THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE
Acting now to end world poverty
Peter Singer
Text, $30, pbk
Philosopher Peter Singer presents a plan to end global poverty and his reputation for contentious but rigorous ethical positions is on display in this blueprint.
The basic idea of the book is that there is a vast number of people suffering and dying due to poverty.
Those individuals in the developed world and rich countries who spend money on unnecessary items are thereby responsible for the preventable deaths and sufferings of others.
From this challenging argument he considers counter-arguments and provides examples and suggestions of how the rich (us) can help the poor (the really poor).
As a socialist, I'm generally in favour of do-gooders (the term seems a strange insult to me) and I'm prepared to listen to any proposal by a person of good will.
Yet, I found Singer's book frustratingly shallow in some areas.
My main disagreement is how Singer, although obviously knowing better, refuses to engage with any political analysis of poverty.
Ayn Rand-loving libertarians who believe we have no obligation to others are dismissed by Singer as simply callous (which is probably true).
Then he briefly looks at the position I myself hold, which says that the system itself must be changed.
Unrealistic, says Singer.
Thus, the massive inequalities within and between nations and the power relationships that perpetuate poverty are basically ignored.
Give to charity and if enough people do this, problem solved, and we also get to feel good about ourselves.
But hold on just a second.
If poor nations are kept impoverished through developed nations working with corrupt local rulers, or are trapped in debt, or hamstrung by free-trade policies that encourage them to remain as farmyards for the developed world, then surely these political problems cannot be avoided.
Singer wants it both ways.
He builds up a case using philosophical arguments then abandons it all by acknowledging people will never live up to these standards.
Perhaps wanting to avoid scaring his readers by questioning capitalism, he simply accepts the status quo but urges the wealthy to voluntarily give more money to charity.
He savagely criticises the crass lifestyles of the super-rich, but fails to discuss the far more important political and economic structures that underlie gross inequality.
In this way there is the pervading whiff of middle-class moralism throughout the book.
I also felt Singer underestimated the economic insecurity of the working class in developed countries and the impact of relative inequality on empathy, solidarity and co-operation.
I have no disagreement with Singer's description of the evils of poverty in a world of plenty.
Some of the causes he promotes provide real relief.
Yet, how much more could be done if democratic societies faced these problems collectively rather than as isolated individuals.
If one-tenth of the money poured into the "war on terror" was spent on the "war on poverty", then what a difference that would make.
• Victor Billot is editor of the Maritime Union magazine.
