You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
92 reviews for:
The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically
Peter Singer
3.69 AVERAGE
92 reviews for:
The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically
Peter Singer
3.69 AVERAGE
Peter Singer’s The Most Good You Can Do serves as a digestible distillation of utilitarianism for folks interested in using the philosophy as helpful framing for making philanthropic decisions. Beyond that, there is little room for any ideas outside of the already practiced and rehearsed musings Singer has locked and loaded, and because of that, much of the book is spent sharing redundant anecdotes of people who already agree with the author. It’s hard to recommend this book as anything more than a flier for the organizations Singer has already deemed worthy.
This is one of the best books you can read. It was in the top 3 book for a very long time. I wish more people read it. It is by far an easy recommendation. If you need a book on how to be a better person, here you go. This should be your bible.
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
A very in-depth philosophical look at donating money as effectively as possible. It has some interesting points about where dollars go the furthest in reducing suffering, and pointing out that a lot of donations are emotionally based. While I disagreed with some of the logic around what “effective” really means and which causes are most deserving, my biggest takeaway is that I can be doing more good as a someone with means to contribute more to society.
Skimmed the last 1/3 and don’t feel like I missed much.
Skimmed the last 1/3 and don’t feel like I missed much.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
slow-paced
I wanted to read this book to learn a little bit more about Effective Altruism. However, you can probably get away with just reading about it online for free. But then proceeds from the book go to charity, so reading it for free online wouldn't be effective.... Nonetheless, this is a well put together documents of all the ethical reasoning and concerns that surround effective altruism aka How You Can Most Effectively Save the World! Interestingly Peter Singer never addresses whether or not people are worth saving (if you want to take a Malthusian, nihilistic view of the world). I also found it interesting on further research the types of jobs one should take in order to be an effective altruist. To me at least there seems to be a lot of contradiction, but that it's OK because it's for a Good Cause. I don't think Peter Singer presents a fullproof argument, and a lot of his arguments are based on his point of view being correct in the first place. It seems more aimed at people who already want to do good, don't know how and need a blue print for how to live an ethical life. Atfer all my thinking on the topic I've almost come to the conclusion that really unless you earn a ridiculous amount, the only thing you should be giving away is your blood (truly something that you don't need, seeing as it automatically replaces itself).
Some contraditcions:
- We should most effectively give our money to charities that have the best 'returns', yet we shouldn't have factory farming despite it being the most efficient source of feeding, I dunno, 7 billion people and growing.
- On that topic, if going vegan is so good for the environment (it is) then why are we saving people? Surely having more people on this Earth is bad for the environment. To be fair Peter does mention sterilising the planet at one stage, but it isn't given considerable thought.
- The Mongol invasion is Bad, and yet it had good consequences. Effective altruism is Good, and yet... (see above vis a vis world population)
- Why push hedge fund managers, entrepreneurs and other high-flying careers on people, just because they are effective in that you earn more and can therefore give more? Interestingly there is no mention of emergency services as an altruistic career (or teachers) presumably because they don't earn enough. But also because the difference you can make is marginal over any other person who would get hired. Why is that a problem when, if you were offered a job as chemical engineer to make bioweapons you should take it because you will do marginally less harm? Is doing marginally less harm really that much more important than doing marginally more good?
- Effective altruism to me means fixing the easy problems first. Consider your work day. You have a big report to do that is vital for a meeting with potential clients. But you put it off and do lots of tasks, like replying to emails, customer service, what have you. The report doesn't get done and the company loses the tender. Sure, you're moeny can fix the lives of many more people if you are treating malaia, worms and blindness, but something tells me these are momentary issues, almost feel-good charities as opposed to, I dunno, researching how to get off the planet, or even to reverse global warming?
Overall I think this is a book of presumptions, and yet if you wish to give your money to charity, I would recommend this book so you don't end up giving it to the homeless because you feel bad, or something equally heart-string pulling. It also seems to have a neoliberal bent, with this focus on what the indivudl can do, how governments have failed, etc. It's almost a bit insidious, without meaning to be. Honestly, I probably have more questions about Effective Altruism now after reading it than I did before.
Some contraditcions:
- We should most effectively give our money to charities that have the best 'returns', yet we shouldn't have factory farming despite it being the most efficient source of feeding, I dunno, 7 billion people and growing.
- On that topic, if going vegan is so good for the environment (it is) then why are we saving people? Surely having more people on this Earth is bad for the environment. To be fair Peter does mention sterilising the planet at one stage, but it isn't given considerable thought.
- The Mongol invasion is Bad, and yet it had good consequences. Effective altruism is Good, and yet... (see above vis a vis world population)
- Why push hedge fund managers, entrepreneurs and other high-flying careers on people, just because they are effective in that you earn more and can therefore give more? Interestingly there is no mention of emergency services as an altruistic career (or teachers) presumably because they don't earn enough. But also because the difference you can make is marginal over any other person who would get hired. Why is that a problem when, if you were offered a job as chemical engineer to make bioweapons you should take it because you will do marginally less harm? Is doing marginally less harm really that much more important than doing marginally more good?
- Effective altruism to me means fixing the easy problems first. Consider your work day. You have a big report to do that is vital for a meeting with potential clients. But you put it off and do lots of tasks, like replying to emails, customer service, what have you. The report doesn't get done and the company loses the tender. Sure, you're moeny can fix the lives of many more people if you are treating malaia, worms and blindness, but something tells me these are momentary issues, almost feel-good charities as opposed to, I dunno, researching how to get off the planet, or even to reverse global warming?
