What do you think?
Rate this book
The Price of Humanity: How Philanthropy Went Wrong―And How to Fix It
An attempt to rescue philanthropy from its progressive decline into vanity projects that drive wealth inequality, so that it may support human flourishing as originally intended.
The word “philanthropy” today makes people think big money—Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and Andrew Carnegie come to mind. The scope of suffering in the world seems to demand an industry of giving, and yet for all the billions that are dispensed, the wealthy never seem to lose any of their money and nothing seems to change.
Journalist, academic and consultant Amy Schiller shows how we get out of this stalemate by evaluating the history of philanthropy from the ideas of St. Augustine to the work of Lebron James. She argues philanthropy’s contemporary tendency to maintain obscene inequality and reduce every cause to dehumanizing technocratic terms is unacceptable, while maintaining an optimism about the soul and potential of philanthropy in principle.
For philanthropy to get back to its literal roots—the love of humanity—Schiller argues that philanthropy can no longer be premised around basic survival. Public institutions must assume that burden so that philanthropy can shift its focus to initiatives that allow us to flourish into happier, more fulfilled human beings. Philanthropy has to get out of the business of saving lives if we are to save humanity.
The word “philanthropy” today makes people think big money—Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and Andrew Carnegie come to mind. The scope of suffering in the world seems to demand an industry of giving, and yet for all the billions that are dispensed, the wealthy never seem to lose any of their money and nothing seems to change.
Journalist, academic and consultant Amy Schiller shows how we get out of this stalemate by evaluating the history of philanthropy from the ideas of St. Augustine to the work of Lebron James. She argues philanthropy’s contemporary tendency to maintain obscene inequality and reduce every cause to dehumanizing technocratic terms is unacceptable, while maintaining an optimism about the soul and potential of philanthropy in principle.
For philanthropy to get back to its literal roots—the love of humanity—Schiller argues that philanthropy can no longer be premised around basic survival. Public institutions must assume that burden so that philanthropy can shift its focus to initiatives that allow us to flourish into happier, more fulfilled human beings. Philanthropy has to get out of the business of saving lives if we are to save humanity.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published December 5, 2023
26 people are currently reading
688 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 5, 2024
Don't tell me you know how to fix something and then not tell me how to actually fix it.
My favorite part of the book is where the author proposes the solution of implementing a "Giving Wage" for people of a minimum $30 per hour. Forget big corporations, because we know they can afford it - but how many museum, library, or other "magnificent" institution's employees make that much? Would their billionaire sponsors fund payroll too, or would they shudder at paying that wage to the people making their vision come to life day-to-day (a la Carnegie?)
This book is a nice conversation-starter for your book club, especially if you work in non-profit (you will laugh and cry and laugh.)
My favorite part of the book is where the author proposes the solution of implementing a "Giving Wage" for people of a minimum $30 per hour. Forget big corporations, because we know they can afford it - but how many museum, library, or other "magnificent" institution's employees make that much? Would their billionaire sponsors fund payroll too, or would they shudder at paying that wage to the people making their vision come to life day-to-day (a la Carnegie?)
This book is a nice conversation-starter for your book club, especially if you work in non-profit (you will laugh and cry and laugh.)
September 13, 2023
The Price of Humanity is a conversational academic work that grounds us in history and mirrors the present. I found myself highlighting many passages of definitions and can see me using this book as a reference for future articles and analysis.
May 18, 2025
5 star nonfiction read because this book got me thinking deeply. Had to start a notes page to write down the thoughts I had as I was reading. Don't fully "agree" with everything in the book, but really enjoyed how it made me think about what the role of philanthropy is in the world.
Read
April 10, 20243.5 stars
An interesting read on philanthropy and how well-intentioned strategies don’t always have the best consequences. The book didn’t stick with me that much, but I zipped through it
An interesting read on philanthropy and how well-intentioned strategies don’t always have the best consequences. The book didn’t stick with me that much, but I zipped through it
August 23, 2023
In The Price of Humanity, Amy Schiller does a fantastic job at describing the current state of philanthropy (especially that which starts in the United States), its historical roots, the problems inherent in modern philanthropy, and how we can better move forward.
Schiller's voice and chosen examples take this potentially dry topic to something easily readable and relatable. Did it help that I work in the non-profit space? Maybe! But I think this book is something that everyone who's ever donated money to a cause can get into- and get something out of. Some lines made me laugh out loud, and many of the examples situate the concepts in a very accessible space.
