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

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

• 
  Mehrsa

  I will be debating Peter Singer next month at a forum and so I read this book to find its flaws and so perhaps because I was looking I found many. My main critique is that he claims that it is moral and acceptable to work in any lucrative industry so long as you give away your gains. So go into investment banking, make a ton of money and buy mosquito nets. But no--first off, these industries are extractive so they are not neutral ways of making money and second off, charity is not as good as taxation and democracy. Singer is all about giving money away to the world's poor, which seems like an unassailable claim, but he claims that that is the highest good. To me, the highest good is not just poverty reduction but dealing with inequality
• 
  Andy

  What a weird book. "Effective altruism" sounded very interesting since it's true that tremendous resources are wasted on things that are known to be useless or harmful. This book is only vaguely about that. It functions OK as a discussion-starter on philosophical issues but I think it flops as a practical introduction to "the most good you can do." There is some good information on that but way too much of the book is devoted to dangerously irrelevant BS.
  
  Singer starts with, and repeatedly brings up, the concept that you should abandon whatever you really want to do and go work for a hedge fund so you can make a lot of money and then give it away to charities he recommends. If you disagree with him on this, then you are against capitalism and all the progress in the world. And then he brings up Warren Buffett and his friends giving away their fortunes.
  
  This is goofy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. 1st of all, Warren Buffett has made statements to the effect that the Wall Street investment advising industry contributes nothing to the economy. It's a brain drain for our best and brightest to go to Wall Street instead of doing anything productive. Secondly, The Gates Foundation, which is where Buffett's money is going, is a pretty lousy example of effective philanthropy, since their efforts in education, for example, have been spectacular failures. In global health, the proven-effective things that Singer recommends, like bed nets, are specifically what the Gates Foundation spent years NOT focusing on, instead favoring moonshots like a malaria vaccine. 3. Even Donald Trump (!) has gone after the "hedge fund guys" because they don't pay their fair share of taxes, effectively taking money away from everyone else. How is that ethical or altruistic? 4. Beyond a couple of anecdotes, where is the evidence that Singer's career advice yields net good? The whole point of "effectiveness" is to do what has been proven to work, not what feels good or seems like a frightfully clever idea. 5. etc. etc. etc.
  
  
• 
  PattyMacDotComma

  5★
  Bill and Melinda Gates are quoted on the front cover saying this is “An optimistic and compelling look at the positive impact that giving can have on the world.”
  
  Singer himself says, “The most interesting question is whether effective altruists can become numerous enough to influence the giving culture of affluent nations. There are some promising signs that that may be starting to happen.”
  
  WOOHOO! I sure hope he’s right! Peter Singer, an Aussie (!) is a renowned philosopher, Princeton professor, and author of many books, including the famous
  Animal Liberation in 1975. But you don’t have to be a scholar to enjoy his writings on ethics. The only reason I add a review is that I hope it might encourage people to donate so it counts.
  
  This is easy reading with plenty of anecdotes about people I’d call extreme donors (kidney, life savings), but he’s not too rough on those of us who set our sights a little lower and aren’t even vegetarians.
  
  ‘Effective altruism’ is getting the most bang for your charity buck - the most good for the most people (and animals). Some might be for immediate effective health or poverty relief, some might be for ongoing improvement of long-range conditions, like saving the planet.
  
  Singer discusses how the ‘bang’ is measured and audited - the real result of your donation. It’s not as simple as which charity spends the least on administration costs. For example, consider corporate lobbyists. Lobbyists don’t work in clients’ businesses – they attract customers and contracts. Charities might spend ‘admin’ money lobbying governments to create fairer conditions for entire communities of disadvantaged farmers.
  
  Singer discusses everything from mosquito nets and sanitation to climate change and NASA’s Near Earth Object Program, which is designed to deflect or obliterate asteroids and such that might destroy the planet. He talks about existential threats (our very existence is threatened) and what we can do to minimise the risks.
  
  Plenty of footnotes and a good index for reference. The upshot is, go to
  https://www.givewell.org/ and have a look at the results of their extensive research and become an effective altruist with whatever you’ve got to spare.
• 
  Mike

  A quick read.
  
  The main gist: not all opportunities for charitable giving are created equal. We should be donating to the causes and organizations that do the most good. How does one evaluate "the most good?" Cost-Benefit Analysis, of course. For example, does it make more sense to spend $40,000 training a seeing-eye dog to help one blind person, or should we spend the money on operations that restore sight to the blind and cost $100-450 each? It's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?
  
  The book begins by chronicling the life experiences of several "effective altruists," or people who think rationally about how they use their time and resources to help other people. It's anecdotal, but it makes you think: could I live on a fraction of my current income to have more to help the poor?
  
  The book, at times, reads like an advert for GiveWell. The author spares them all criticism, although he doesn't extend the same treatment to all the book's subjects.
  
  At times thought-provoking, this book was surprisingly light on philosophy for a book from a philosopher, particularly early on. Singer's strategy seemed to be to use anecdotes to convince readers of the value of empirically driven giving, which was a bit ironic. The book does pick up intellectually in later chapters, with more philosophical justification for effective altruism.
  
  Altogether, a worthwhile introduction to the movement of effective altruism, particularly to the unacquainted (like me).
• 
  Moh. Nasiri

  دیگر دوستی موثر
  رساندن بیشترین خیر چگونه فهم ما را از زندگی اخلاقی تغییر می‌دهد
  استاد ملکیان مقدمه جامعی بر این کتاب اخلاقی-فلسفی پیترسینگرنوشته اند
  دیگردوستی مؤثر هم یک ایده است، هم سبکی از زندگی که در حال رایج شدن در سراسر دنیاست. گاهی اوقات می‌پنداریم هیچ قدرتی نداریم، اما این‌طور نیست. حقیقتاً می‌توانیم دنیا را تغییر دهیم، گرچه دنیا دفعتاً در حد مطلوب ما تغییر نخواهد کرد. بر خیری که شخصاً می‌توانید برسانید تمرکز کنید، نه بر مسائلی که باقی می‌مانند یا حلشان دست شما نیست. کاهش دادن رنج، چه در انسان و چه در حیوانات، مطلوب است، حتی اگر ازبین‌بردن برخی رنج‌ها فعلاً ممکن نباشد. سعی کنید با بهره‌گیری از روش‌هایی که در این کتاب معرفی شده است بیشترین خیر ممکن را برسانید، تغییری در دنیا حاصل کنید، و به بقیه‌ی فعالانِ عرصه‌ی دیگردوستی مؤثر بپیوندید. رفتار و ارزش‌های مطلوبِ فعالان جنبش دیگردوستی مؤثر در هماهنگی با یکدیگرند. این هماهنگی سبب شده است زندگی پربارتر و کامیاب‌تری داشته باشند.
  