Overall I think this is a book of presumptions, and yet if you wish to give your money to charity, I would recommend this book so you don't end up giving it to the homeless because you feel bad, or something equally heart-string pulling. It also seems to have a neoliberal bent, with this focus on what the indivudl can do, how governments have failed, etc. It's almost a bit insidious, without meaning to be. Honestly, I probably have more questions about Effective Altruism now after reading it than I did before.
It's a bit of a paradox really. Singer suggests that it's best to 'sacrifice' yourself and work a high paying (likely exploitative) job to make the most money you can to subsequently give the majority to the globally poorest people. However, this solution which is supposedly 'the most good you can do' works within the framework of western society which reinforces hierarchies and systems of domination, class rule and economic exploitation. Simply working harder won't cut it for solving inequalities. A change in political system may have a better chance at resolving poverty and inequalities for human beings. Additionally, Singer does not consider other factors which cause poverty, such as the domination of nature.
I borrowed this book from a friend and wasn't able to make notes. I remember having lots more to say.
Regardless, it's well-written, easily explained and an interesting concept.
I borrowed this book from a friend and wasn't able to make notes. I remember having lots more to say.
Regardless, it's well-written, easily explained and an interesting concept.
Hope this convinces some hedge fund guys to donate money. I will be keeping my kidneys, thank you.
To be honest, I really did not enjoy this book. My rating is not based on my enjoyment though. It’s based on his arguments. I feel there are many holes in his research.
The biggest hole and the premise on which his entire argument is based is that suffering is bad. This is a philosophical argument but I tend to agree with people who believe suffering is a necessary and inescapable part of life.
His premise that less suffering will equal the most fair and equitable world is problematic. Mainly because he applies this not only to humans but to animals. He quotes another effective altruist or a thread in the movement that insists that the abolishment of nature will lessen animal suffering and therefore be good. The absurdity of that statement alone almost made me stop reading.
At one point he states that nature has no intrinsic value. That’s an absolutely maddening statement. It’s the only reason we can think and eat and breathe and write ridiculous books like this one. The idea that when climate change destroys this planet we can either perish or colonize another planet and that donating to climate change charities isn’t necessarily worth it because it won’t lessen suffering immediately is maddening as well.
This book seems to make A LOT of assumptions that aren’t necessarily backed by anything other than philosophy. What he misses in his relatively cold and calculating assessment of what being an altruistic person looks like is that lessening suffering cannot possibly be the only metric by which you measure your own giving. Altruism and philanthropy and being a good person are not all the same thing. Using numbers and stats to make the decision that giving $1,000 to save 5 people from blindness instead of training one seeing eye dog may be well and good for those five people but it completely discounts the joy someone may experience from their ability to navigate the world again can’t be quantified mathematically. None of these things are truly quantifiable.
The belief that things like human or animal suffering or human or animal joy can be measured and quantified in order to be the “best” giver is absurd. What he is suggesting the world needs more of .. people who give based on analytics and data and logic is not what will help this world or in the long run YOU live a better and most just life.
He suggests working a job that basically trades in human suffering to support your equitable causes. He then suggests taking that money and spending it globally where it’s more needed because your dollar will stretch father internationally. That’s where the issue of the dollar comes in. His brief touch on capitalism and its detrimental effects is meager to say the least. Cost affective altruism isn’t altruistic when people in your country, in your county, in your hometown are still suffering even if their suffering would cost “more” to fix. There’s a lot of issues with this book. I would pass and read something else.
The biggest hole and the premise on which his entire argument is based is that suffering is bad. This is a philosophical argument but I tend to agree with people who believe suffering is a necessary and inescapable part of life.
His premise that less suffering will equal the most fair and equitable world is problematic. Mainly because he applies this not only to humans but to animals. He quotes another effective altruist or a thread in the movement that insists that the abolishment of nature will lessen animal suffering and therefore be good. The absurdity of that statement alone almost made me stop reading.
At one point he states that nature has no intrinsic value. That’s an absolutely maddening statement. It’s the only reason we can think and eat and breathe and write ridiculous books like this one. The idea that when climate change destroys this planet we can either perish or colonize another planet and that donating to climate change charities isn’t necessarily worth it because it won’t lessen suffering immediately is maddening as well.
This book seems to make A LOT of assumptions that aren’t necessarily backed by anything other than philosophy. What he misses in his relatively cold and calculating assessment of what being an altruistic person looks like is that lessening suffering cannot possibly be the only metric by which you measure your own giving. Altruism and philanthropy and being a good person are not all the same thing. Using numbers and stats to make the decision that giving $1,000 to save 5 people from blindness instead of training one seeing eye dog may be well and good for those five people but it completely discounts the joy someone may experience from their ability to navigate the world again can’t be quantified mathematically. None of these things are truly quantifiable.
The belief that things like human or animal suffering or human or animal joy can be measured and quantified in order to be the “best” giver is absurd. What he is suggesting the world needs more of .. people who give based on analytics and data and logic is not what will help this world or in the long run YOU live a better and most just life.
He suggests working a job that basically trades in human suffering to support your equitable causes. He then suggests taking that money and spending it globally where it’s more needed because your dollar will stretch father internationally. That’s where the issue of the dollar comes in. His brief touch on capitalism and its detrimental effects is meager to say the least. Cost affective altruism isn’t altruistic when people in your country, in your county, in your hometown are still suffering even if their suffering would cost “more” to fix. There’s a lot of issues with this book. I would pass and read something else.