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
informative
medium-paced
Alleviate maximum suffering. Assist where assistance would be lacking without you. Consider not just your effect, but also the effects of your effect.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Impressed by his statement about how the motivation behind effective altruism, is guided by reasons rather than emotions
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
'The Most Good You Can Do' doesn't suffer from the complexities of moral philosophy, which can be off-putting to some readers. The thesis-that of Effective Altruism- is presented with a high level of clarity and many vibrant practical examples.
Given enough time, I think a counter can be made to what is put forth here. But the book's goal isn't to prop up a doctrine and invite attacks from the academia. Its motives are far nobler. The book does prop up a doctrine, but it is for people to consider than to attack.
There is also the escapist element present. In this greedy Capitalist world, there is great comfort in reading about people giving up on a certain level of comfort. It seems unreal in many ways. And it does good to the reader. One might not be compelled to donate at the same level as some of the people mentioned in the book do, but it does make the reader question if they can't donate more.
The book doesn't stop there. It presents great sources to the reader so that they can make most of their donations. Every aspect of altruism is discussed to an extent. This discussion yields some moral conundrums for the reader to consider. Although slim in size, Peter Singer offers a lot in this book.
Given enough time, I think a counter can be made to what is put forth here. But the book's goal isn't to prop up a doctrine and invite attacks from the academia. Its motives are far nobler. The book does prop up a doctrine, but it is for people to consider than to attack.
There is also the escapist element present. In this greedy Capitalist world, there is great comfort in reading about people giving up on a certain level of comfort. It seems unreal in many ways. And it does good to the reader. One might not be compelled to donate at the same level as some of the people mentioned in the book do, but it does make the reader question if they can't donate more.
The book doesn't stop there. It presents great sources to the reader so that they can make most of their donations. Every aspect of altruism is discussed to an extent. This discussion yields some moral conundrums for the reader to consider. Although slim in size, Peter Singer offers a lot in this book.
Much of this book - sections on reasons to donate a substantial part of one's income to charity, and on rationally selecting which charity will make the most effective use of those donations - is good and persuasive. It's similar toThe Life You Can Save, but mostly more practical than philosophical, with Singer highlighting a couple of individuals and advocating for the charity evaluator GiveDirectly. It makes a decent guide to using charitable donations to alleviate urgent, short-term suffering.
The last part of the book, which examines specific causes and organizations, is uneven. Singer explicitly states that domestic causes are a poor use of donations (the book is written primarily to an the American middle and upper classes), arguing that the most pressing need is in international poverty relief efforts, mostly food security and health care. However, he's largely silent about longer-term policy solutions. He discusses advocacy work briefly, but largely brushes it aside as difficult to quantify and to establish a causal relationship between action and outcome. So his solutions are along the lines of donating bed nets, giving direct cash transfers, and the like - which are important but incomplete.
The focus on short-term solutions was at least consistent until the last chapter, on preventing human extinction. Here, Singer advocates contributing to research efforts into understanding and preventing apocalyptic scenarios: asteroids, malicious artificial intelligence, etc. He argues that potential life has value, so given the vast number of people who could exist over the next billion years, virtually anything one can contribute to preventing extinction has value. His basic argument for the value of potential life is weak. He takes for granted that sum total of happiness is most important, so a lot of somewhat happy people is a better outcome than a smaller number of very happy people. He also ignores that this "potential life" value implies a moral duty to reproduce prolifically, not a stand I've seen him advocate anywhere else.
Had the book stopped a few dozen pages earlier, I'd rate it more highly (even withstanding that part of the argument against donating domestically is that the U.S. has something of a safety net, nevermind people falling through the cracks, and implying that hungry Americans are hungry, and undeserving, as a result of selling food stamps for alcohol or drugs). But the juxtaposition of the later chapters - politics and other complex interventions are too risky and nebulous for a rational altruist to support (and your own community, where you have the most likelihood of contributing to political change, definitely doesn't need help)...but throwing all of your donations at asteroid deflection is reasonable - is eerie.
The last part of the book, which examines specific causes and organizations, is uneven. Singer explicitly states that domestic causes are a poor use of donations (the book is written primarily to an the American middle and upper classes), arguing that the most pressing need is in international poverty relief efforts, mostly food security and health care. However, he's largely silent about longer-term policy solutions. He discusses advocacy work briefly, but largely brushes it aside as difficult to quantify and to establish a causal relationship between action and outcome. So his solutions are along the lines of donating bed nets, giving direct cash transfers, and the like - which are important but incomplete.
The focus on short-term solutions was at least consistent until the last chapter, on preventing human extinction. Here, Singer advocates contributing to research efforts into understanding and preventing apocalyptic scenarios: asteroids, malicious artificial intelligence, etc. He argues that potential life has value, so given the vast number of people who could exist over the next billion years, virtually anything one can contribute to preventing extinction has value. His basic argument for the value of potential life is weak. He takes for granted that sum total of happiness is most important, so a lot of somewhat happy people is a better outcome than a smaller number of very happy people. He also ignores that this "potential life" value implies a moral duty to reproduce prolifically, not a stand I've seen him advocate anywhere else.
Had the book stopped a few dozen pages earlier, I'd rate it more highly (even withstanding that part of the argument against donating domestically is that the U.S. has something of a safety net, nevermind people falling through the cracks, and implying that hungry Americans are hungry, and undeserving, as a result of selling food stamps for alcohol or drugs). But the juxtaposition of the later chapters - politics and other complex interventions are too risky and nebulous for a rational altruist to support (and your own community, where you have the most likelihood of contributing to political change, definitely doesn't need help)...but throwing all of your donations at asteroid deflection is reasonable - is eerie.
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
I've already done a lot of reading on effective altruism and I guess I consider myself to be an effective altruist, so I wanted to read one of the classics in the movement. But having read so much other stuff that's probably largely derived from this, nothing was surprising to me and I didn't have any big epiphanies or anything. The concept is solid, and I largely agree with Singer's philosophy behind it. I think this book would be a great intro to EA for someone who hasn't heard of it, or only heard a little.
inspiring