| Title | : | Famine, Affluence, and Morality |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 019021922X |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780190219222 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Kindle Edition |
| Number of Pages | : | 118 |
| Publication | : | First published March 1, 1972 |
Famine, Affluence, and Morality Reviews
-
This is a reprint of an essay, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," that Peter Singer wrote 40 years ago. As Bill and Melinda Gates write in the new Forward, maybe "it's time has now come." I remember reading it as a student some twenty years ago and I'm even more persuaded by it today than then. Singer's claim is as simple as it is profound: "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it." Or, as Thucydides wrote over 2,000 years ago, "there will be justice when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are."
Since the original publication of Singer's essay public sentiment against those suffering from poverty and refugees has been hardened by politicians who vilify the poor and religious leaders who favor citing the epistle admonishing that those who do not work should not eat. In addition to rational philosophy, Singer cites the Church Fathers who wrote: "The bread which you withhold belongs to the hungry; the clothing you shut away, to the naked; and the money you bury in the earth is the redemption and freedom of the penniless" (Decretum Gratiani). Interestingly, three of the four most generous philanthropists, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Andrew Carnegie were freethinkers (agnostic or atheists) who gave for humanitarian instead of religious reasons. Buffet, unlike the self-proclaimed Christian WalMart patriarch, wrote that he believes in leaving his children enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.
I recommend this book to educators. It is a necessary antidote to the gospel of selfishness and greed that is so pervasive and infectious in our contemporary zeitgeist. -
I liked this book more than I expected to! Admittedly, the introductions are nearly as long as the original essay and updated article, but the whole thing is worth a read. The author argues that, from a purely moral standpoint, it is wrong NOT to reduce ourselves to near the poverty line and give all our excess in order to reduce the suffering of others, no matter how far away they are. The original, from 1972, was prompted by a refugee crisis in India, but the message is still timely, as such problems have not been generally solved.
-
Includes Singer's classic 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" as well as two related 2006 articles in The New York Times Sunday Magazine: "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" and "What Should a Billionaire Give—And What Should You?", both aimed at a more general (nonacademic) U.S. audience with the rather explicit intention of increasing donations to charitable organizations involved in foreign aid.
-
I feel like this helps develop an incredibly shallow perspective on providing aid.
It seems to center around offloading effort onto others rather than analyzing how one can more directly contribute to aid, or how structures that lead to extraordinary affluence tend to create the very conditions that charities are meant to alleviate.
It feels like effective altruism can't be particularly effective if it never grapples with conditions that generate disparity. -
We live in a time where, thanks to the persistence of agricultural scientists, we can sustain the planet without famine. We should live in a time where we make the moral choice to stop man-made famine. And, as it is often repeated, famine is now entirely induced.
In this book, philosopher Peter Singer goes further than that though. He takes a more extreme position: "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it". This sounds like a natural position on famine, but here's where Singer goes further. First, he emphasizes repeatedly in the book that we should be allocating no special treatment-- we should be equally indifferent, or indiscriminate, about the object of our help, whether it's someone locally homeless in our neighborhood or someone experiencing famine abroad. Second, his other emphasis is that this help is a duty, not a choice of aid or generosity. His example is of a guy who is retiring who could buy a long-awaited and saved-for Lexus, or who must donate that fund of amount to people experiencing famine. Singer says that the guy's moral obligation is to give his funds to the people experiencing famine.
Here's some initial observations I had, from reading this book.
1) If we are indifferent or indiscriminate about helping someone local or abroad, it also follows from his example that we are indifferent or indiscrimate about helping someone who's family, or who's a stranger abroad. From my understanding of Singer's currency, a human in need is equivalent to another human in need. For example, let's say you have a family member in dire need of a kidney, and there's someone abroad, whose name and face you will never know, who's also in dire need of a kidney. You have a kidney you can give away without any moral harm to anyone. Let's say this is the kind of kidney only you can giveFollowing Singer, your moral obligation is to do a coin toss of who the recipient of your kidney may be, and let the other person die-- even if it's your family member. After all, you cannot give preferential treatment. Now this may be a moral duty but realistically speaking I'd be hard-pressed to think of people who will do this.
