Peter Singer

Peter Singer, hailed as “the world’s most influential living philosopher” by The New Yorker, has written on everything from Marx to stem cell research to the way we eat. In his latest book, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, the Australian native and professor of bioethics at Princeton University challenges us to rethink not only how much we give but which causes we give to. By donating just a small percentage of our income, Singer argues, we can significantly alter the lives of those who live in the poorest places on the planet. Singer is giving the proceeds from the book to organizations fighting to alleviate global poverty. Kerry Abram talks to Singer about how the kindness of a stranger helped his parents escape Nazi Austria, why he thinks Americans’ charitable giving is wasteful and how to live a more ethical life.

You’ve spent your career enjoining people to live brave and ultimately more satisfying lives by acting in accordance with higher moral standards. How did it come about?
In a way, it was almost like a chapter of accidents. I had no idea what I wanted to be as a child. When I was at university, I started taking philosophy courses, and I guess I always liked arguing. Then I got a philosophy scholarship to Oxford. Within philosophy, I was always interested in things that had to do with how you lived. I didn’t have time for “whether or not we were living in a dream.” That really wasn’t going to change your life. When I was a student in the 1960s, there was a lot of radical thinking about changing the world and that stuck with me. I never grew out of it.

How did your parents escape Austria?
My father wrote to an uncle in the United States who had immigrated many years earlier, asking for a sponsor for visas for him and my mother. The uncle wrote back saying he would sponsor my father, but having never met his wife, he couldn’t also sponsor her. My mother had received a postcard from an Australian tourist she had met in Austria, and kept it as a novelty, since anything from Australia was exotic. So she wrote to him and explained that they had to get out to save their lives. Even though he hardly knew her and wasn’t Jewish (he was Catholic), he immediately wrote back and said he would do everything he could to help.

Your new book is basically about the importance of tithing, which is a Torah imperative. What’s new about your call to action?
In a way I’m reviving a traditional view which is in the Torah and is also greatly emphasized in the Christian scriptures. Islam also has a tradition of tithing, though they call for a percentage of wealth or total assets to be donated. Tithing should be considered a basic part of ethics.

You counsel us to beware of “moral relativism.” If there are moral standards, where are they from?
They come both from our understanding of the world and our capacity to put ourselves in the position of others. “Do unto others…” is a guiding principle found not only in every major religion, but also in every significant ethical system. In my view, that’s what leads us to determine what is the right thing to do.

You write about social pressure in western society, especially in the U.S., to appear and act selfishly. Explain.
It manifests in people playing down their altruistic behavior. People seem to fear appearing soft or gullible and prefer to be seen as “hard-headed” and as someone who goes after his own self-interest. “I’m a realist about the world, and I don’t fall for all that charity stuff.” It goes along with a somewhat cynical view of human nature. You are a “sucker” if you fall for appeals to your compassionate side. The extreme is Ayn Rand.

How can we create a social norm that encourages charity?
We need to create a culture that expects or demands a certain level of altruism. People need to speak more openly and honestly about their charity. There’s psychological research that shows it’s easier for others to take part in charitable acts if they see that others are helping, too.

You say that the way Americans handle their charitable giving is decadent. Why?
In a world where there are 27,000 children dying daily from avoidable, poverty-related causes, to put lots of money into new museums and concert halls seems to me to be a false sense of priorities. A third of American giving goes to supporting local religious organizations, with the vast majority of that money going towards the upkeep of the organization and not to alleviate poverty. The next largest category of U.S. charitable giving is to colleges and universities. The international category is really quite small. Not much goes toward taking care of the world’s poor.

So you are asking people to not only reevaluate the quantity of their giving but also the recipients?
The tithing I’m suggesting, based on a percentage of income, is not intended as a guideline for all giving, but is especially meant for the world’s poorest people. They are the ones who need our help.