I really appreciate the lessons taught in this book. It approaches current methods of philanthropy with a very critical eye, reinforcing my beliefs and challenging me to expand how and why I may think the way I do about philanthropy/charity. I will definitely be recommending this to folks in my life--and not just those who typically read nonfiction!!
Thank you to the publisher and Netgalley for a copy of this eARC in exchange for my honest review.
Schiller's voice and chosen examples take this potentially dry topic to something easily readable and relatable. Did it help that I work in the non-profit space? Maybe! But I think this book is something that everyone who's ever donated money to a cause can get into- and get something out of. Some lines made me laugh out loud, and many of the examples situate the concepts in a very accessible space.
I really appreciate the lessons taught in this book. It approaches current methods of philanthropy with a very critical eye, reinforcing my beliefs and challenging me to expand how and why I may think the way I do about philanthropy/charity. I will definitely be recommending this to folks in my life--and not just those who typically read nonfiction!!
Thank you to the publisher and Netgalley for a copy of this eARC in exchange for my honest review.
June 10, 2024
Felt like the author is an academic trying too hard to be cool and relatable. The argument could’ve been summed up in a brief article — lots of lengthy, tangential anecdotes were just there to fill space. Also, really weird how many typos there were.
April 16, 2025
I lowered it to 3.5, bumped downward, for a reason I'll note at the end.
And, while the writing and research are both very good, the premise is simple:
Modern philanthropy in the US of A is often pretty craptacular, even without the total craptacularity (I am allowed to invent words like that) of the "Effective Altruism" movement. That's a thesis very few people, outside of the tech dudebro / broligarch world, the older precursors to it like Bill Gates, and more thrown-off type utilitarian philosophers like Peter Singer, would argue with.
Well?
Maybe St. Augustine, according to Schiller, and this is where the writing and the research go beyond a simple statement of the premise or thesis.
I've read Augustine the theologian/philosopher at extensive depth on free will and predestination, in addition to his "Confessions" and "The City of God." I have not looked in depth at his preaching, and certainly not on poverty.
Yes, Schiller says St. Augustine was a proto-utilitarian of sorts. She says Augustine’s preaching anticipated today’s NGOs as stereotyped by Sam Kinison, instrumentalizing the poor through making their suffering look so bad.
I’ll drop a brief spoiler alert here.
But, again, the thesis itself isn’t earth-shaking.
Nor it her noting that capitalism still has a solid role to play in society in general and philanthropy in particular. While identifying as a leftist, and promoting a $30/hr minimum wage (way way too high in rural America and even urban America in the Midwest, which gets a bit of a ding for it), and some basic tax reforms, Schiller doesn’t talk about trying to have more of a post-capitalist world.
Not anti-capitalist; I’m not any stripe of Marxist for reasons that would go far beyond this review. But, post-capitalism, whatever that might be beyond capitalism.
Even if we have a modern government truly supporting “bread” with a higher minimum wage and better tax structure, and philanthropy focusing on “roses,” would capitalism stay put? Especially when more and more broligarchs have less and less attachment to either individual nation-states or UN type super-systems?
Also, although she nibbles around the edges, Schiller doesn’t really delve into the big problem with utilitarianism whenever tied with ethics in particular and “balancing tests” in general. A view from nowhen (I made up that word years ago; it’s like “nowhere” but it’s “nowhen” and that should be self-explanatory) simply is not possible. That’s what John Rawls got wrong, per Walter Kaufmann. Per Alexander Pope, if you're going to offer a critique of utilitarian philosophy, even if you're focused on an outlier like Singer, maybe critique more deeply, or critique not at all.
Star-dropping update: Schiller accepts philanthropy as, at worst, being a necessary evil. But, she never faces head-on the issue of, if a particular philanthropist might be so evil that ANY philanthropic effort that they undertake is simply tainted, period.
And, that popped into mind courtesy of the "featured" philanthropist, the Gates Foundation.
Right now, Microsoft AI is being used to help Israel create genocide in Gaza. And, of course, that's where Bill got his money and his holdings, and per Wiki, almost 30 percent of Gates Foundation holdings today are .... Microsoft. A lesser, yet bad enough, example, is the David H. Koch Fund for Science buying at least semi-silence if not full silence on climate change from PBS' Nova.
Schiller does mention Carnegie's US Steel, but we've got hundreds of companies running around today worse than it, many far worse, and far more ideological, and still engaged in big philanthropy.
Nor, other than a brief reference to World Vision, does Schiller mention religious-based philanthropy. Need I mention Hobby Lobby and the Green family? I guess I must.