2) His moral rule, and his desired conclusion (end of famine) may not be aligned. In such a case, following his rule could be increasing the problem of famine and thus causing moral harm. Here's one example (which I admit is unlikely). Let's say aid that's willingly given and sponsored is still a small amount-- $100 million. It's also known and empirically shown, in cases of both capitalist and communist states, that people will work less past a certain point if they don't see that the gains accumulate to their individual benefit. In capitalism, there is the Laffer curve which shows that if people are taxed beyond a certain amount, they'd rather not work as much or gain as much income. We can imagine Singer's moral obligation as a form of tax-- it's a stiff tax firstly because it rules out all luxuries and joys from a new Lexus (a mid-car) and above, and it's a stiff tax secondly, because unlike taxes that shower benefits to the same person in the form of collective societal services, this moral tax goes towards completely other people. Then maybe in capitalist states, people opt out and work so much more less if they're no longer getting midlevel returns such as Lexus cars, that the total amount gathered from this tax is less than what's willingly given in charity. Then in that (unlikely) case, famine is solved less when following Singer's moral rule.
The other case is in communist countries which we've already seen-- individual willingness to take on communal burdens is also low. There's the infamous case of toilets that don't work, because no one wants to have to do that when there's no individual reward.
3. It could be a (temporary) hindrance to developing countries. Let's say I come from a developing country, that has modernized and earned gains from globalization that uplifts millions in my country from poverty. I finally belong to a generation that can enjoy luxuries, such as buy a Lexus, travel on planes abroad, eat meat several times a day. However, there is a moral rule that places a global embargo on such a stage of development-- Singer's moral rule requires that human need, reasonably, trumps such symbols of affluence. If a country is in famine, I must postpone all such purchases until that country's people is out of need.
Ok, now I write that out, it's actually a fair exchange of saving lives. However, I can imagine that to some countries this is unacceptable, that they should stay in stage of (relative) poverty and development for a different country's benefit. In which case, in reality, Singer's rule won't be generalized: the obligation to help people out of famine becomes the special obligation of a few rather than a universal moral rule for all.
4. It fails to address directly the cause of famine, and may cause adverse side effects. I'm referring here to the same criticisms of sending aid to countries, and thus, as is now widely known, actually sinking them. In the same way that countries awash with aid have their own local industries torpedoed, a foreign-directed manner of ending famine by chucking money lifted from their own country and transferred to the country in need, may not be well thought of. For one, the money might not be used on local foods and goods. For another, maybe the existence of such a moral rule-- and the widespread knowledge of its existence-- incites more risk-taking, rule-breaking behavior from dictators in power, externalizes their own need to serve their citizens and be answerable for their food availability, and thus creates conditions where they are more permanentlly entrenched, and thus the conditions for famine are more permanently entrenched and enabled.
Hmm, these aren't necessarily my objections to Singer's book on an initial reading, just some thought about the pitfalls of his proposal, and I'm sure more could be thought of. I don't possess sophisticated thinking on this and Singer has probably addressed or toppled them. It's a well-intentioned book that, even if it represents a hard ideal that might be fantastic to imagine to implement, certainly drives the societal discourse on collective global responsibility on famine leftward. -
Such a quick read disproportional to its undeniable impact. If this book doesn't stir up some thought regarding the way you live your life, not much will.
-
This essay sets forth a simple, challenging idea; concisely addresses some major objections; and leaves it at that. The blurb describes it as 'widely discussed' — I think I would enjoy the discussions more than I enjoyed the essay, but I'm still glad I read it.
The conclusion remains: we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance. This conclusion is one which we may be reluctant to face. I cannot see, though, why it should be regarded as a criticism of the position for which I have argued, rather than a criticism of our ordinary standards of behavior. -
Peter Singer lesen während man im Flugzeug in den Urlaub sitzt ist vielleicht ein bisschen hart. Aber manchmal muss ich das zum Aufrütteln meiner Selbst tun. Es ist schwer sich selbst einzugestehen, dass man nicht so handelt, wie man es als moralisch richtig empfindet und mit diesem Eingeständnis ist natürlich auch nur der erste kleine Schritt getan. Aber der ist wichtig, damit ich mein Leben altruistischer gestalten kann. Ein kurzes Buch, das nur aus drei seiner Essays besteht, die philosophisch stellenweise schwammig sind, dafür sehr gut zu verstehen und sehr überzeugend ist.
