The Life You Can Save: How To Do Your Part To End World Poverty

Which of Singer’s thought experiments did you find the most provocative? Why? What philosophical point was it trying to make? Did it succeed? Why or why not?

What is the fundamental argument of the book? Is it valid? How do the three premises of this argument work to necessitate the conclusion? If the argument is convincing, explain why. If not, explain why not.

Which of the common objections to aid is most compelling? Why? How does Singer address this objection? Is his response adequate? Why or why not?

What are some of the psychological factors that prevent more equitable, just, and intelligent aid? Singer does not believe any of these factors morally justifies this natural limitation in aid. What is his reasoning? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Singer encourages the publicization of gift-giving. How does this contrast with Western religious heritage? Why doesn’t Singer support anonymous donations? Is he right? Why?

What are some of the problems with global aid as it currently exists? What are some of the tools Singer uses to analyze the data so as to correct these issues? How do you think global aid could best be improved?

Singer challenges his audience to think of the love parents have for their children. How does he think people should navigate the competing responsibilities they have towards loved ones and strangers in need? What do you make of Singer’s moral exemplars? Do you find these people as praiseworthy as he does? Why or why not?

Is Singer asking too much of people? Many suggest, including Singer, that his standard is very high and difficult to meet. Does this indicate a flaw? How does Singer square this with his more “realistic standard” for giving?