Read
August 16, 2025I found Schiller’s perspective to be very refreshing and enlightening in spite her use of internet slang to make this book more relatable or digestible. Going into this book, I already expressed skepticism about modern philanthropy and, as much as this book validated a lot of those feelings, it also allowed me to understand how philanthropy could be reevaluated and used positively.
Personally, when I see some billionaires donating money, I cannot help but roll my eyes and dismiss it as a publicity stunt or tax write-off that does not actually fix the larger societal problems responsible. Schiller shows that this often is the case, explaining how tax deductions and DAFs allow wealthy benefactors to financially benefit from their “charity” (sometimes without even committing to giving). She discusses the various motives for philanthropy throughout history from Ancient Rome’s euergetism to St. Augustine’s “economy of salvation”, all of which focuses just as importantly on how the donor benefits as much as it does on the recipient. Schiller suggests that modern philanthropy has become even more individualized and transactional. We view philanthropy through the lens of capitalism and therefore, our gifts is a commodity or good. We want control over where our money goes and how it’s used. Billionaires donations are conditional, putting an unfair onus on both the charities and their recipients.
While I was aware of the frequently self-serving nature of modern philanthropy, Schiller helped me view philanthropy from a different perspective. She questions the purpose of philanthropy. Most examples of philanthropy involve giving money to the poor or less fortunate. Schiller explains that this thinking is wrong because it does not address the causes of poverty or starvation, which are more systemic and institutional, and that this thinking completely undervalues human life. The first reason is why I am inclined to dismiss philanthropy: feeding the poor does not address the larger issues that lead to poverty and hunger. It is disingenuous when people like Bezos or Musk give to charity when they refuse to pay livable wages or squash worker’s unions. Her second reason, the undervaluing of human life, is what I found to be enlightening. Schiller argues that using philanthropy to meet basic needs such as food, water, housing, etc. suggests that the survival is the ultimate goal of human life. People like Bill Gates or people in the Effective Altruism movement quantify their success by lives saved, reducing them to flat dollar amounts. They are not concerned with the quality of those lives, even if they are still facing large economic and societal hurdles that keep them from living fulfilling lives. Sending food and water to Palestinians in Gaza only helps them to survive; it doesn’t improve their quality of life, it delays their suffering. That suffering cannot and should not be the responsibility of philanthropy and should be addressed by the government (whether or not our current government is willing to accept that responsibility).
Instead, Schiller argues for magnificent philanthropy, the idea that philanthropy is an excess and should be used to fund larger projects that encourage people to flourish and do what makes us human rather than just survive. Survival is one aspect of life, but the ultimate goal is to build communities and express ourselves through art and music. Schiller recalls people like Andrew Carnegie and their commitment to libraries, museums, and universities, gifts that went well beyond the basic needs of food or water and served the whole public instead of a specific group. She imagines a world where philanthropy celebrates human life, rather than undervalue it or resign it to its productivity. However, the magic or magnificence of Schiller’s vision seems too idealistic for a world where the Trump administration has decimated the federal government and slashed the welfare system. Unfortunately, the world of this book seems further asea, and unless we can make some sizable institutional changes, philanthropy will have to continue being a stopgap for society’s least fortunate rather than an excess to be shared by all.
Personally, when I see some billionaires donating money, I cannot help but roll my eyes and dismiss it as a publicity stunt or tax write-off that does not actually fix the larger societal problems responsible. Schiller shows that this often is the case, explaining how tax deductions and DAFs allow wealthy benefactors to financially benefit from their “charity” (sometimes without even committing to giving). She discusses the various motives for philanthropy throughout history from Ancient Rome’s euergetism to St. Augustine’s “economy of salvation”, all of which focuses just as importantly on how the donor benefits as much as it does on the recipient. Schiller suggests that modern philanthropy has become even more individualized and transactional. We view philanthropy through the lens of capitalism and therefore, our gifts is a commodity or good. We want control over where our money goes and how it’s used. Billionaires donations are conditional, putting an unfair onus on both the charities and their recipients.
