Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by sophie_pesek
The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty by Peter Singer
5.0
The perfect compliment to [b:Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty|10245602|Poor Economics A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty|Abhijit V. Banerjee|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1344679036l/10245602._SY75_.jpg|15145697]! Banerjee and Duflo's book was all about effective poverty reduction programs. In his book, Singer choses to focus on the moral imperative for action.
I was first introduced to Singer's Drowning Child argument in Joshua Greene's class my freshman year. It goes like this: If you see a child drowning in a lake, do you have an obligation to wade in to save him/her? Even if you will ruin your nice clothes? Singer continues: “Would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost — and absolutely no danger — to yourself?” Most answer it would make no difference, thus illuminating a huge moral inconsistency. This book tackles every argument that could be made against giving life-saving aid whenever you can, as well as reinforcing just how disparate the effects of a few dollars can be on reducing suffering in wealthy American lives vs. the lives of people living on the margins.
"My students often ask me if I think their parents did wrong to pay the $44,000 per year that it costs to send them to Princeton. I respond that paying that much for a place at an elite university is not justified unless it is seen as an investment in the future that will benefit not only one’s child, but others as well. An outstanding education provides students with the skills, qualifications, and understanding to do more for the world than would otherwise be the case."
"I guess basically one wants to feel that one’s life has amounted to more than just consuming products and generating garbage. I think that one likes to look back and say that one’s done the best one can to make this a better place for others. You can look at it from this point of view: What greater motivation can there be than doing whatever one possibly can to reduce pain and suffering?"
I was first introduced to Singer's Drowning Child argument in Joshua Greene's class my freshman year. It goes like this: If you see a child drowning in a lake, do you have an obligation to wade in to save him/her? Even if you will ruin your nice clothes? Singer continues: “Would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost — and absolutely no danger — to yourself?” Most answer it would make no difference, thus illuminating a huge moral inconsistency. This book tackles every argument that could be made against giving life-saving aid whenever you can, as well as reinforcing just how disparate the effects of a few dollars can be on reducing suffering in wealthy American lives vs. the lives of people living on the margins.
"My students often ask me if I think their parents did wrong to pay the $44,000 per year that it costs to send them to Princeton. I respond that paying that much for a place at an elite university is not justified unless it is seen as an investment in the future that will benefit not only one’s child, but others as well. An outstanding education provides students with the skills, qualifications, and understanding to do more for the world than would otherwise be the case."
"I guess basically one wants to feel that one’s life has amounted to more than just consuming products and generating garbage. I think that one likes to look back and say that one’s done the best one can to make this a better place for others. You can look at it from this point of view: What greater motivation can there be than doing whatever one possibly can to reduce pain and suffering?"