  سوزن‌بانان، کودکان را نکشید
  
  تصور کنید قطاری در حال حرکت است و می‌تواند در دو مسیر حرکت کند. مسیر اول، به سوی تعدادی کودک می‌رود که روی ریل ایستاده‌اند و قطعاً برخورد قطار آن‌ها را می‌کشد. مسیر دوم، به سمت اتومبیل لوکس شما می‌رود که روی ریل گیر کرده و نتوانسته‌اید آن‌را حرکت دهید.
  شما سوزن‌بان هستید و می‌توانید مسیر قطار را به سمت یکی از این دو مسیر هدایت کنید. شما قطار را به کدام سمت هدایت خواهید کرد؟ کودکان یا اتومبیل لوکس خودتان؟
  شما تا به پاسخ خودتان فکر کنید، داستان مختصر این آزمایش ذهنی را بگویم. این آزمایش ذهنی را پیتر سینگر فیلسوف اخلاق استرالیایی، نویسنده کتاب مشهور آزادی حیوانات، و صاحب ایده‌هایی درباره گیاهخواری، آزادی بیان، اخلاق زیستی و شاید از همه مهم‌تر برای بحث ما، صاحب ایده «دیگردوستی مؤثر» طراحی کرده است.
  پاسخ‌تان به پرسش سینگر چیست؟ آیا شما قطار را به سمت خودرو لوکس خودتان هدایت می‌کنید و جلوی کشته شدن کودکان را می‌گیرید؟ اکثریت آدم‌ها احتمالاً همین کار را می‌کنند. این پاسخ پی‌آمد مهمی دارد.
  ایده پیتر سینگر این است که بسیاری از ما، آن‌ها که توان خرید کالا و خدمات لوکس نظیر خرید ساعت گران‌قیمت، خوردن شام در رستوران بسیار گران، زندگی در خانه‌های اشرافی، سوار شدن بر خودروهای لوکس، استفاده از عینک و لباس برند و ... داریم، در عمل و زندگی روزمره، قطار را به سمت کودکان هدایت می‌کنیم. سینگر حامی ایده استفاده از درآمد مازاد برای نجات کودکان است.
  ما در حالی که می‌توانیم هزینه‌ای را که برای بسیاری از کارهای لوکس زندگی‌مان هزینه می‌کنیم، برای نجات کودکان در خطر جهان اختصاص دهیم، از خیر مصارف لوکس خودمان نمی‌گذریم. کودکانی هستند که با چند ده یا چند صد هزار تومان از ابتلای آن‌ها به بیماری‌هایی که یک عمر آن‌ها را می‌آزارد نجات می‌یابند.
  این حکایت کم‌وبیش در زندگی بسیاری از ما جاری است.
  پیتر سینگر طرفدار استفاده از درآمد مازاد صاحبان این گونه درآمدها برای مقابله با مرگ و سایر خطراتی است که کودکان در خطر را تهدید می‌کند. جلوگیری نکردن از مرگ کودکان در خطر از نظر او با کشتار انسان‌ها تفاوتی ندارد.
  
  استاد فاضلی اینچنین ادامه می‌دهد که: این متن را نوشتم تا هر کدام از ما که درآمد مازاد داریم و از آن می‌توانیم برای نجات کودکی استفاده کنیم، یادمان باشد که شاید سوزن‌بانی هستیم که قطار را به سمت کودکان هدایت می‌کنیم...
  
  لینک دانلود خلاصه کتاب
  
  
  http://s7.picofile.com/file/838193544...
• 
  E.

  I picked this latest of Singer's books to read in my Ethics class for the utilitarianism requirement of the university's curriculum. The book has worked at generating interesting conversation among the students.
  
  Singer's stories of effective altruists and his concrete examples are interesting, some inspiring. The philosophical ideas come in reflection on real life issues.
  
  I have two criticisms (of the book). One, I'm not convinced by the structure. Some of the chapters seem misordered to me. Also, the basic argument is rather straightforward--that we should do the most good we can and that means saving as many lives as possible through our giving which can only be determined by adequate research into effective strategies--and yet the arguments get repeated. At times the reading felt redundant.
  
  As to the ideas, I'm torn. Yes, I am persuaded that my own charitable giving could be more effective at saving lives. I will likely change some of my giving patterns.
  
  But I can't support the fundamental utilitarian thesis that our moral decisions should be rooted in rational thought devoid of sentiment. After finishing the book I skimmed back through Wendell Berry's Jefferson Lecture "It All Turns on Affection" and kept thinking "Yes, yes it does."
  
  As a college freshman we read an essay by Berry in which he argued that we can do the most good when we work locally. I argued against this notion and felt we needed to work on big global issues. Over the decades of my adulthood I have been more convinced by Berry and, thus, much of my own focus is on local issues based upon actual relationships and communities. Singer's ideas push against this in an effective way. But, I'm still persuaded by Berry--affection and imagination and local focus.
  
• 
  Mostafa

  4stars
  دیگر دوستی موثر، رساندن بیشترین خیر چگونه فهم ما را از زندگی اخلاقی
  تغییر می دهد، کتابیست اثر پیتر سینگر فیلسوف معاصر در حوزه اخلاق عملی
  در این کتاب نویسنده به نوعی به مسئله خیر رساندن یا کاستن درد و رنج می پردازد که خواننده مجاب می شود که در خیر رساندن نباید درگیر مسایل عاطفی شد چرا که این امر موجب می شود که نتوانیم ارزیابی درستی از رساندن بیشترین خیر داشته باشیم بلکه باید با یک نگاه شناختی و ریاضی ارزیابی دقیقی از موقعیت داشته باشیم تا بتوانیم منابع محدودمان را در موثرترین موقعیت هزینه کنیم. به عبارت دیگر منابع محدود ما موجب بیشترین رفاه یا کاستن بیشترین درد و رنج شود
  در حالیکه بسیاری از خیریه ها و حتی اقدامات فردیِ خودمان در کمک به دیگران صرفا بر مبنای درگیری های عاطفی با فرد کمک گیرنده است بدون ارزیابی و سنجش دقیق و اینکه کمک ما شاید جایی دیگر می تواند موثر تر باشد.... اگر شما ۱ میلیون تومان هزینه تحصیل دو نفر را در روستایی محروم متقبل می شوید می توانید با همان یک میلیون از نابینا شدن یک نفر به سبب بیماری تراخم جلوگیری کنید.... اینجاست که رساندن بیشترین خیر و ارزیابی های سودگرایانه وارد عمل می شود و شما را مجاب می کند که هزینه را در جایی بکنید که بیشترین خیر( چه در جهت افزایش رفاه یا چه در جهت کاستن درد و رنج) را می رساند
  دو نگاه کلی در این حوزه وجود دارد
  نگاه اول مبتنی بر اخلاق کانتی بر مبنای قاعده ضرر نرساندن است و یک فلسفه اخلاق وظیفه گرا را معرفی می کند صرف نظر از نتیجه که اکثرا تابع این نظر هستند
  نگاه دوم که نویسنده طرفدار این نظر است فلسفه اخلاق نتیجه گرای قاعده محور نام دارد که به محاسبه آثار سود و زیان رفتار اخلاقی می پردازد و آن رفتاری را که بیشترین سود و کمترین درد و رنج را وارد می کند را انتخاب می کند
  تفاوت این دو دیدگاه در جاییست که مثلا در جنگ جهانی دوم جاسوسان دوجانبه انگلیسی وقتی که میخواستند به آلمانها برای شلیک به شهرها آدرس و گرا بدهند به جای مرکز لندن( که مدّ نظر آلمانها بود) اطراف و حاشیه آن را گرا می دادند که تلفات کمتری به خاطر تراکم کمتر داشته باشد
  بر مبنای نگاه اول و قاعده ضرر نرساندن، نباید آدرس اطراف و حاشیه از طرف جاسوسان داده شود صرف نظر از نتیجه، چون نباید رفتار ما موجب زیان رساندن به افراد دیگر شود
  اما بر مبنای دیدگاه دوم چون تلفات در مرکز لندن بیشتر از حاشیه است و وجود جاسوسان دوطرفه بهتر از نبود آنهایت ( زیرا اگر آنها خودشان را لو بدهند سبب استخدام جاسوسانی می شود که متعهد هستند و آدرس مستقیم لندن را برای بمباران می دهند!!) بهتر است که برای وارد کردن رنج و درد کمتر آدرس حاشیه به جای مرکز شهر لندن داده شود
  این محاسبات در حوزه فلسفه اخلاق عملی بسیار مناقشه برانگیز و حیاتی در تصمیم گیری های آتی خواهد بود
• 
  Cheri