-
A short read that is a much more convincing argument for donation and is, so far, the only paper I've read in my philosophy studies that has made an impact on how I act. Singer's case that giving is a moral obligation is perhaps the strongest argument in philosophy for any given position, and something that I believe more people need to read.
-
Це видання включає той самий есей Сінгера, його ж коментарі та якісь дотичні статті, написані вже після, але в принципі все на ту ж тему.
Загалом мені подобається головна теза цієї книги. Теза ця контроверсійна і досить радикальна, але дає привід (вкотре) подумати про те, як ми живемо і яке суспільство ми, як людство, побудували.
Звісно ж ідея повністю відмовитись від усього і віддавати майже усі свої гроші на благод��йність навряд є реалістичною для сучасного людства, ба більш - в мене є економічний контраргумент, бо в такому разі капіталістичне суспільство не зможе існувати. Але я погоджуюсь ��к мінімум в тому, що брати участь у донаціях та благодійності - хоча б на якийсь відсоток від свого заробітку - це наш моральний обов'язок. В контексті сучасної України цей есей звівся б до донатів на ЗСУ, які теж частина українців бачить як щось необов'язкове. На жаль. -
Singerian
1. Suffering is bad, a lot of suffering is really really bad
2. If you can stop something really really bad from happening, then you should do it, unless if by doing so something really really bad would happen to you
3. Your shoes are not as important as starving children
4. Give money
“ But Mr.Singer Sr., what about...”
... the fact that there are a lot of people in a very similar situation to me that do f**k all?
!! Not important son, that’s morally irrelevant, it also helps you to know that you should definitely be giving much more than you currently are
...geographical distance? I’ll help this dude in the other side of the globe, how will he pay me back and my community? Sure he might me a nice bloke and want to FedEx some baking goods for my lulu lemon sponsored yoga fundraising , but surely it would’ve gone bad by the time it arrives?
!! Global village my friend, you know since how our actions here are able to affect those dudes really really really far away we are all kind of part of this big tribe. Also, it’s kind of shitty that you can have really easy access to images of this fuckers starving and all and just ignore it
...hmmm, population control though? Seems weird that if I save a few they will procreate like freaking rabbits and I would basically be scooping water out from the titanic with a ladle?
!! No need for exasperation, or common place fanciful metaphors. Contribute to charities which tackle that cause, or better yet, just do both.
...god damm!! Ok, but what exactly do you mean by morally relevant? Where do I draw the line? Pumpkin spice late, or gym membership?
!! I like the utilitarian framework, but the argument should give you enough leeway to define that according to your own ethical believes. Just keep in mind... the more the better. And when it comes to famine and death, maybe take it as a rule of thumb that each human’s suffering is as relevant as your own. -
Looks like I need to delete my Farfetch app
-
A compelling argument for affluent and relatively affluent people to spend more on providing life-saving aid to people in drastically impoverished regions of the world. Compelling but I don't think airtight, which in some ways is irrelevant to Singer's greater point, but does come into play when those will the ability to help must determine how to quantify "reasonable" and "rational." The weakness in Singer's argument (which I won't rehearse here) is that the difference between the toddler in front of you drowning and the toddler 10,000 miles away starving (both of which can be prevented by a single action from you) is that the drowning child is a one-off, whereas starvation is a constant. For instance, if the pond you walked by daily had a toddler (near) drown in it every day, you would recognize that the problem was system: merely saving one child every day is good, yes, but preventing the problem, eliminating the causes that give rise to the problem of children (near) drowning every day is far better. So by focusing on the immediate cessation of an event rather than on the causes giving rise to the event, Singer does not encourage us to question the larger, more difficult behaviors to change: those imposed by political practices. This means that while we *can* in fact create a world transformed into one in which nobody starves to death--and feel virtuous for doing so!--we will also probably still be a world in which an effort to ensure that nobody ever starves to death will be perpetually needed because the causes giving rise to such disparities between haves and have nots will not have been addressed.
-
Brilliant!
Singer first wrote this book 30 years ago and the contents are very much relevant to this day. I don't think there is a single person that would read this book and not be profoundly touched by it. In fact, in his preface he speaks about the various people who have contacted him after having read it and gone on to change their lives dramatically. This book should really be mandatory reading in every school. Hopefully you will enjoy it as much as I did. -
dont judge the fact that im putting essays on my goodreads i have so little time to read for fun so this is all i have to put here
-
A very important book. This is the second book I have read by Peter Singer, I was mainly introduced to him via his debates on Religion (specifically the one with Oxford Prof. John C. Lennox).
