreme poverty. However, because the amount of money actually needed to ameliorate poverty is actually quite modest (the maximum estimate of additional funds needed to meet the millennial challenge goals for cutting global poverty in half by 2015 are only $189 billion), Singer argues that a much more modest level of giving would be sufficient to virtually eliminate extreme poverty. He calculates that if Americans of comfortable means donated roughly 5% of their income, and the rich and super-rich considerably more, America alone could raise $471 billion per year.

      Singer persuasively argues that ending poverty is easily within our grasp. One of the most surprising facts in the book was how much progress has in fact already been made. In 1960, an estimated 20 million children died of poverty-related causes. The most recent estimates show that the number has fallen to 8.8 million — a remarkable achievement given that in the same time period the world’s population had risen from 2.5 to 6.5 billion.

      Singer concludes not only that this level of giving would make little negative impact on the lives of the affluent, but that it might add significantly to their happiness and sense of fulfillment. The life you can save may be your own.
    • 5/5
      Singer continues to impress me not only with his words, but the way he constructs his argument in such a simple, concise, approachable manner.