  I will change the way I donate based on what I’ve learned from this book. It is a thoughtful, rational approach to making charitable donations. It was eye-opening in many ways (things like percent of funds spent on the charitable activity itself is not a marker of effectiveness; how donors of small amounts are less likely to be repeat donors when they have evidence that shows a charity is effective; and how very small amounts of money can save many lives when donated to the right places). The discussions of whether emotional empathy actually increases charitable donations and whether altruism necessarily involves sacrifice were also informative. Still, I found some of the philosophical arguments unconvincing and even distracting. I applaud the application of rational thinking to this field, but the irrational aspects of human behavior must be better included.
  
  
• 
  Mohammad yusuf

  اگر وقتی از خیابان عبور می‌کنید متوجه شوید کودکی از گرسنگی، در حال جان‌دادن است، چه می‌کنید؟ لقمه‌ای غذا در اختیارش می‌گذارید یا بی‌اعتنا، از کنارش می‌گذرید؟ اگر بدانید کودکان همسایگان شما به خاطر نداشتن پشه‌بند، مالاریا گرفته و دارند تلف می‌شوند چطور؟ آیا حاضرید چند هزار تومان به آن‌ها کمک کنید تا پشه‌بندی بگیرند و جان کودکان را نجات دهند؟ اگر هنگام سیاحت در پارکی، ببینید کودکی در آب حوض افتاده و در حال خفه‌شدن است، دستی برای کمک به سویش دراز می‌کنید یا نجاتِ جان او را وظیفۀ خود نمی‌دانید؟
  
  اگر پاسخ شما به این پرسش‌ها مثبت است و خود را اخلاقاً موظف به همیاری دیگران می‌دانید باید به طور جدی به این بیندیشید که چرا در مقابل رنج و مرگ کودکانی که نه در همسایگی ما و نه در خیابانی که از آن عبور می‌کنیم بلکه در کشوری دیگر زندگی می‌کنند، بی‌اعتناییم؟ چرا با اهدای پشه‌بند توری کم‌ارزشی، جان کودکی را نجات نمی‌دهیم؟ چرا حاضر نیستیم با مبالغی اندک، کودکانی را از گرسنگی و مرگ و بیماری‌های ناشی از آن، نجات دهیم؟ آیا فاصلۀ فیزیکی وظیفۀ اخلاقی ما را از بین می‌برد یا این ما هستیم که از این وظیفه غافلیم؟
  
  این جملات عیناً در کتاب نیامده‌اند اما اقتباس‌ من‌اند از محتوای کتاب و البته یکی از سخنرانی‌های معروف پیترسینگر ، فیلسوف اخلاق معاصر و نگارندۀ کتاب «دیگردوستی مؤثر» در TED. این پرسش‌های چالش برانگیز برای آن است که متوجّه‌مان کند نسبت به دیگران وظیفه داریم. همچنان که این کتاب بر آن تأکید می‌کند و ما را با مفهوم دیگردوستی مؤثر آشنا می‌کند. عنوان اصلی کتاب The most good you can do است و می‌خواهد بگوید وظیفۀ ما نه فقط لطف به فقیری در خیابان بلکه «رساندن بیشترین خیر ممکن در جهان است». او مثال‌هایی از افرادی حقیقی می‌زند که تمام زندگی‌شان را وقف این کار کرده‌اند. از راه‌هایی می‌گوید که ما نیز می‌توانیم یک دیگردوست مؤثر شویم بی‌آنکه زندگی عادی‌ و سرشار از آرامش‌مان خدشه‌دار شود. از چالش‌های نظری این ایده و سؤالاتی که ممکن است پیش آید حرف می‌زند و برای هر بخش، مثال‌هایی زنده و واقعی دارد، حتی برای اهدای کلّیه!
  
  خواندن این کتاب ارزشمند که به همّت مترجم جوان، آرمین نیاکان و با مقدمه‌هایی از اساتید گرانقدر، مصطفی ملکیان و محمدرضا جلائی‌پور منتشر شده است، برای همگان ضروری است. ایده‌ای که این کتاب بیان می‌کند و راهکارهایی که ارائه می‌دهد، برای اخلاقی��زیستن چنان مهم‌اند که نه فقط مطالعة فردی بلکه هدیه‌دادن و تبلیغ برای مطالعه‌اش را هم، بااهمیت می‌کنند.
  
• 
  Robin

  Ah, Peter Singer. The ethic philosopher who's system is based purely on logic and reason. Emotion is usually the most important factor when it comes to ethics, but not for Singer and I think that's a good thing.
  
  This book is a nice quick read on effective altruism, which is basically: heavy suffering is bad, we can do something about it, therefore we should do something about it. In fact, we should do a a lot about it. But, in doing so, we should not be guided by personal opinion, we should strive to do the most good we can do. For instance, guide dogs cost a lot of money. For the same amount of money that it would cost to provide one guide dog for one person, it is possible to cure 2000 (!) people in developing countries from blindness caused by disease. Obviously, doing the latter is more effective and therefore, the more ethical choice.
  
  I am sympathetic to the ideas in this book, but I think 'The life you can save' by the same author is a better read on this topic. That book anticipates a lot of possible counterarguments, which it refutes. It is also more to the point. Nonetheless, this is was quite a quick read with some very important points in it.
• 
  Elham Daneshparvar

  آشنایی من با این کتاب در پی پستی بود که دوستی نوشته بود "با شرکت در دوره دیگردوستی موثر زندگی خود را به قبل و بعد این دوره تقسیم کنید". دوره‌ای که توسط مترجم کتاب و تیم بسیار خوبشون برگزار شد (لینک:
  https://t.me/ea_tums) و در فهم کتاب بسیار موثر بود.
  حالا که کتاب رو خوندم میتونم بگم اون ادعا چندان گزاف نبود. ماها کمابیش راجع‌به نوع‌دوستی و بشردوستی میدونیم. ولی این کتاب مفهومی بالاتر در کمیت و کیفیت رو مطرح میکنه‌.
  در کمیت "دیگردوستی" به جای نوع دوستی، چراکه گونه‌های دیگر جز انسان هم حیاتی دارند لایق زیستن و احترام.
  در کیفیت "موثر". یعنی کمکی را برگزینیم که گره بیشتری را باز میکند. درد بیشتری را دوا میکند.
  و این کتاب مباحثی است حول نحوه رسیدن به این مفهوم.
  
  به نظرم درک مفهوم "دیگردوستی موثر" برای همه یک ضرورت و برای برنامه‌ریزان جامعه و گردانندگان خیریه‌ها یک اولویت است. چرا که بسیارند افرادی که با نیت پاک کمک کردن، منابع محدود را هدر داده و گره مشکلات را کورتر میکنند.
  اگر کتاب رو مستقلا میخوندم ۴ ستاره میدادم ولی شرکت در دوره به اضافه کتاب باعث شد دید جامع‌تری داشته باشم و بسیاری از ابهاماتم حل بشه.
• 
  Ginger Markley

  This was a very positive and engaging read that made me consider how to do more in my life for the betterment of the world. This book's title (and message) is not entirely clear until you read it. The book is not about simply doing the most good that You-the-Reader can do, although I am sure it is a play on words, but is about "what" one chooses to do, as rated by effectiveness.
  
  Singer describes a group of people who have chosen to be called "effective altruists" and breaks this down: the definition, history, goals, motives and real world examples for such a group. He also walks the reader through some theoretical exercises for assigning value to various actions for the purpose of comparason, but is careful to disclose the complexity of many factors involved. The reader is left to make conclusions on their own, but is given a lot to think about.
  
  For personality types such as mine (INTJ Meyers Briggs) showing me a framework for this type of reasonable decision making regarding giving is truly exciting. It engages my desire to give, and to give to actually make the most difference for others.
  
  In the end, I did not come away from this book ripping out my checkbook, frothing at the mouth to give to charity, but I will think about this book for a long time to come and I sincerely hope that it has long term effects on my actions. I read a library copy of this book, but have just bought this book to give as a gift to others.
• 
  Julian Worker

  I like the premise of this book, but I what I didn't like was the denigration of people who give only "small" amounts of their money to charities.
  
  On Page 5 of the book, the author states:
  
  "In many cases, the donation is so small - $10 or less - that if they stopped to think, they would realise that the cost of processing the donation is likely to exceed any benefit it brings to the charity."
  
  I would have thought people should be encouraged to give to charity. The cost of transferring money into the bank account of a charity is minimal and transfers happen automatically. Not everyone can afford to give half their salary to charity so any donations given to charities should be welcomed.
• 
  Heather

  Hmmmm. This book was definitely not what I was expecting! The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically by Peter Singer is a deeply philosophical book. Having never had philosophy in college, I was excited to read about the philosophical ideals around not just "doing good" but around being an effective altruist, or using reason and our resources to do the most good in the world that we can. Some different thoughts that I can take away from this book include:
  1. Some people deviate from their desired career path to other career paths to earn more money to donate to causes that will benefit others. Others limit their lifestyle expenditures in order to maintain a high level of donations. Would be nice to see an estimate of what percent of people, or even donors do this.
  2. Effective altruists try to use reason vs. emotion to select the charity that they will donate to. Typically, for Americans, this would mean donating abroad, as charities that do things like provide mosquito nets or perform surgeries to correct blindness or pay for girls to go to school in impoverished communities are more effective, reach more people and create greater social impact than donating to (for example) a pet rescue society in the US.
  3. It is useful to use meta-charities to vet charities to make sure that not only does most of the money go towards effective programming, but that it has been proven through academic study and research to be impactful. (Self-reporting by the charity to be impactful is not as valued as an academic research study).
  4. Another way to be impactful is to support animal rights, especially in the farming industry. There are many laws supporting pet's rights, but if your goal is to lesson suffering of living beings in the world, one way to do this is to ensure that the millions of animals raised for food, fur, in shelters and in laboratories are guaranteed (for example) enough space to be able to move around, and provided ample food, water and medical care.
  5. Donating a Kidney fits right in for effective altruists. They basically crunch numbers to compare the value of keeping a functioning kidney vs. the value of someone's life that could depend on receiving that kidney.
  6. There was a lot of philosophy discussed here! I googled a lot of different philosophical ideas and philosophers that were cited in these chapters.
  
  Overall, though, this book reads more like a textbook. Possibly because Peter Singer is a teacher at Princeton University. He often mentions a few of his students as examples. One that was going to go to Oxford to get a PhD in Philosophy, his undergraduate major, but who wanted to earn more to donate more, thus became an investment banker. Is this a commonplace switch? Philosopher to investment banker? Maybe at a place like Princeton!
  He also likes to compare and contrast what an effective altruist thinks with one particular woman, Melissa Berman, President and CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors at the time he wrote this, for several chapters, making it seem like he has a personal issue with Ms. Berman and how she markets her business.
  Other arguments simply fell flat for me. For example, Singer states that nature itself has no intrinsic value, as Singer believes that intrinsic value can only be found in positive conscious experiences. He argues that some effective altruists see nature as negative due to "the intense amount of suffering that wild animals experience." Thus, he determines that supporting the preservation of nature is not for the effective altruist as it has not been proven to be an effective or reasonable investment. No mention of ecosystem services that keep humans alive, like the creation of oxygen or clean drinking water or the beneficial phytochemicals that are found in so many plants.
  
  As I finished this book, I googled "Does anyone LIKE Peter Singer"? The book was leaving me with such a bad taste that I did not expect. One issue that many people have with Singer is when he asks questions along these lines. Why do we value humans over animals? Is it because of "higher intelligence"? If so, many animals are smarter than babies. Should we value animals over babies? Also, a comatose or brain-dead person would have no intelligence, so should we value them less than a typical human? Is a person's suffering more important than an animal's suffering? Why? How do we assign this value? I do understand that he is trying to elicit a type of reasoning that ultimately makes an individual define their values. These are not comfortable questions, though. I think that is OK. However, this wasn't what I was expecting out of this book.
  
  In summary, this book on effective altruism made me think, and sometimes made me uncomfortable. It handed me some new ideas and ways of thinking about things. I did not really enjoy the tone of the book, and several of the examples seemed interesting but not successful or common enough to deserve more than a mention. I would recommend this book to someone who is interested in thinking about the philosophical ideals behind donating to beneficial causes, on an academic level. Some knowledge of famous philosophers would be useful!
• 
  annette ✨

  ngl a tough read for me because although short, is definitely not the type of book I would normally read (sorry I’m not a lover of non-fiction). was recommended this book by a co-worker because I’m vegan lol (and the author is too)
  
  all in all, I didn’t think it was a bad read; I thought the ideas put forth about effective altruism and doing “the most good you can do” were thought-provoking and interesting. I definitely think some of the suggestions in the book of how to be an effective altruist are impractical for the vast majority of people, but I think Singer makes good points about how to best choose charities/causes to donate to, as that’s something I would definitely want to do more in the future. I’d like to think I have an altruistic spirit but I’m definitely not on par with what Singer expects of altruists haha
  
  also coming at it from a faith-based point of view is another added layer. of course as a Christian, I would want to do the best I can do in my life, but does that mean using my money to do that (since I would say most of this book was about giving money)? what about my time and effort, and actually going to the people in need and ministering to them? money is important for sure but it can’t be all we can do to help in this life
• 
  Richard Thompson

  It is certainly nice to read a book by a real philosopher that is written in a clear and totally comprehensible style, but that puts forth serious and thought-provoking ideas. I found that Singer regularly anticipated my objections to his arguments and shot them down one by one. If you want to do good, why wouldn't you want to do the most good possible, and therefore isn't it logical to earn the most money that you can while living modestly so that you can give it to people who are in the best position to alleviate human suffering. I think that if I were a billionaire looking to give away half my fortune, these theories would make a lot of sense, but I'm not, and the effect of reading this book was just to make me feel vaguely uncomfortable, rather than inspiring me to become an "effective altruist." Doing good is inherently personal. I'd rather be Paul Farmer and find a way to contribute to saving thousands through personal hands-on interaction, than to be a Wall St. banker who saves tens of thousands by living in a garret while giving away 95% of his earnings to a deworming charity as Singer advocates. And I just can't buy Singer's dismissal of cultural charities and his complete indifference to spiritual ones. Maybe I am just a mean-spirited irrational troglodyte, but I don't think so. I think that it is more likely that despite the strength of some of his arguments, Singer is missing something fundamental about what it means to be a good person.
  