I have written about P. Singer in the past. He has helped put a lot of things for me into perspective and I am extremely grateful for that. As a philosophy student, he has helped me realize, that as I am studying Ethics and proper living, I should be readily prepared to sacrifice material comforts that actually don't matter for the sake of the greater good.
To philosophers, he says the following:
"Discussion, though, is not enough. What is the point of relating philosophy to public (and personal) affairs if we do not take our conclusions seriously. In this circumstance, taking our conclusions seriously is acting upon it . . . The philosopher who does so will have to sacrifice some of the benefits of the consumer society, but he can find compensation in the satisfaction of a way of life in which theory and practice, if not yet in harmony, are at least coming together” (31-2).
It is not a theoretical book at all. He highlights specific charities to donate to:
- Oxfam,
- UNICEF,
- Innovations for Poverty Action
- GiveDirectly
- 80,000 Hours (a metacharity, one that talks about the effectiveness of other charities)
I have highlighted some of his other ideas in this blog post:
https://medium.com/@jakubferencik/let...
If you are interested, I will write about him again. -
'If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.' And of course we should. Singer asks the question of what a human life is worth and discusses the moral code that most who earn an income can save a child's life by donating to charity, instead of spending frivolously on luxuries that one never needs but instead wants. Singer poses a situation of if a child nearby falls into a pond and cannot swim, do you have an obligation to save the child? Whilst the answer is unarguable yes, even if it comes at discomfort to yourself (ruining your clothes) Singer states that we are all actually in this position all of the time, because most of us have the power to save lives through donating to charity. It is only that we are not directly affected and feel that we cannot directly help a situation that we don't. Some good points are made, but of course we all know that we can do more and the relay of essays were very repetitive. I was hoping to learn some new theories on morality but this book did not provide any.
-
This book actually includes three essays, but I most enjoyed and was most challenged by Famine, Affluence, and Morality itself. Singer's arguments over the course of all three essays hold dramatic implications for the way most of us live our lives, especially in terms of how we spend our money. I personally hesitate to praise major philanthropists (especially those who have made their fortunes through large corporations) because I'm not sure how feasible it is to amass such great amounts of wealth without significantly contributing to systems that exploit marginalized populations or damage the environment in ways that are themselves likely to lead to tangible human suffering, but Singer here is focused on how we should spend the money we have (and his praise isn't unqualified to begin with), not on how we should earn it, and his essays are most powerful in my opinion because of the implications they should have for all individuals earning more than enough to meet their basic needs, not just for the extremely wealthy.
-
This momentous essay was written at the height of the refugee crisis caused by indo pak war,1971. Here, Singer argues in favour of donation to help the global poor. He provides two versions of his core argument.
The strong version - we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility- i.e., the level at which, be giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.
The moderate version - we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant.
However, singer thinks that the strong version is the correct one. And me too. -
It's succinct and tough to refute.
I would like a more detailed discussion of how the 'drowing in a lake' analogy could be applied to encourage more charity (e.g. to the AMF which is an extremely efficient way of saving lives) but this was a sound starting point. -
Changed my life, or, focussed the rays.