While I was aware of the frequently self-serving nature of modern philanthropy, Schiller helped me view philanthropy from a different perspective. She questions the purpose of philanthropy. Most examples of philanthropy involve giving money to the poor or less fortunate. Schiller explains that this thinking is wrong because it does not address the causes of poverty or starvation, which are more systemic and institutional, and that this thinking completely undervalues human life. The first reason is why I am inclined to dismiss philanthropy: feeding the poor does not address the larger issues that lead to poverty and hunger. It is disingenuous when people like Bezos or Musk give to charity when they refuse to pay livable wages or squash worker’s unions. Her second reason, the undervaluing of human life, is what I found to be enlightening. Schiller argues that using philanthropy to meet basic needs such as food, water, housing, etc. suggests that the survival is the ultimate goal of human life. People like Bill Gates or people in the Effective Altruism movement quantify their success by lives saved, reducing them to flat dollar amounts. They are not concerned with the quality of those lives, even if they are still facing large economic and societal hurdles that keep them from living fulfilling lives. Sending food and water to Palestinians in Gaza only helps them to survive; it doesn’t improve their quality of life, it delays their suffering. That suffering cannot and should not be the responsibility of philanthropy and should be addressed by the government (whether or not our current government is willing to accept that responsibility).
Instead, Schiller argues for magnificent philanthropy, the idea that philanthropy is an excess and should be used to fund larger projects that encourage people to flourish and do what makes us human rather than just survive. Survival is one aspect of life, but the ultimate goal is to build communities and express ourselves through art and music. Schiller recalls people like Andrew Carnegie and their commitment to libraries, museums, and universities, gifts that went well beyond the basic needs of food or water and served the whole public instead of a specific group. She imagines a world where philanthropy celebrates human life, rather than undervalue it or resign it to its productivity. However, the magic or magnificence of Schiller’s vision seems too idealistic for a world where the Trump administration has decimated the federal government and slashed the welfare system. Unfortunately, the world of this book seems further asea, and unless we can make some sizable institutional changes, philanthropy will have to continue being a stopgap for society’s least fortunate rather than an excess to be shared by all.
April 27, 2025
"the commodification of compassion and social consciousness, and the sublimation of those feelings into commercial transactions, can weaken donors' engagement with social causes as other motivations like civic engagement and altruism get erodes by appeals to self-interest and convenience."
With my job being further removed from philanthropic, sustainability, and social work (I am a cog in the capitalist machine), this book fundamentally changed the way I understood how much the way and intent with which you donate/practice giving matters. loved learning about concepts like "effective altruism" (tech bros out to ~maximize the impact~ of their dollars or fixating on a distant hypothetical like let's preserve humanity by blasting everyone (re:the elite) to live on mars instead of addressing current, real threats that require actual political and economic changes) and "civic eugertism" (private sponsorship of shared public spaces) and thought it was all extremely relevant in today's hot button topic of billionaires and third spaces and a need for community. I thought the author did a great job of explaining concepts, exemplifying them, and backing them up with history, and the writing was clear and concise. Sure, it didn't provide like immediate "hey reader, here's your exact action item to fix the world," and occasionally meandered for a few pages, but it also did force me to reflect and change the way I give moving forward. five stars
With my job being further removed from philanthropic, sustainability, and social work (I am a cog in the capitalist machine), this book fundamentally changed the way I understood how much the way and intent with which you donate/practice giving matters. loved learning about concepts like "effective altruism" (tech bros out to ~maximize the impact~ of their dollars or fixating on a distant hypothetical like let's preserve humanity by blasting everyone (re:the elite) to live on mars instead of addressing current, real threats that require actual political and economic changes) and "civic eugertism" (private sponsorship of shared public spaces) and thought it was all extremely relevant in today's hot button topic of billionaires and third spaces and a need for community. I thought the author did a great job of explaining concepts, exemplifying them, and backing them up with history, and the writing was clear and concise. Sure, it didn't provide like immediate "hey reader, here's your exact action item to fix the world," and occasionally meandered for a few pages, but it also did force me to reflect and change the way I give moving forward. five stars
July 28, 2024
An interesting read given my work experience and constant questions about philanthropy.
I’m not sure if I agree with everything she lays out like Jane Addams and LeBron James being the best examples of philanthropy, but it at least let me question and reflect back on my own thoughts about philanthropy. I also know she states that folks a few decades ago were giving at much higher rates and that if we had a giving wage we would see an uptick. I wonder if that giving mirrors our country’s religious affiliations and given it has decreased over time, would there actually still be that same level of individual giving?
I felt like I learned a lot but it was strange hearing the author’s distinct voice peppering the chapters. Also there were several typos throughout the book, which threw me off.
At the end as well, it just felt like the author was romanticizing philanthropy too much. Not to say it’s bad or unnecessary but it was a lot.