  Postscript: The more I think about this book the more I think that this guy doesn't understand human nature. Personal involvement and engagement are essential to altruism. Just being efficient with charity, living in a cell, and donating as much cash as possible to anonymous people on the other side of the world because that saves the most lives does not and cannot work for more than a tiny group of weirdos. More personal involvement creates more satisfaction and then you can get a virtuous cycle of more good acts and still more satisfaction. Peter Singer does not get it. He should take a lesson from Paul Farmer.
• 
  Zahra Zarrinfar

  مباش در پی آزار و هر چه خواهی کن/که در شریعت ما غیر از این گناهی نیست
  مترجم کتاب در پیشگفتارش این بیت حافظ را نقل‌قول کرده است و می‌گوید در طریق ما غیر ازین گناهی هست! ضرر نرساندن بخشی از اخلاق است اما کافی نیست فردی اخلاقی است که هم آزار نمی رساند و هم از نیکی و خیررسانی دریغ نمی‌کند.
  
  
  پیتر سینگر نویسنده این کتاب دیدگاه فلسفی فایده‌گرایی دارد و جنبش دیگر دوستی موثر نیز بیشتر بر پایه‌ی همین دیدگاه اخلاقی است. فردی
  که دیگر دوست موثر است تفاوت بارزی با بخشندگان پرشور احساساتی و غیرسنجش‌گر دارند زیرا چنین افرادی چندان علاقه‌ای ندارند که بدانند کار خیری که انجام می‌دهند آیا واقعا سبب خیر می‌شود؟
  دیگر دوستان موثر به جای تکیه بر احساساتشان امور اخلاقی را به دست عقل می‌سپارند.
  برای دیگردوستان موثر جهانی مطلوب است رنج کمتر و شادکامی بیشتری داشته باشد.
  دیگر دوستان موثر ساده زندگی می‌کنند و بخش بزرگی از درآمدشان را به موثرترین خیریه‌ها اهدا می‌کنند. حرفه‌ای را برمی‌گزینند که بیشترین درآمد را دارد برای رساندن بیشترین خیر ممکن. ایده دیگر دوستی موثر را نشر می‌دهند و بخشی از بدنشان را به غریبه‌ها اهدا می‌کنند.
  -------
  حقیقتا این کتاب همان طور که توی عنوان کاملش بیان شده فهم آدم را را زندگی اخلاقی تغییر می‌دهد هر وقت که می‌خواهی مبلغی برای خودت خرج کنی یا هر وقت که می‌خواهی مبلغی را برای کار خیر اهدا کنی یاد این کتاب با مثال‌های فوق‌العاده‌اش از دیگردوستان موثر و استدلال‌هایش میفتی و سعی می‌کنی سنجیده‌تر و موثرتر عمل کنی.
  اما مشکل اساسی که با این کتاب داشتم بیشتر تمرکز روی عمل اخلاقی بود تا روان فرد کمک کننده البته نمی‌توان خیلی خرده گرفت چون که کتاب دیدگاه اخلاقی فایده‌گرایی دارد با این حال اگر طرفدار این دیدگاه هم نباشیم کتاب خیلی خوبی است.
• 
  Filippo Pacifici

  While in agreement with most of the ideas I did not fully enjoy this book.
  I had read "The life you can save" still by Peter Singer just months before and I find most of this book covers the same topics and does not evolve the position much. Even some examples are the same presented in "the life you can save" which I enjoyed a lot more.
  Even when the book goes into the philosophical points in favor of effective altruism, the same points look more convincing in the previous books, since there, Peter Singer was always addressing counter arguments in a much deeper way. This does not happen in this book unfortunately.
  I am specifically disappointed by the last part which is supposed to provide a guide in choosing causes and organization and fails in addressing some important areas that are in general not covered by the charities mentioned, like "what is the most effective way to cope with sudden humanitarian crises".
  
  
• 
  ash | spaceyreads

  I was pretty convinced of this book even before I cracked it open, because I've had an interesting conversation with someone working in the Singapore chapter, and I personally, also feel that we can make better decisions when it comes to altruism and charity. Giving a couple dollars to fundraisers on the streets - young volunteers rattling tin cans with their cause printed on it for 4 hour shifts is a common sight in Singapore - seems like too little money for the amount of resources mobilized. Online campaigns are more efficient but they operate the same way - advertisements and personal stories appealing to someone's sense of pity, guilt, or other emotions. So I was ready to learn how to distinguish between ineffective and effective causes as well as the most effective way to give back.
  
  After reading this book though I am actually less convinced of effective altruism as a philosophy. Singer jumps right in to explain how to be an effective altruist without clarifying what effective altruism is. The few basic tenets of effective altruism seem to be dedicating your life to maximising as much resources - monetary, other resources, your own intelligence - as possible throughout your life, then giving away as much as you could to the right causes and the most effective organisations or systems working for that cause.
  
  Effective altruism prioritises causes that maximises the most good one can do, namely global poverty alleviation, animal welfare, and other future, massive global risks such as climate change, natural disasters, and hostile AI. This list is consistent with its philosophy. Effective altruists do not believe that some lives are intrinsically more valuable than others. They also work on the tenet that saving a life and maximising its quality of life is what we should aim for. Therefore issues such as poverty and animal welfare would naturally be the first causes you think of.
  
  I am wondering where the emphasis is on the phrase 'the most good you can do'. It sounds like 'the most good you can do', referring to a matter of counting the quantity of lives saved and quantity of the improvements to these lives that you, or rather, an effective altruist would rack up. But a few things here. First - these lives will go on to live in the same unchanged exploitative system that made them poor in the first place. Second - this system of quantitative giving assumes that everyone with resources to spare (ie. first world citizens) will quickly (or ever) warm up to the idea of effective altruism, thus maximising the rate at which there is effective giving in the world. I know the basic tenets of a movement doesn't change just because there are people who won't subscribe to it, but shouldn't a practical philosophy take into account utilising the variety of giving habits that people would quickly warm up to? Does effective altruism then really maximises the world's charity instead of a small group of sympathisers?
  
  I am keen to know the answers to my questions above. I feel that it would benefit if Singer took some time to talk about the origin and history of effective altruism, its philosophy, and clarify some common questions or misgivings that he would surely have heard in the long time he was doing this work. Instead the book focused a lot of examples of how effective altruists managed to earn lots of money and give it away. Then again, to be effective, the movement really just need to appeal to a group of people who are driven, smart, willing to sacrifice their mental and physical health to work in fast-paced and cutthroat finance and business jobs, and in a position where they can give away money.
  
  Or work in places where you can influence the growth of effective altruism, such as in charities, but only if you are in a huge position of influence that will outshine the benefit of your dollar. Which is fair, but again, it makes me wonder about the people in 'lesser' positions in the charity (such as myself, heh). According to effective altruism, should they quit to work in better paying jobs and give their money away then? The movement's answer would be something like maximise the use of a select amount of human resources in this charity, then yes, everyone else not contributing effectively should do that. Again this brings me to my question above. How can I help given my current position in life? I will not be able to bring myself to work in environments I know would stress me out and reduce my quality of life, possibly leading to underperformance and dropping out of the industry anyway.
  
  The book does however list good ways to determine which
  charities are effective and which utilises your dollar well, of course within the list of causes proiritised by the movement. And it is a good shift of mindset away from giving based on emotion and moving towards giving effectively. I guess what I'll be doing next is to do more research into the movement and then making my decision on where I can give more.
• 
  Mahsa

  در دومین دوره مقدماتی آشنایی با دگردوستی موثر با این کتاب آشنا شدم که باعث شد به پیتر سینگر و مفهموم دگردوستی موثر علاقمند بشم.
  بحث اصلی کتاب راجع به این است که در سطح خودمون بیشترین خیر ممکن رو به دیگران برسانیم، چه این دیگران همنوع خودمان باشند و چه غیر همنوع.
  جذابیت کتاب این است که به صورت کاملا منطقی و با محاسبات ریاضی و استدلال توان ما برای کمک حداکثری و رساندن بییشترین خیر را بیان می‌کند.
  کتاب به صورت جامعی حوزه‌های مختلفی را بررسی می‌کند و سبب می‌شود که در زندگی خودمان دنبال مصداق‌هایی برای رساندن خیر حداکثری باشیم.
  شرکت در این دوره و آشنایی با پیتر سینگر تجربه ارزشمندی برای من بود.
• 
  Katie

  I found this such a miserable, difficult book to relate to.
  
  Peter Singer's argument - that we should maximise the amount of good we can do through our charity ("effective altruism") - is an aspiration he teaches us how to achieve through lifestyle choices and consciously donating to charities who offer the most value. In my opinion, by doing so he creates a radical manifesto for living an undoubtedly ethical (but not a good) life.
  
  For example: The chances of dying from a kidney transplant are 1/4000. Therefore, by not donating your kidney to another, you value your life 4000 times more than you do theirs. Singer argues that this is illogical, and that we should therefore donate a kidney. Similarly, he argues that instead of working at a charity, you do more good by working at a bank, earning a million dollars, and donating 50% of your wages (if you do not work at the charity another will, but if you do not work at the bank it is unlikely another will take your place donate so much from it).
  
  Ultimately, humans are not that logical, or that selfless. I certainly am not.
  
  The real stinger comes in the 13th chapter, Reducing Animal Suffering and Protecting Nature, in which he says that he does not believe that nature holds intrinsic value because, to him, intrinsic value "is to be found only in conscious experiences". Singer also dispassionately states that some effective altruists "even see nature negatively because of the immense amount of suffering wild animals experience and look forward to a future in which it may be possible to do something to reduce that suffering."
  
  Sorry effective altruists, you lost me.
• 
  Mai Anh

  Chủ đề: từ thiện
  Một lần tình cờ đọc 1 bài viết trên mạng có phỏng vấn tác giả của cuốn "Bức xúc không làm ta vô can" thì thấy bác Giang có giới thiệu cuốn sách này, về chủ đề từ thiện, cụ thể hơn là làm tự thiện có hiệu quả.
  Đây cũng là một chủ đề mới mà mình khá quan tâm trong khi kiếm sách thì ko biết cuốn nào cả.
  Sách thay đổi cách nhìn của mình về việc làm từ thiện: nó ko chỉ đơn giản là việc bạn bỏ tiền túi mình ra giúp đỡ người khác, mà bạn cũng có thể chọn nó là nghề nghiệp của mình. Cuốn sách cũng nói về việc tại sao con người ta lại làm từ thiện, và làm như thế nào để làm nó một cách hiệu quả (dựa vào việc tính toán chứ không đơn thuần là việc bạn có tâm đến đâu và bạn sẵn sàng chi bao nhiêu tiền). Hoặc đứng trước nhiều sự lựa chọn cứu giúp những người khác khỏi sự nghèo đói, cái chết, bệnh tật thì cái nào sẽ là cái tốt nhất....
  Cuốn sách có ích cho những cá nhân cũng như tổ chức muốn tìm hiểu về việc làm từ thiện.
  Tuy vậy, khúc cuối có nói hơi chung chung và rộng, nên đọc hơi đuối đoạn này.
  Sách viết ngắn, dễ hiểu, mong sớm được dịch qua Tiếng Việt.
• 
  Ian McHugh

  Wow this book made me think. My conclusion is that I'm a convert. Singer sets out in academic and accessible language the utilitarian arguments for "effective altruism". Convincing I so many ways and thought provoking in the same vein as his 'Justice' course. Incredibly useful for argumentation on rational arguments for altruism - as opposed to the traditional emotional views - this is well researched, clear, and concise. Referencing was very useful in following up on how a reader like me may proceed.
  Still don't think there is enough value placed on the intrinsic value of art and culture, but this was/is my only criticism of Singer.
  Read this if you wish to "do good".
• 
  Venky

  Over the past three decades, Peter Singer has been continuously jolting us out of our reverie by goading us to think about some of the most pressing issues plaguing humanity. He takes this entrenched habit of his a notch higher with his new book "The Most Good You Can Do". Deliberately provocative and dilemma inducing, this book provides a rousing flavor of what it means to lead a life characterized by 'effective altruism'.
  
  Himself, one of the founding fathers of this moralistic concept, Singer dwells on how best a life can be led in the service of other sentient beings, the beings here encompassing both human as well as non-human life. Singer takes great pains to enunciate the fact that effective altruism goes way beyond the customary donation to a random charitable organization that espouses the furtherance of a genuine cause. An effective altruist is one who reasons in favour of the maximum good being done to most persons who are in need of such generosity as opposed to enriching the physical and spiritual prospects of just one individual who is also equally in need of such magnanimity.
  
  But the moral compass which Singer deems a pre requisite for being an effective altruist is not something that people would view as not just being controversial but also as something that is enveloped in a cloak of serious subjectivity. For eg. Is spending $10,000 on an initiative to eradicate the ill effects of malaria in a poor and developing nation a more worthy and noble cause than donating the same amount to Make a Wish Foundation to enable the Foundation to fulfill a wish of a 10 year old afflicted with leukemia? Or is the act of voluntarily donating a kidney much more weightier in substance than making an annual donation to an organisation that has as its motive reducing the prevalence of starvation across a particular Geography? The book also cites a plethora of examples of 'effective altruists' who have taken a pledge to donate a significant and substantial portion of their income/earnings (some as high as 80%) to altruistic purposes and choosing to lead an austere life. To be scathingly honest some of the illustrations read more like a spurring propaganda for evangelism rather than an exhortation to make lives more meaningful. Bombarding a potential donor with a barrage of examples where people have sacrificed a life of luxury to live in piety, with a view to attracting a material contribution, might in fact have an exactly opposite and counter intuitive effect. The potential donor might be put off with what she thinks to be an extremely exacting challenge which is totally disproportionate to the objective proposed to be achieved.
  