-
“ต่อไปที่เรากินข้าวข้างนอกเราก็จะได้รู้ว่าเราเอาเงินไปทำอะไรดี ๆ กว่านี้ได้อีกเยอะ ถ้ามันทำให้การใช้ชีวิตอย่างถูกศีลธรรมทรหดเสียเหลือเกิน ชีวิตมันก็อย่างนี้แหละ ถ้าเราไม่ใช้ชีวิตแบบนี้ อย่างน้อยเราก็ควรรู้ไว้ว่าเราล้มเหลวที่จะใช้ชีวิตอย่างถูกศีลธรรม ไม่ใช่เพราะการจมอยู่กับความรู้สึกผิดมันดีอะไรหรอก แต่เพราะอย่างน้อยการได้รู้ว่าต่อไปเราควรมุ่งไปทางไหนคือขั้นสำคัญในการก้าวไปในทิศทางนั้น”
——
ไปเรียนรู้คอนเซปต์ “การทำเพื่อผู้อื่นอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ (Effective Altruism)”
ชวนตั้งคำถามเกี่ยวกับ “ศีลธรรม” “อะไรคือความดี” “อะไรคือสิ่งที่เราควรทำ” “ทำแค่ไหน ทำอะไรดี”
——
หนังสือเป็นงานเขียนแนวปรัชญา เล่าให้ฟังนะว่ามันมีแบบนี้ แล้วก็ชวนเราตั้งคำถาม แน่ละว่าก็ชี้นำไอเดียอยู่บ้าง แต่สุดท้ายแล้วก็เป็นเราเองที่จะหาคำตอบให้คำถามเหล่านั้นนะ
——
ถึงหนังสือจะเล่าถึงสถานการณ์ความอดอยากและการตัดสินใจของคนที่มีกำลังพอจะหยุดยั้งสิ่งนั้นได้
“เราต่างไม่ควรปล่อยให้เกิดความทุกข์ทรมานให้มากที่สุดเท่าที่เราจะทำได้ โดยที่ไม่ต้องเสียสละสิ่งที่มีความสำคัญทางศีลธรรมเทียบเท่ากันไป ให้มากพอในระดับที่ถ้าให้มากกว่านี้เราตะเป็นทุกข์เอง” เป็นข้อสรุปที่เราควรตั้งไว้เป็นแกนไหม
การใช้ทรัพยากรเกินความจำเป็นของปัจเจกหนึ่ง หรือคนที่มี/ครอบครองทรัพยากรเกินความต้องการพื้นฐานควรต้องเปลี่ยนแปลงรึเปล่า หรือว่ามันก็คือเรื่องของเขา
Privilege ต่าง ๆ ที่มี เกิดจากการที่มีใครต้องลำบากอยู่หรือเปล่า? เราต้องทำอะไรชดใช้หน่อยไหม?
——
หนังสือไม่ได้พูดถึง แต่อ่าน ๆ ไปก็ทำให้เราคิดถึงสิ่งที่บางคนอาจจะเรียกมันว่า “การทำการกุศล/บริจาค” ที่ให้เรามองตามไปไกลกว่านั้นเกินกว่าแค่ว่า เออ ก็ช่วยแล้วไง ก็มีคนลำบาก พอมีก็ต้องช่วยเหลือกันไป แต่เราก็ควรจะมองไปให้ไกลกว่านั้นว่าที่ไปช่วยนี่ช่วยใคร ช่วยอะไร ช่วยยังไง แล้วผลลัพธ์ของการช่วยนั้นเป็นยังไง การวัดผลนี่ใช้อะไรวัด เรื่องราวมันไม่ได้มีแค่ว่า อะชั้นทำละชั้นสบายใจ อย่าไปคิดอะไรมากมาย เรื่องมันซับซ้อนกว่านั้นมาก
คือบางทีมันกลายเป็นการทำเพราะมันเป็นเรื่องที่ “ควรทำ” เป็นเรื่องที่คนดี ๆ เขาทำกัน
แล้วก็มีคำถามว่าเราจะช่วยแค่ไหนละ?
อ่านแล้วมีจุดทำให้คิดถึงเรื่อง bystander effect ด้วย ประมาณทุกคนเห็นว่ามึปัญหาอยู่ ร้ายแรงแบบถึงแก่ชีวิตได้ แต่ก็ไม่มีใครทำอะไร … ก็เดี๋ยวคงมีคนมาจัดการปัญหาเองละ ชั้นคงไม่ต้องทำอะไร
ก็เลยกลายเป็นว่าไม่มีใครทำอะไรเลย
จุดโฟกัสจาก “เราจะแก้ปัญหาอย่างไรดี” กลายเป็น “ใครจะเป็นคนแก้ปัญหาดี”
อดทำให้เราไปนึกถึงงาน “จิตอาสา” บางประเภทไม่ได้เลย พวกที่เหมือนว่าเราจะไปช่วยเหลือแก้ปัญหานะ แต่เอาจริงคือบางทีไปสร้างปัญหากว่าเดิมเสียอีก
——
แต่สุดท้ายแล้วการมาแก้ปัญหาที่ปลายเหตุ มานั่งคิดอะไรซับซ้อนแบบข้างบนจะไปแก้ปัญหาอะไรได้นะ
ต้องมีคนเสียสละอีกเท่าไรถึงจะพอ
——
หนังสือสั้น ๆ ใช้เวลาอ่านไม่นาน
ได้ไอเดียที่น่าสนใจดี -
3.75
-
Firstly, I have qualms with the idea that we should treat someone halfway across the world with the same level of attention that we give those near us. Secondly, Singer suggests, “we should donate as much as we can to help alleviate the suffering of others”, while on the surface this sounds nice, unfortunately a lot of these countries are in the position they are in due to corrupt government, constant war, what have you, and throwing money at the problem doesn’t fix the underlying issue.