“The money we use to build the common world communicates our belief in that world, and in all who inhabit it. It’s affirms the value of humanity beyond price.”
I’m not sure if I agree with everything she lays out like Jane Addams and LeBron James being the best examples of philanthropy, but it at least let me question and reflect back on my own thoughts about philanthropy. I also know she states that folks a few decades ago were giving at much higher rates and that if we had a giving wage we would see an uptick. I wonder if that giving mirrors our country’s religious affiliations and given it has decreased over time, would there actually still be that same level of individual giving?
I felt like I learned a lot but it was strange hearing the author’s distinct voice peppering the chapters. Also there were several typos throughout the book, which threw me off.
At the end as well, it just felt like the author was romanticizing philanthropy too much. Not to say it’s bad or unnecessary but it was a lot.
“The money we use to build the common world communicates our belief in that world, and in all who inhabit it. It’s affirms the value of humanity beyond price.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 20, 2024
I found this book very readable and appreciated that it was well researched and thoroughly footnoted. The central idea--that governments need to be in charge of social safety nets and systemic change and that philanthropy should then be for the "roses" that all people deserve to enjoy--was one that I thought had merit. There were a few important points that I was disappointed to not see addressed. First, what to do if one's elected officials are corrupt and siphon off money for their own benefit. Second, what to do if one is living in a place where there is not enough monetary wealth to fund necessary supports. Third, the voices of those who have been helped (or harmed) by philanthropic efforts were absent from the book. But, despite those concerns I think this book is very much worth reading and could lead to good discussion.
June 14, 2024
I can’t say enough good things about this book. I’ve had conflicting feelings about large philanthropic efforts, as well as his to approach my own giving habits including how to balance donating to the needy versus things like the arts and humanities. In what is a very well-told but precise book, the author makes an easy to follow and well-reasoned treatise on how we’re doing it wrong and, by sliding to specific examples and evidence, how to start thinking about fixing it. Would recommend this to everybody and anybody who gives a damn
August 2, 2025
The book tended to revisit the same ideas over and over again throughout. I also noticed a hand full of mistakes/typos. While I appreciate the author’s passion, i disagree with the idea that investing in grand structures should take precedence over saving lives. Schiller clearly has strong opinions on how wealth should be used, especially when it comes to guiding billionaires’ philanthropic choices.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 3, 2025
a worthwhile read for philanthropy folks. Schiller argues that philanthropy shouldn't fund only basic needs or quantifiable outcomes, but should aim for "magnificent" projects - beauty, community, the non-capitalistic things that make us human. I found myself nodding and highlighting a lot, though it also felt a bit impractical. the big question - what do we do when government isn't stepping up to meet basic needs? - isn't answered, but it's still an inspiring best-case vision.
"Philanthropy should be used to off set the ruthlessness of the market, which reserves dignity, ease, and comfort for those who can purchase them as commodities. It can put parks and art and other touches of quality of life at the disposal of everyone, not just the super-rich. That would require us to believe that beauty and the sublime are for everyone, not just those who can afford to buy them."
"Philanthropy should be used to off set the ruthlessness of the market, which reserves dignity, ease, and comfort for those who can purchase them as commodities. It can put parks and art and other touches of quality of life at the disposal of everyone, not just the super-rich. That would require us to believe that beauty and the sublime are for everyone, not just those who can afford to buy them."
December 31, 2023
Solid argument that we shouldn't rely on philanthropy to fill basic needs which could be covered by government, but that it is more approriately dedicated to common good projects that add beauty to the world for the use of the public.
January 20, 2024
This book was like jumping into an advanced math class before taking basic algebra. I'm thrilled that I read something that was apparently a new topic for me, and this book seems to be a valuable resource. I just would have benefited from some related material before diving into this one.
Read
March 2, 2024Hmmm. I appreciated the perspective this book presented, and it gave me arguments against Effective Altruism that I had not considered before. On the other hand, I found the writing and examples at times disconnected, and the tone shifted into the familiar at times that felt disjointed.
August 20, 2024
FINALLY, a book that says what everyone who works in non-profits knows, which is that the rich should just pay their taxes so that governments can provide necessary services instead of forming new foundations and donating to non-profits.
February 7, 2024
very preachy and condescending
It a been a long time since I’ve disliked a book so much. This should have been a short article. It just went around in circles. Just painful to read
It a been a long time since I’ve disliked a book so much. This should have been a short article. It just went around in circles. Just painful to read
March 3, 2024
I went back and forth on agreeing with the author's stance until the last third of the book. As someone who works in philanthropy, this is a must read.
