The Life You Can Save

1. We have a moral obligation to help those in extreme poverty

If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

Moral imperative: The stark contrast between extreme global poverty and affluence in developed nations creates an ethical obligation to help. Over 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day, facing hunger, lack of clean water, and preventable diseases. Meanwhile, many in wealthy countries spend frivolously on luxuries.

Philosophical argument: If we can prevent great suffering at little cost to ourselves, we are morally obligated to do so. Just as we would save a drowning child in front of us, we should help those dying from poverty globally. The geographical distance does not diminish our ethical responsibility.

Scale of the problem:

• 27,000 children die daily from poverty-related causes
• 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty
• Half the world's population lives on less than $2.50 per day

2. Small donations can save lives in developing countries

If it only costs $50, you can make the same comparison between what the money means to you and what it could mean to someone who is unable to see because of an easily removable cataract.

Cost-effectiveness: In developing countries, relatively small amounts of money can have a significant impact on people's lives. Organizations like Population Services International have demonstrated that lives can be saved for between $650 and $1000 through interventions like providing bed nets, clean water, and basic healthcare.

Specific examples:

• $10 can provide a bed net to prevent malaria
• $50 can restore sight through cataract surgery
• $300-400 can repair an obstetric fistula
• $1000 can save a life through various interventions

These figures highlight how even modest donations from individuals in wealthy countries can make a profound difference in the lives of those in extreme poverty.

3. Common objections to giving are often based on misconceptions

Did you get the impression that the West has already shown great compassion and given enormous sums of foreign aid?

Aid effectiveness: Many people believe that foreign aid is ineffective or that vast sums have already been given without results. However, this perception is often based on misconceptions:

• Only about 0.3% of rich countries' income goes to foreign aid
• Much of this aid is politically motivated rather than targeting extreme poverty
• Private donations to effective charities can bypass bureaucratic inefficiencies

Other misconceptions:

• "Charity begins at home" ignores vast disparities in global wealth
• Concerns about population growth overlook how reducing poverty lowers birth rates
• Fears of creating dependency ignore sustainable development approaches

By addressing these misconceptions, we can overcome common objections to giving and recognize the potential impact of well-directed aid.

4. Psychological barriers prevent us from giving more

Our moral intuitions are not always reliable, as we can see from variations in what people in different times and places find intuitively acceptable or objectionable.

Evolved instincts: Our psychological makeup, shaped by evolution, often hinders our ability to respond effectively to global poverty:

• Identifiable victim effect: We respond more to individual stories than statistics
• Parochialism: We care more about those close to us geographically and culturally
• Futility thinking: The scale of the problem can make our efforts seem insignificant
• Diffusion of responsibility: We assume others will help instead of us
• Sense of fairness: We hesitate to give more than others around us

Overcoming barriers: Recognizing these psychological factors allows us to consciously overcome them:

• Seek out individual stories of those helped by aid
• Expand our circle of moral concern beyond national borders
• Focus on the concrete impact of our donations
• Take personal responsibility regardless of others' actions
• Set giving standards based on ethical reasoning, not social norms

5. Effective giving requires research and evaluation

GiveWell's job wouldn't be so hard. All it would have to do to know which organization can save lives in Africa at the lowest cost would be to pick the lowest figure.

Evidence-based philanthropy: To maximize the impact of donations, it's crucial to research and evaluate charities based on their effectiveness. Organizations like GiveWell conduct in-depth analyses to identify the most cost-effective interventions.

Key considerations in evaluating charities:

• Transparency in reporting outcomes
• Cost per life saved or improved
• Scale and sustainability of impact
• Quality of evidence for effectiveness

Examples of effective interventions:

• Distributing insecticide-treated bed nets
• Providing clean water and sanitation
• Immunization programs
• Deworming treatments

By focusing on evidence-based giving, donors can ensure their contributions have the greatest possible impact on reducing global poverty and suffering.

6. Aid can work when properly implemented and monitored

If we fail to achieve them—as present indications say that we well may—we cannot excuse ourselves by saying that the target was a burdensome one, for it plainly is not.

Successful aid programs: Despite skepticism, there are many examples of aid programs that have achieved significant results when properly implemented and monitored:

• Smallpox eradication through WHO campaigns
• Dramatic reductions in river blindness
• Measles deaths in southern Africa reduced from 60,000 to 117 annually

Keys to effective aid:

• Clear, measurable goals (e.g., Millennium Development Goals)
• Focus on basic needs: health, education, clean water
• Local community involvement and ownership
• Rigorous evaluation and willingness to adapt

Challenges to address:

• Political interference and corruption
• Lack of coordination among aid organizations
• Insufficient focus on long-term sustainability

By learning from successful programs and addressing challenges, aid can be a powerful tool in reducing global poverty.

7. A culture of giving can be fostered through openness and example

Those who make it known that they give a significant portion of what they earn can increase the likelihood that others will do the same.

Social influence: People are more likely to give when they see others around them doing so. Creating a culture of giving involves:

• Openly discussing charitable giving
• Celebrating generous individuals as role models
• Establishing giving norms in social and professional circles

Institutional approaches:

• Workplace giving programs with opt-out defaults
• Public pledges and giving circles
• Transparency in philanthropic activities of the wealthy

Examples of giving cultures:

• The Giving Pledge for billionaires
• The 50% League for those giving half their wealth
• Corporate social responsibility initiatives

By normalizing and encouraging charitable giving, we can shift social expectations and increase overall contributions to fighting global poverty.

8. We should balance family obligations with global responsibilities

If we have, in fact, been at least in part a cause of the poverty of the world's poorest people—if we are harming the poor—then even libertarians like Narveson will have to agree that we ought to compensate them.

Ethical balance: While we have special obligations to our families, these do not negate our responsibilities to the global poor. We must find a balance that allows us to meet our family's needs while also contributing significantly to reducing global poverty.

Considerations in balancing obligations:

• Meeting basic needs of family vs. luxuries
• Investing in children's future vs. excessive consumption
• Setting an example of global citizenship for our children

Global interconnectedness: Our actions in wealthy nations often contribute to global poverty through:

• Unfair trade policies
• Environmental degradation affecting poor countries
• Exploitation of labor and resources

Recognizing these connections strengthens the ethical case for giving beyond our immediate family and community.

9. A realistic approach sets achievable giving standards

For simplicity, let's take one-third as a fair share for the United States, since that is roughly proportionate to the U.S. share of the total income of the OECD nations.

Graduated giving scale: A realistic approach to increasing charitable giving involves setting achievable standards based on income levels. Singer proposes a sliding scale for the United States:

• Top 0.01% (income over $10.7M): 33.3% of income
• Top 0.1% ($1.9M - $10.7M): 25%
• Top 0.5% ($600K - $1.9M): 20%
• Top 1% ($383K - $600K): 15%
• Top 5% ($148K - $383K): 10%
• Top 10% ($105K - $148K): 5%

This scale aims to make significant progress in reducing global poverty while remaining achievable for most people in wealthy nations.

Collective impact: If widely adopted, even these modest percentages would generate over $500 billion annually from just the top 10% of U.S. earners – far exceeding current aid levels and potentially eliminating extreme global poverty.

10. Giving can increase personal happiness and fulfillment

At least for older people, it really is more blessed to give than to receive.

Psychological benefits: Research shows that giving to others can increase personal happiness and life satisfaction. This "warm glow" effect has been observed in brain scans and reported by many philanthropists.

Benefits of giving:

• Increased sense of purpose and meaning
• Greater connection to global community
• Improved mental health and well-being
• Potential physical health benefits, especially for older adults

Personal stories: Many individuals who have committed to significant giving report that it has enriched their lives and provided a sense of fulfillment beyond material wealth.

By recognizing the personal benefits of giving, we can reframe charitable donations not as a sacrifice, but as an investment in both global well-being and our own happiness.

Last updated: November 18, 2024