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

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2009

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Preface-Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

Limitations on Giving and the Naturalistic Fallacy

Singer believes that members of affluent societies should be giving far more of their time and money to effective charities than they currently do. This leads him to question what factors (especially psychological ones) limit the amount that people give.

Some limitations on giving result from assumptions about the way the world is and the way it should be. The naturalistic fallacy, a mistake in the reasoning process first articulated in the 18th century by Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, states that facts about the way the world is say nothing about the way the world should be. This fallacious reasoning assumes that nothing needs changed—that nature is the arbiter of right action. Singer, contending with those who implicitly accept this fallacy, writes:

The fact that we tend to favor our families, communities, and countries may explain our failure to save the lives of the poor beyond those boundaries, but it does not justify that failure from an ethical perspective, no matter how many generations of our ancestors have seen nothing wrong with it (41).

It is normal that giving is often limited to one’s family, community, church, or country, but this does not make it right. Its historical precedent is not a moral argument but a brute fact.

Singer’s case against futile thinking rests on the same grounds, as does his case against fairness. The futile thinker believes that the poor will always exist, so there is no need to help them. This is doubly mistaken. Not only does it assume that what is will always be, it also commits the naturalistic fallacy by assuming that the current situation justifies inaction. Singer’s disagreement with those who think fairness should dictate almsgiving is similar. Since the responsibility to give to those in extreme need is spread across the world’s population, it is only “fair” that people give equally. It follows that if one does one’s share, then one need not do more. This, again, assumes a natural standard rather than a concern primarily for positive outcomes, as Singer thinks is right.

The naturalistic fallacy, in the context of the morality of global aid, is a mistake in the reasoning process that severely limits the amount of effective aid provided to those in need. For this reason, Singer battles against it in its various guises.

Broad and Narrow Self-Interest

One common assumption about human nature, especially in American society, is that people are naturally self-interested. Since Singer is concerned with altruistic donation, it is important that he be able to counter this claim. To do so, he first draws a distinction between broad and narrow self-interest. In the process of doing so, Singer clarifies the purpose of his moral position.

At the end of Chapter 5 Singer writes:

Do we think that our own interests are best fulfilled by conspicuously consuming as many expensive items as possible, so that everyone knows that we are rich? Or do we include among our interests the satisfactions that come from helping others? (110).

These different senses of what an individual’s interests are form the basis for the distinction between broad and narrow self-interest. Brazen pursuit of status and wealth characterizes narrow self-interest. It is concerned solely with bolstering the ego through material consumption and social status. For Singer, such a life is clearly morally blameworthy. To counter the view that people are self-interested in this narrow manner, he includes data that strongly suggests otherwise. This includes, among other things, the fact that many people vote against causes that might materially help them. The term “psychological egoism” is often used to describe the view that people are naturally narrowly self-interested.

Singer is more open to the concept of broad self-interest. In this case, people are still understood as basically self-interested, i.e., concerned with their own well-being. However, this account allows for the possibility that tending to the welfare of others can be of central importance to the well-being of oneself. In other words, it can account for altruistic behavior because people act for others in order to (for example) feel good about themselves. Singer suggests that human psychology is more amenable to this possibility.

Some suggest that acting from (broad) self-interest for the good of the poor or malnourished is hypocritical. They would claim that the concern one has for oneself and the good feelings one gets or the praise possibly received from one’s peers taints the giver’s character. Singer is unconcerned with this possibility. As a utilitarian whose focus is on outcomes for the poorest, effects on the soul of the giver are immaterial. Broad self-interest, then, while not necessarily correct, is also not morally problematic.

Rational Philanthropy and Moral Calculus

Singer does not simply want to do good for the poor. He wants to do the most good possible in the most rational, systematic, and cost-effective manner. This leads to the concept of rational philanthropy. Centrally interwoven with the idea of effective altruism, rational philanthropy is the philosophy that one should do the most good for humanity by making the most rational moral decisions possible. This means that in the world of global aid and the fight against poverty, intellect should always take the lead over emotion.

In Chapter 4, Singer adopts a distinction from psychological literature regarding the affective and deliberative systems. The affective system is a network of emotional responses to stimuli. These responses are instantaneous reactions, and they often lead people to make snap judgements about immediate action. The deliberative system, on the other hand, is a slower response during which a person thinks through various outcomes and possibilities. It is this psychological structure that serves the goal of rational philanthropy. Singer’s focus is on the process of moral deliberation for the eventual approximation of the best course of action. Defects in the rationality of almsgiving and global aid, he writes, are part and parcel of instantaneous affective responses.

The psychological structure of deliberation underpins the process of moral calculus. Moral calculus is not a term Singer directly uses, but it is often commensurate with utilitarian philosophy and is certainly on display in the latter chapters of The Life You Can Save. Moral calculus is a process that attempts to properly quantify pleasure and pain through a variety of factors. In Singer’s case, the thing to be quantified is the amount of aid needed and the percentage of aid given as a function of wealth. For instance, the wealthy should give more because their money is less meaningfully spent on enhancing their happiness. Various duties and responsibilities should be weighed and measured against others, like the duties to family and to the impoverished. Moral calculus is a process of deliberating on the rational allotment of pleasure and pain with reference to quantitative data.