I do have sympathy with his argument for animals however, specifically that we should not treat animals as objects, due to the fact that their suffering is comparable to ours. We don’t care about our treatment of rocks, bacteria, plants, etc as they (1) have no desire and (2) lack capacity to experience any sort of pain. But animals, as they have desire and can experience comparable pain, should not be used as tools of humans. I very much believe the world we live in with factory farms and the atrocities committed against animals will be looked back on in a few hundreds years as some of the worst things humans have done outside of human to human affairs. -
Famine, Affluence, and Morality centers on Peter Singer's 1972 essay of the same name, a classic in the area of applied ethics. This is one of those rare works by a philosopher that offers plenty of complexity with which to wrestle while also being accessible to a large portion of the general public. Revisiting this essay renewed my interest in applied ethics and may well kindle or rekindle the same in you.
The original essay was a response to a very specific situation but, as mentioned in the other pieces in the book, it is just as important today with the prevalence of extreme poverty. To (perhaps overly) simplify, can we who have enough live a moral life if we are not doing everything we can to alleviate hunger, poverty and sickness, particularly the many instances for which there are solutions? If we would do without for a situation close to home, should we not also do without for a situation in another part of the world?
My personal reading has always been a step short of the extreme version as put, quite well, by another reviewer. Namely that to follow this ideal one would need to sell everything and move to one of the poorest places and try to help the people. My understanding is that to follow the principle one should do without luxuries and superfluous material goods and use those resources, whether they be money, time or whatever, to help those in extreme poverty. I come to this position because carried to the extreme, everyone quits and sells everything (to whom if we have all become such people?) and then things grind to a stop and everyone ends up poor and hungry. So doing and giving more while also continuing to perform within the world seems a more pragmatic version of the ideas.
I would recommend this to anyone interested in ethics, applied ethics in particular, or anyone who questions what or how much one should do for the world as a whole and not just our immediate communities.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. -
This 1972 essay contains a sentence that may shatter some moral conceptions:
‘If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.’
The clear language of this essay easily distracts from the radicalness of the ideas. Singer turns the moral intuition of many on its head. He makes a strong utilitarian argument for giving, by making us weigh up what those in affluent countries spend their money on against what that money could do in other places of greater need. Instead of the usual utilitarian ‘maximization of happiness’, he makes a different utilitarian argument for the preservation of well-being where it is threatened.
The radical argument is this: Giving money away to causes such as famine is not charity; it’s not a supererogatory act—i.e. something that is nice to do but not bad not to do. Giving, Singer argues, is an obligation for those living in affluence, because it is not justifiable to spend on things one does not need, if something of much greater value (such as preventing a child from dying of famine) can be prevented by that extra money.
This was not my first encounter with this essay, but I enjoyed it again as if for the first time. I also enjoyed the other two, much more contemporary essays in the book. A good, short read with ideas that will stay with you for much longer. -
This book seems to be very basic, trite, and idealistic. It is easy to read. It encourages us to be more moral, arguing that if we can do something to improve the lives of other people, then we should (assuming it doesn’t lead to other bad outcomes). He argues that individuals should give much more of their income to poor people.
Throughout the book, I kept wondering what Peter Singer’s own arrangements are, but there was no mention of it, which is odd. I believe in people doing what they preach. His arguments are simple and idealistic, and don’t take into account higher-order effects. If you feed a child in Africa, yes, that child will be better off. But what are the other effects? Could it lead to that child’s country not bothering to sort themselves out? This seems to be a common theme. Do charities use resources given to them effectively? Many spend it on salaries for management and that sort of thing. Singer doesn’t seem to understand the importance of treating the cause rather than the symptom. He does briefly mention population control, which is definitely a good tool. Nonetheless, I can't criticise too much a book that implores us to improve the world, even if I think it's not done in a particularly effective manner.
