The Life You Can Save
Peter Singer
 Singer argues that it is obvious that we, as individuals, ought to save a child from drowning unless we are risking something as valuable as the child's life. He then contends that as many as 27,000 children die every day (about 18 per minute) from poverty that could be easily and cheaply helped by existing charities (see also List of preventable causes of death). Singer asks the reader to imagine just how much they could give up, starting with bottled water, before their only possessions would be of a value anywhere near that of a human life. He then asks whether (without giving up everything one owns) the reader would give up that daily bottled water if one found a charity where most of one's donation got to those in need. Singer says that having a right to spend money any way one wants does not change the way one ought to spend it. He also notes that other people may each be indifferent to the life they can save, that doesn't make a difference about whether specific people ought to act. This is the origin of the title of his book: even if other people do nothing to help those in need, individuals should still do as much as they can. Addressing readers directly, therefore, he challenges them what they will do about "the life you can save". To try and uncover why citizens of richer nations do not donate as much as they could, if they give at all, Singer mentions psychological theories including cognitive dissonance, diffusion of responsibility and evolutionary history of our ancestors. For instance, cognitive dissonance theory predicts that humans are rationalizing creatures, making it difficult to change their minds on topics that cause any anxiety unless they are highly motivated to bear it during long contemplation. The author contends that humans are highly capable of establishing a society where giving is the norm (for instance, Bill Gates's "Giving Pledge"). Singer hopes that a culture of giving would allow individuals to fully admit to themselves how selfish certain individuals have become with their money. For example, he contrasts individuals like Paul Farmer (a physician whose sacrifices Singer describes) with billionaire Paul Allen, who spent $200 million to build "The Octopus", a 413 foot personal yacht that requires a crew of sixty. Philosopher Thomas Nagel says that nobody, not even Singer, will act according to Singer's ideal of giving up all possessions that are less valuable than a human life. Nagel says that our unwillingness to do sacrifice may not be entirely an issue of motivation. Nagel says we can make moral objections, although he calls Singer's principle "plausible". Singer asks, "the question does not seem to be 'do you care about others more than yourself' but rather 'do you care about others a little?'" Singer attempts to debunk the idea that all charities are inefficient or corrupt. He endorses GiveWell as a way to identify the best charities. Singer describes some common causes of death and suffering in poor countries along with the costs of their solutions. Barnes and Noble reviewer George Scialabba writes that "Some of the most affecting pages in The Life You Can Save describe the low-tech, low-cost programs that have restored sight to a million people blinded by cataracts and have rescued many thousands of women and children from lives blighted by cleft palates or obstetric fistulas". The author also mentions that $50 nets can protect children from catching malaria from mosquitos during the night. Singer emphasizes that there are many costs involved with putting these solutions into practice. He refers to charity estimates that roughly $1000 can save a human life). The author argues against the idea that the earth's limited resources are an argument against donating; Singer contends that education and development actually lead to lower birth rates and decrease the risks of overpopulation and that affluent nations consume much more food than they need by feeding it to animals and eating the animals. Singer states, "the only looming 'danger' is mass vegetarianism". Singer settles on a standard of at least 1% of net income (although he goes into more detail about how this percentage might increase as one's income increases). He justifies his decision by saying that, although we ought to give much more (as he claims to have proven), it is not practical to demand much more, and trying to do so may turn people off from giving anything at all. Singer emphasizes the importance of being practical when it comes to getting as much money as possible to the poor, even if that means holding people to lower standards as a means of changing their habits. Christian Barry and Gerhard Overland (both from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics) described the widespread acceptance for the notion that "the lives of all people everywhere are of equal fundamental worth when viewed impartially". They then wonder, during the book review in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, why "the affluent do so little, and demand so little of their governments, while remaining confident that they are morally decent people who generally fulfil their duties to others?". The authors discuss other practical ways to fight poverty. According to the author, there are several steps that one can take to become a part of the solution to world poverty. Singer first recommends visiting the book's website, www.TheLifeYouCanSave.com, for resources, but also to consider taking a pledge to meet his (presumably low) standards of giving. This pledge, Singer argues, increases the odds that you will give. Singer next argues that one should use those provided resources, including www.givewell.net, to effectively decide which organization(s) to donate to. The author then says that one can use their last tax return to determine how much Singer's standard (1% of net income) suggests that you give. Singer next suggests deciding how much to donate, contending that even donating less money than his "standard" is undebatably still a good thing to do. Finally the author says that one should donate. Singer further suggests taking steps to foster a culture of giving. He recommends using all available social networks to let others know that they, like you, can be a small part of the solution. This is to be done carefully, staying positive and completely avoiding the emotion of guilt (since cognitive dissonance is already quite high in discussions of charity). He also argues that one should suggest, to their employing institution, that they set up pay scheme in which employees can explicitly opt-out of giving 1% of their pre-tax income to charity. Writing a letter to one's local representative (to let them know you want your country's foreign aid directed to the world's poorest people only) is recommended by Singer. Singer maintains that the last, important step of donating is to feel good about making a difference. He argues that too much guilt may result in inaction, dooming the poor.