  The book also contains the usual Singer offerings of Animal Welfare and charities devoting their time effort and energy towards the prevention of cruelty to animals. Singer also provides details about organisations such as Give Well which evaluate the work and worth of charities with a view to assisting aspiring donors in making a prudent and wise choice as to the charities to which they can donate their resources.
  
  To conclude, "The Most Good You can Do" is a lukewarm mish mash that leaves one wondering whether the book is a clarion call for evangelical activism or a plenitude of genuinely noble motives for making the world a better place to live.
• 
  Amir Sahbaee

  توی یکی از بدترین دوره های حس و حالم خوندم.چقد طول کشید واسم
  --
  خب کتاب یک جنبش رو معرفی می‌کنه به اسم "دیگردوستی موثر".به طور خلاصه تاریخچه ی این جنبش و بعد توصیه هاش رو همراه با مبانیش معرفی می‌کنه
  دیگر دوستی موثر جنبشیه که انسان هارو به کمک کردن تشویق می‌کنه و سعی داره جهان رو جای بهتری بکنه
  دوتا مقدمه ی خیلی خوب هم از جلایی پور و ملکیان داره کتاب که واقعا ارزشمنده
  
  به صورت کلی کتاب واقعا ارزشمنده.بیشتر بخاطر اینکه سینگر فیلسوف اخلاقه،در بیشتر کتاب استدلال های اخلاقی می‌بینیم برای کمک کردن به دیگران.این استدلال ها کمک می‌کنه که توصیه به کمک کردن صرفا یه پند و اندرز نباشه.هم قابل پذیرش باشه هم قابل تبلیغ کردن پیش بقیه
  
  مثلا این سوال معروف که اگر شما یک لباس خیلی گرون(مثلا ۱۰۰ میلیون تومنی) تنتون باشه و ببینید که یک کودک داره غرق میشه و برای نجاتش لباستون حتما خراب خواهد شد،آیا برای نجاتش توی آب می‌پرید یا نه؟
  اگه پاسختون مثبته(و استدلال می‌شه که باید پاسخ مثبت باشه) چرا ۱۰۰ میلیون تومن رو همین الان بجای خرید لباس به خیریه هایی کمک نمی‌کنید که مستقیما جان کودکان رو در کشورهای فقیر درحال توسعه نجات می‌دن؟
  
  این مثال ها و بحث های کلی کتاب باعث میشه که آدم عمیق تر و دقیق تر به زندگی خودش نگاه کنه و متوجه انتخاب هاش و تاثیراتش باشه
  
  منم مثل یکی از نویسندگان مقدمه،خیلی گرایشی به اخلاق فایده‌گرایانه ندارم اما دقیقا مثل ایشون فکر میکنم که میشه فایده گرا نبود اما با این جنبش همراه شد.
  بخصوص که وقتی سینگر تو فصل آخر ابراز امیدواری میکنه که تعداد زیادی(شاید همه ی ) انسان ها دیگر دوست موثر بشن،پس چرا وظیفه گرایی رو هم برای همه نخوایم؟
  
  یه نقد دیگه ای که به محتوای کتاب دارم هم اینه که خیلی مادی به قضیه نگاه کرده بود.من در فایده گرایی پذیرفتم که نجات جون ۱۰۰نفر بهتر از ۱۰ نفره،.اما چرا کمک ها اساسا مادی بودن.حتی اهدای خون و کلیه هم مثال های مادی بودن.چیزهایی مثل کار داوطلبانه انگار خیلی جایی تو ذهن سینگر نداشت.منم موافقم و آمار هم میگه که روزانه چندین هزارنفر بخاطر مسائل مربوط به غذا و واکسن و بیماری از بین میرن و قطعا ریشه ی مالی دارن.اما ترویج یک سبک زندگی که شاید بخشیش اگاهی بخشی و کار داوطلبانه و غیره ست هم روی جهان تاثیر میذاره که جاش خیلی تو کتاب خالی بود
  
  نکته ی آخر هم اینکه سینگر هرچند به سختی انتخاب کمک اشاره کرده بود،اما بازم همه ی جوانب رو ندیده بود و محاسبات ریاضیش یه جاهایی منطقی نبود
  مثلا توی ایران اعدام و قصاص چیز شایعیه.شاید جمع کردن ۳۰۰ میلیون واسه جلوگیری از قصاص توی محاسبات ریاضی از کمک کردن برای غذا و آب آشامیدنی و واکسن پایین تر باشه.اما میتونه زمینه ساز تغییر قوانین و مطالبه ی عمومی باشه برای زندگی بهتر.
  
  روی هم رفته با نقدهایی که به بخش هایی از کتاب دارم به نظرم کتاب خیلی خیلی خوبیه هم برای خوندن هم برای هدیه دادن و ترویج.اینجوری میشه نظرات کتاب رو پخته تر هم کرد
  
  ترجمه ی کتاب هم واقعا خوب بود و کلمات تخصصی رو هم پاورقی نوشته بود
  
  در آخر ابراز تاسف کنم از ۱۱۹ روز بازداشت انفرادی شارمین میمندی نژاد که ۲۱سال وقت برای ترویج عشق و دگردوستی در ایران کرد و این همه آدم رو با این مفاهیم آشنا کرد.خیلی از جاهای کتاب یادش میفتادم و تاسف میخوردم.به امید آزادیش
• 
  Lisa

  I love reading Peter Singer’s books; he inspires me to be a better person.
  
  The Most Good You Can Do is about the concept of ‘effective altruism’; basically it’s about interrogating your own philanthropic choices to ascertain whether it’s money, time or other forms of altruism well spent.
  
  All of us are influenced to some extent by emotion when we give. There’s some rather dismaying research that shows that we are more likely to give to one child with a photo and a name than we are to photos of more than one child in need even when we know that we could save more lives for the same amount of money. We respond to cute and lovable, or tragic and sad, and we respond to personal appeals from someone we know. Too many of us give small amounts to lots of charities even though the cost of administering these small amounts often outweighs the donation. This is why charities pursue us for regular monthly deductions from our credit cards, because it’s the most cost-effective way of collecting the money and it’s money they can count on.
  
  From this book I learned that there are organisations such as Charity Navigator in the US and Give Well that exist to evaluate the effectiveness of the charity dollars we donate. But it’s not as simple as it looks: a charity with lower administrative costs may not be using some of its money to monitor due diligence or the effectiveness of what it does. There must be effective checks to ensure that the money is being spent properly, but research into effectiveness needs to take into account that some programs are long-term and others are short-term. Provision of clean water to schools (my favourite Oxfam Christmas gift) has an immediate impact on health outcomes (and school attendance) but adult literacy programs may take longer to take achieve results and the effects on community health or the local economy may be indirect and harder to trace.
  
  To read the rest of my review please visit
  http://anzlitlovers.com/2015/03/23/th...
• 
  Text Publishing

  ‘Peter Singer’s status as a man of principles and towering intellect—a philosopher extraordinaire, if you will—is unrivalled in Australia.’
  Sydney Morning Herald
  
  ‘Peter Singer is a public intellectual par excellence.’
  Monthly
  
  ‘Peter Singer may be the most controversial philosopher alive; he is certainly among the most influential.’
  New Yorker
  
  ‘Forty years on from Animal Liberation, Peter Singer is still challenging our complacency with his advocacy for new ideas and movements…In clear prose, Singer weaves effective altruism into a timely and convincing ideology.’
  Books+Publishing
  
  ‘Singer makes a strong case for a simple idea—that each of us has a tremendous opportunity to help others with our abilities, time and money. The Most Good You Can Do is an optimistic and compelling look at the positive impact that giving can have on the world.’
  Bill and Melinda Gates
  
  ‘The Most Good You Can Do is an important book. Reading it may change your life and save someone else’s.’
  Australian Book Review
• 
  Bob

  Summary: Singer’s argument for living a life of effective altruism, using evidence and reason to make the most effective decisions to improve the world.
  
  The holidays are often spoken of as the giving season. Indeed, charities make a flurry of appeals during this season, capitalizing both on the holiday spirit, and for most people, the end of the tax year. Peter Singer would contend for a much more thoughtful approach to a lifestyle of giving, deliberate rather than episodic. He speaks of this approach as effective altruism, which he defines as “a philosophy or social movement which applies evidence and reason to work out the most effective ways to improve the world.” For many, far from sacrifice, this life of giving brings deep fulfillment and satisfaction.
  
  It involves some or all of the following:
  
  1. Adopting a modest lifestyle enabling one to donate a large part of one’s income, even more than a tenth.
  2. Researching the most effective charities working in the most critical fields toward which one directs one’s giving.
  3. Making career choices that allow one to earn as much as they can so they can give as much as they can, rather than living affluently.
  4. Spreading the gospel of effective altruism to others so the movement will spread.
  5. Consider donations of part of one’s own body to help others–blood, bone marrow, and a kidney.
  
  This life is hedged about by commitments to justice, freedom, equality, and knowledge. Furthermore, it avoids the violation of human rights as a means to some proposed good end.
  
  Singer elaborates these choices of doing the most good one can and defends the one of the most attacked proposals of taking high paying jobs to give more by, among others, citing John Wesley who said, “earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can.” He then turns to our motivations and justifications for giving. He argues that love is not all of what we need. Using reason rather than just responding for emotional appeals allows us to have the greatest impact in our giving and other life decisions.
  
  The last part of his book talks about choosing causes. He introduces organizations that study charitable effectiveness. He argues that many of the things to which we donate, such as cultural and arts organizations do not make “the cut” when we consider the dire needs of people in many parts of the world, people who are often “them” rather than “us.” Here, as elsewhere, Singer includes animal suffering in his argument and contends that supporting efforts to reduce animal suffering at factory farms, including making changes in our diets are part of the movement of effective altruism.
  
  One of the most fascinating implications of this way of thinking is that he believes that, on a rationale basis, there are good reasons to spend money to prevent the possibility of mass extinction events, like an asteroid collision.
  
  It is fascinating, as a Christian, to read Singer’s argument. If the examples he cites are true, there are many individuals who do not share Christian beliefs (and one he mentions who does) who are both more intentional and generous in their giving than most Christians, many of whom do not even give a tithe, or tenth of their income, considered traditionally to be a baseline of giving (one study, commissioned by Christianity Today, indicates that the average is more like 2.5 percent). Furthermore, the intentionality toward making one’s gifts count stands as a challenge to our appeals grounded in evoking sympathetic emotions. Likewise, the rigor of evaluating the effectiveness of what people are being asked to give to is worth attention.
  
  My most significant reservation would have to do with the tight focus on only supporting efforts that alleviate poverty or human or animal suffering. I would affirm his arguments that on the basis of reason and impact alone, these deserve far more attention than they receive. But I am reminded of Mary’s extravagant anointing of Jesus with expensive perfume before his death. I’ve always argued that Mary would likely be the last person to be indifferent to the poor. Might extravagant givers be able to both walk and chew gum, to generously support both the arts, for example, and efforts to alleviate poverty and suffering? Might a community of such givers, bringing tp bear the careful assessments Singer encourages, have far more impact than similar donors in the past, both in the arts and with human poverty and suffering. Theoretically, this would still seem to provide less to efforts to alleviate suffering and poverty. But actually? I wonder if this would be the story. Is this a zero sum game?
  
  Still, the lifestyle Singer describes stands as a challenge to many of us, Christian or not, in the affluent West. For Christians, the challenge is if anything greater. Singer asks us where our treasure is, and how that shapes what we do with our lives. He challenges our consumerism, proposing the greater fulfillment of living modestly and giving extravagantly, though intelligently. For those of us who proclaim pro-life commitments, he challenges how far we will go to pursue a consistently pro-life ethic. Will we give blood, or even a kidney to save the life of someone we don’t know? Will we change our diet if it means fewer creatures suffering in factory farms?
  
  Singer is known for asking uncomfortable questions and for provocative stances. He does not accept the sanctity of all life and has come under criticism for arguing for the choice of euthanizing disabled infants and has argued for newborns not having the same qualities of personhood as adults, differentiating the significance of killing a newborn or fetus from killing an adult. Similarly, there are aspects of his argument foe effective altruism one might disagree with. Whether we concur with his arguments, we must admire him and those like him who live consistently with those arguments and ask whether we are doing as well living by the principles and beliefs we embrace.
• 
  Peter Soboyejo

  The book in itself covers what it means to be an altruism in this day and age especially in the perspective of others that follow this practice. Initially my idea of "effective altruism" was fairly vague but Peter Singer addresses many things from common real world problems to everyday living. A lot of the points addressed in the book mostly revolving around money and how spend it were some fairly valid points, although I don't agree (or I wouldn't) do most of what people do to sacrifice to give themselves an image of an altruist, Singer brings good points about the practice and how you don't need to be a strongly effective altruist at all to contribute to society. I've gotten a lot of great points out of this book, I wish it didn't really focus as much on economics and poverty but mixed it more with social interactions and other components that apply to altruism. Overall I enjoyed the read.
• 
  Nima

  من از ایده‌ی کتاب ( اونطور که من متوجه شدم ساده زیستی برای کمک بیشتر به دیگران به شکلی که اون کمک بیشترین فایده رو بتونه برسونه) خوشم اومد و در کل کتاب باعث شد کمک به دیگران رو بیشتر مد نظرم بگیرم. اما احساس میکردم به جای کتاب دارم از یه وبسایت بازدید می‌کنم. حتی میتونم بگم بیشتر مطالب کتاب اصلا به درد کسانی که تو ایران هستند نمی‌خورد چون معرفی یه سری خیریه بود که از داخل ایران نمیشه بهشون دسترسی داشت. به نظرم کتاب هم اصلا ربطی به عنوان بلندی که روی جلد هست نداشت و این پرسش رو جواب نمی‌داد. یه نکته‌ای که از این کتاب یاد گرفتم و خیلی برام ارزشمند بود این بود که اینکه ما به دیگران آسیبی نرسونیم کافی نیست. اگه بتونیم خیری برسونیم و این کار رو انجام ندیم ما آدم اخلاقی‌ای نیستیم.