What is the main message of The Life You Can Save?

The main message of The Life You Can Save is the moral obligation to help those in need.

How long does it take to read The Life You Can Save?

The reading time for The Life You Can Save varies, but it typically takes several hours. The Blinkist summary can be read in just 15 minutes.

Is The Life You Can Save a good book? Is it worth reading?

The Life You Can Save is worth reading as it highlights the importance of making a positive impact on the lives of others.

Who is the author of The Life You Can Save?

The author of The Life You Can Save is Peter Singer.

The Life You Can Save Summary of Key Ideas and Review

Name: The Life You Can Save
Rating: 4.4 (196 reviews)
Author: Peter Singer

Introduction

What’s in it for me? A compelling call to do your part.

There’s a harsh reality that we all know but rarely talk about. All around the world, people suffer from poverty, malnourishment, and other forms of deprivation. By comparison, even our modest lives are nothing short of a lavish luxury.

So, given our substantial privilege, how can we live an ethical life? This is the question at the heart of The Life You Can Save. These blinks draw on the philosophical work of Peter Singer to lay bare the moral problem of poverty.

Far from a self-righteous diatribe, the arguments here ask us to rationally consider our own responsibility to our fellow man. Along the way, they investigate why helping others feels hopeless, how we can rethink our bias against giving, and what we can reasonably do to eradicate needless suffering.

In these blinks, you’ll learn

when you’re required to jump in a lake;
what it costs to cure blindness; and
how donating a kidney can anger your spouse.

Key idea 1 of 8

We can eliminate extreme poverty, but we haven’t.

When the philosopher Peter Singer teaches his introductory course on ethics, it always starts the same way. He tells his students a story: Imagine you’re walking to work and come upon a small child drowning in a shallow lake. You can easily save the child, but doing so would ruin your new shoes. So, do you dive in?

Of course, every student is quick to answer yes. After all, a life is worth more than even the loveliest loafers. But then, Singer poses a follow-up question: In 2017, 5.4 million children under five died of preventable diseases. Now, how many students bought new shoes with money they could have donated to an effective charity?

This second query is much more uncomfortable. It highlights the disturbing truth that our actions don’t always align with our moral compass.

The key message? We can eliminate extreme poverty, but we haven’t.

All around the world, humans suffer and die because they aren’t able to afford the most basic necessities. According to the World Bank, as of 2018, 736 million people live in extreme poverty, meaning they live on the local equivalent of $1.90 a day. This poverty is the primary driver of premature deaths. In a country like Sierra Leone, with high poverty rates, one in 13 children dies before their fifth birthday. In a wealthy country, like Australia, only one in 263 has the same fate.

Such statistics may seem overwhelming. But, in reality, humanity has made great strides in changing this condition. Since 1993, the rate of extreme poverty around the world has nearly halved. The most dramatic drop came from East Asia, where the poverty rate went from 60 percent in 1990 to just 2.3 percent in 2015.

The wealthiest nations are faring well, too. As of 2018, about half of all people are middle-class or above, meaning they have excess money for consumer goods, vacations, or other unexpected expenses. And of course, the rich are doing the best of all. According to Forbes, there are about 2,000 billionaires around the globe – twice as many as ten years ago.

So, with such ample wealth available on earth, why do we allow millions to die because they can’t afford proper nutrition or basic health care? If we know we can reduce poverty, why haven’t we reduced it to zero? We’ll begin to answer these questions in the next blink.

Key idea 2 of 8

Yes, it’s ethically wrong to keep extra cash for yourself.

Every year, thousands and thousands of children around the world die of malaria. But it doesn’t have to be this way. A small $200 donation to the Against Malaria Foundation will buy enough mosquito netting to protect 180 children. So, let’s say you make the donation.

Well done, you're now helping to keep hundreds of people safe against a serious and sometimes deadly disease. But while you’re thinking of celebrating this feat of altruism, ask yourself why you’re choosing to stop there in the first place. Can you do more still?

Unlock the full key idea

Key idea 3 of 8

Our charitable decisions aren’t always based on sound arguments.

It’s 1987, and all eyes are on Midland, Texas. A small child named Jessica McClure has fallen down a well. For two days the news has given wall-to-wall coverage as rescuers toil to bring her to safety. Enraptured viewers have donated millions to provide her care.

Yet, over the same two days, something else has also happened. All around the world, close to 70,000 children have died of preventable, poverty-related causes. Unfortunately, million-dollar donations to save these children are few and far between. Their deaths haven’t even made the evening news.

Unlock the full key idea

Key idea 4 of 8

We can increase charitable giving by creating a culture of giving.

Imagine this: You flip on the radio to your favorite local station. Instead of hearing music, you hear the host soliciting donations for the station’s annual fund drive. At first, you ignore the requests. But then, the host starts giving updates. Someone just donated 20 dollars, another person just gave 30. Slowly, you start thinking about pitching in a few bucks yourself.

Why the sudden change of heart? Well, hearing about the generosity of others made you want to act as well. This is because humans tend to fall in line with what psychologists call their “reference group,” or the people and communities who surround them.

Unlock the full key idea

Key idea 5 of 8

Effective aid programs aim to save as many people as possible.

There’s probably no one more concerned about financial returns than investment bankers. So, in 2007, when two hedge fund managers, Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld, decided to donate to charity, they did their homework. They delved into researching which charity was the most cost-effective.

What they found was . . . underwhelming. Very few charities could provide concrete facts or figures on their achievements. To remedy this, the pair founded GiveWell, a nonprofit dedicated to finding and funding the most effective charities on Earth.

Unlock the full key idea

Key idea 6 of 8

Your children are important, but so are everyone else’s.

Zell Kravinsky led a successful life. By his mid-forties, he’d shrewdly built a real estate empire worth about $45 million. Then, one day, he decided to give it all away.

In short order, he liquidated his holdings and gave the excess cash to charity. Afterward, he sold his large house and moved to a more modest home. Finally, still feeling generous, he contacted the local hospital and donated a kidney to a stranger.

Unlock the full key idea

Key idea 7 of 8

When others won’t sacrifice for the greater good, we must sacrifice more.

Let’s return to our thought experiment at the pond. As you remember, in the original scenario, one child was struggling to stay afloat. Now, let’s up the stakes and say ten kids are bobbing in the water. We’ll also add nine adults standing with you on the shore.

If everyone pitches in, you can each save one child. But, what if five of those fellow adults ignore the situation? Are you obligated to save two children? What if you’re the only one moved to act? Must you save all ten children on your own?

Unlock the full key idea

Key idea 8 of 8

We should aim to donate a reasonable amount of money each year.

How much should one person give? On the surface, it’s a simple question. Yet, over the millennia, it’s provoked a diverse array of answers.

Traditionally, Judaism asks adherents to pay a tithe amounting to 10 percent of their annual income. For Muslims, each person should give one-fortieth of their total wealth. Certain Catholic communities ask followers to donate nearly everything. Finally, more recent secular pledge groups encourage yearly donations ranging from 1 to 50 percent.

Unlock the full key idea