March 10, 2024
Brilliant and thought provoking
May 6, 2024
3.5 rounded up. I felt like this was two books, put together.
Read
June 27, 2024Thought-provoking and cleverly written, very funny and sharp in places. I’m glad I read it.
Read
January 29, 2025I can't star-review this. Amy was my college roommate and is still very dear to me all these years later. It'd be like saying what percentage of a friend she is. Not doing it!
I enjoyed reading this book so very much, mostly because Amy's voice is so on display and so her, and even if you don't know her, you will enjoy the hell out of her authorial voice. She's funny and punny and referential and just enormously clever. It's a terrific version of her real self, somehow captured on paper.
This book is in large part a counterargument to anyone who says, "How can you give your money to the art museum/the cat rescue/your house of worship/the local Gilbert and Sullivan repertory when there are PEOPLE DYING???" Because, as Amy says many times, human flourishing isn't just about survival; it's about all the aspects of life that are suprasurvival. The things that touch us, that make us human rather than just another band of apes. And I think the book succeeds in that argument.
There are two issues that I found myself wanting Amy to grapple with as I read the book:
1) If certain people (let's say Bill Gates for example) will only give charitably when he thinks he can save lives, is it better to just let that money be spent in the world in that manner? For the sake of argument, if there are gazillionaires who simply can't be persuaded to give to chamber orchestras and community gardens, should we take what we can get from them? (There's no easy answer to this! Bill Gates et al. reaching their hands in to matters all over the globe has a lot of knock-on effects, even though I would say it's inarguable that they've saved lives.)
2) The crux of Amy's argument boils down to, we should tax the rich and let government handle the survival stuff; philanthropy should be for the suprasurvival stuff. (I made that word up, by the way. Don't blame Amy for it; she's innocent here.) That works fine in countries with rich people to tax. But what are we (we, as in, humanity) supposed to do in, say, Sudan? There's no reality in which such a separation of powers works in the least developed countries. Maybe in that situation, we should be able to rely on the U.N. as a simulacrum of a "world government" to step in, or maybe we rely on those philanthropically funded NGOs . . . ? I didn't get clarity on that within these covers.
Oh, bonus thing, I would love to hear Amy tear Peter Singer a new one, which she regrettably refrained from doing in these pages (though her frustration with him is crystal clear). Maybe her publisher should release paid bonus content where Amy just destroys Singer's arguments. I would pay double for that.
I enjoyed reading this book so very much, mostly because Amy's voice is so on display and so her, and even if you don't know her, you will enjoy the hell out of her authorial voice. She's funny and punny and referential and just enormously clever. It's a terrific version of her real self, somehow captured on paper.
This book is in large part a counterargument to anyone who says, "How can you give your money to the art museum/the cat rescue/your house of worship/the local Gilbert and Sullivan repertory when there are PEOPLE DYING???" Because, as Amy says many times, human flourishing isn't just about survival; it's about all the aspects of life that are suprasurvival. The things that touch us, that make us human rather than just another band of apes. And I think the book succeeds in that argument.
There are two issues that I found myself wanting Amy to grapple with as I read the book:
1) If certain people (let's say Bill Gates for example) will only give charitably when he thinks he can save lives, is it better to just let that money be spent in the world in that manner? For the sake of argument, if there are gazillionaires who simply can't be persuaded to give to chamber orchestras and community gardens, should we take what we can get from them? (There's no easy answer to this! Bill Gates et al. reaching their hands in to matters all over the globe has a lot of knock-on effects, even though I would say it's inarguable that they've saved lives.)
2) The crux of Amy's argument boils down to, we should tax the rich and let government handle the survival stuff; philanthropy should be for the suprasurvival stuff. (I made that word up, by the way. Don't blame Amy for it; she's innocent here.) That works fine in countries with rich people to tax. But what are we (we, as in, humanity) supposed to do in, say, Sudan? There's no reality in which such a separation of powers works in the least developed countries. Maybe in that situation, we should be able to rely on the U.N. as a simulacrum of a "world government" to step in, or maybe we rely on those philanthropically funded NGOs . . . ? I didn't get clarity on that within these covers.
Oh, bonus thing, I would love to hear Amy tear Peter Singer a new one, which she regrettably refrained from doing in these pages (though her frustration with him is crystal clear). Maybe her publisher should release paid bonus content where Amy just destroys Singer's arguments. I would pay double for that.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews