What do you think?
Rate this book
One World: The Ethics of Globalization
One of the world’s most influential philosophers here considers the ethical issues surrounding globalization. Peter Singer discusses climate change, the role of the World Trade Organization, human rights and humanitarian intervention, and foreign aid, showing how a global ethic rather than a nationalistic approach can provide illuminating answers to important problems.
The book encompasses four main global climate change, the role of the World Trade Organization, human rights and humanitarian intervention, and foreign aid. Singer addresses each vital issue from an ethical perspective and offers alternatives to the state-centric approach that characterizes international theory and relations today. Posing a bold challenge to narrow or nationalistic views, Singer presents a realistic, new way of looking at contemporary global issues—through a prism of ethics.
The book encompasses four main global climate change, the role of the World Trade Organization, human rights and humanitarian intervention, and foreign aid. Singer addresses each vital issue from an ethical perspective and offers alternatives to the state-centric approach that characterizes international theory and relations today. Posing a bold challenge to narrow or nationalistic views, Singer presents a realistic, new way of looking at contemporary global issues—through a prism of ethics.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
71 people are currently reading
2048 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
186 books10.9k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
December 4, 2013
Peter Singer has long since proven himself to be one of the most important and influential ethical utilitarian philosophers of the 20th century. However, when Singer steps into the realm of politics things get a little murky; this book, "One World" is an analysis of Globalization and its effects, and it's a less than perfect work. For instance, Singer provides thorough background information on the harmful effects industry is having on the environment in the form of greenhouse gas emissions, and then moves into a section on politics and international law. Now the problem with his research is that the majority of the sources he cites in the footnotes are outdated web pages that can no longer be accessed, hardly something you want to ground your beliefs about globalization in.
The exception to this is the source for footnote 33 on page 45 of the "One Atmosphere" chapter, which links to an excellent website detailing the U.S.'s steadily increasing rate of Carbon Dioxide Emissions which confirm his claims. Unfortunately, a number of these online resources Singer cites cannot be reached, I'm referring now to footnotes 5 and 6 of chapter 1 which details U.N. reports, footnotes 2 and 4 of chapter 2 are also not available, as are footnotes 10, 11, 20, 35, 37, and 59 of chapter 3, "One Economy," and these are just a sampling of the sources I checked. The majority of this is highly unreliable data, and it's not just the websites, Singer relies very heavily on Thomas Friedman's biased book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," see footnotes 15,16, and 17 of chapter 1. Clearly there's a dilemma for people who are serious about this topic after reading through Singer's notes.
Hell, maybe every single source cited in this book is correct, but I couldn't verify a great deal of it. But that's just one complaint I have with the book; in addition, Singer indicates to me that he just isn't an expert on politics in any sense of the word. For instance, when discussing international law and humanitarian intervention initiatives, Singer simply confuses political "authority" with political "legitimacy" outright. Not only that, but he proceeds to discuss genocide and crimes against humanity with regard to Democratic political systems without offering any kind of working definition of democracy. I wonder if he realizes that the so-called democracy in the U.S. contributed to the genocide in East Timor. Anyway, as I've said before Singer is an excellent ethical philosopher, but his politics is pretty amateurish.
Perhaps my biggest complaint with the book is Singer's failure to analyze the connection between the rise of globalization with the rise of poverty, pollution, war, etc. He simply describes globalization as a phenomenon, detailing the facets of the WTO and so on, without offering much of a thoughtful connection between that phenomenon with the other ethical concerns of the book. To put it simply, Singer ultimately cops out in offering a normative judgment on globalization as a whole, preferring instead to move on to other issues like international law and nationalism, issues that for me at least are intimately related to globalization.
The book does have some good insights to offer; the final section where Singer analyzes the U.S.'s frugal contributions to Third World countries is particularly striking, and he offers some insightful solutions to solving problems of global poverty and suffering. Additionally, he offers some interesting criticisms of John Rawls' work in political justice and his failure to address issues of justice between differing societies. Yet, I'm afraid this book has too many problems to recommend or rely on, but I'm sure there are many superior books on globalization for readers who are willing to look.
The exception to this is the source for footnote 33 on page 45 of the "One Atmosphere" chapter, which links to an excellent website detailing the U.S.'s steadily increasing rate of Carbon Dioxide Emissions which confirm his claims. Unfortunately, a number of these online resources Singer cites cannot be reached, I'm referring now to footnotes 5 and 6 of chapter 1 which details U.N. reports, footnotes 2 and 4 of chapter 2 are also not available, as are footnotes 10, 11, 20, 35, 37, and 59 of chapter 3, "One Economy," and these are just a sampling of the sources I checked. The majority of this is highly unreliable data, and it's not just the websites, Singer relies very heavily on Thomas Friedman's biased book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree," see footnotes 15,16, and 17 of chapter 1. Clearly there's a dilemma for people who are serious about this topic after reading through Singer's notes.
Hell, maybe every single source cited in this book is correct, but I couldn't verify a great deal of it. But that's just one complaint I have with the book; in addition, Singer indicates to me that he just isn't an expert on politics in any sense of the word. For instance, when discussing international law and humanitarian intervention initiatives, Singer simply confuses political "authority" with political "legitimacy" outright. Not only that, but he proceeds to discuss genocide and crimes against humanity with regard to Democratic political systems without offering any kind of working definition of democracy. I wonder if he realizes that the so-called democracy in the U.S. contributed to the genocide in East Timor. Anyway, as I've said before Singer is an excellent ethical philosopher, but his politics is pretty amateurish.
Perhaps my biggest complaint with the book is Singer's failure to analyze the connection between the rise of globalization with the rise of poverty, pollution, war, etc. He simply describes globalization as a phenomenon, detailing the facets of the WTO and so on, without offering much of a thoughtful connection between that phenomenon with the other ethical concerns of the book. To put it simply, Singer ultimately cops out in offering a normative judgment on globalization as a whole, preferring instead to move on to other issues like international law and nationalism, issues that for me at least are intimately related to globalization.
The book does have some good insights to offer; the final section where Singer analyzes the U.S.'s frugal contributions to Third World countries is particularly striking, and he offers some insightful solutions to solving problems of global poverty and suffering. Additionally, he offers some interesting criticisms of John Rawls' work in political justice and his failure to address issues of justice between differing societies. Yet, I'm afraid this book has too many problems to recommend or rely on, but I'm sure there are many superior books on globalization for readers who are willing to look.
August 12, 2019
Nothing is more important than developing ethical principles for a global society. And nobody is more qualified to speak on the subject than a world class philosopher like Peter Singer. It therefore breaks my heart to tell you that this book falls diabolically short of those high expectations.
Don't get me wrong. Many of the essays are good or even very good. The best ones, unsurprisingly, deal with the ethics of global justice, our obligations to strangers, utilitarianism, and other familiar (and typically Singerian) topics. But the problem is that the 1) whole collection hangs together by a very loose thread and 2) several of the included essays are substandard. It appears that my disappointment derives from lackadaisical editorializing. This hodgepodge of essays fails to pass itself off as a coherent whole. And several rotten apples have been allowed to spoil the bunch.
The rotten apples are Singer's more down-to-earth, journalistic essays around geopolitical, scientific, and economic topics. They showcase how little Singer knows about certain things and how little his contribution adds to the debate. Singer is a generalist philosopher and not a climate scientist, trade economist or foreign aid expert. His understanding of those issues is on the level of a well-educated general reader. There are better books out there around all of those topics. Singer's humdrum discussion of the WTO, the U.N. or the IPCC resorts to echoing platitudes (although, to his credit, he doesn't parrot the ideological talking points but mostly follows the science).
The unique skills of the philosopher are so obliterated that these essays could have been written by almost anybody with a few years of social science education and practice as a journalist. It is only when he steps outside of the social scientific field into the field of philosophy and ethics that his argumentation shines. Not being an expert in a field would not preclude Singer from taking that knowledge for a ride and giving it an interesting spin from a philosophical angle. Considering how good a philosopher Singer is at his best, the perfunctory essays on climate change and political economy feel like missed opportunities. I would have LOVED to have seen Singer's philosophical analysis of climate change, international trade, or world government. Where is it, then?
This is one of Singer's weaker books (or, more accurately, essay collages). It has a few bits and sections that make my heart giggle, but this is Prof. Singer using only 23% of his full power. It reminds me of a superhero wanting to pass himself off as normal for a day. Peter Singer, like Peter Parker, needs his days off, but we want to see him put on that costume and save the world at the end of the day. And to save the world, a Singer man must do whatever a Singer can.
Don't get me wrong. Many of the essays are good or even very good. The best ones, unsurprisingly, deal with the ethics of global justice, our obligations to strangers, utilitarianism, and other familiar (and typically Singerian) topics. But the problem is that the 1) whole collection hangs together by a very loose thread and 2) several of the included essays are substandard. It appears that my disappointment derives from lackadaisical editorializing. This hodgepodge of essays fails to pass itself off as a coherent whole. And several rotten apples have been allowed to spoil the bunch.
The rotten apples are Singer's more down-to-earth, journalistic essays around geopolitical, scientific, and economic topics. They showcase how little Singer knows about certain things and how little his contribution adds to the debate. Singer is a generalist philosopher and not a climate scientist, trade economist or foreign aid expert. His understanding of those issues is on the level of a well-educated general reader. There are better books out there around all of those topics. Singer's humdrum discussion of the WTO, the U.N. or the IPCC resorts to echoing platitudes (although, to his credit, he doesn't parrot the ideological talking points but mostly follows the science).
The unique skills of the philosopher are so obliterated that these essays could have been written by almost anybody with a few years of social science education and practice as a journalist. It is only when he steps outside of the social scientific field into the field of philosophy and ethics that his argumentation shines. Not being an expert in a field would not preclude Singer from taking that knowledge for a ride and giving it an interesting spin from a philosophical angle. Considering how good a philosopher Singer is at his best, the perfunctory essays on climate change and political economy feel like missed opportunities. I would have LOVED to have seen Singer's philosophical analysis of climate change, international trade, or world government. Where is it, then?
This is one of Singer's weaker books (or, more accurately, essay collages). It has a few bits and sections that make my heart giggle, but this is Prof. Singer using only 23% of his full power. It reminds me of a superhero wanting to pass himself off as normal for a day. Peter Singer, like Peter Parker, needs his days off, but we want to see him put on that costume and save the world at the end of the day. And to save the world, a Singer man must do whatever a Singer can.
January 5, 2022
کتاب درمورد فرآیند جهانیشدن و جنبههای اخلاقی اون بحث میکنه و شرح میده که هرکدوم از ما به عنوان یک شهروند جهان چه مسئولیت اخلاقیی داریم و عملکرد دولتها خصوصا دولتهای بزرگ مثل آمریکا چطور بوده.
کتاب پر از آمارهای جالبه که البته مربوط به قبله و شاید خیلیهاش الان تغییر کرده باشه.
ویژگی دیگه پیتر سینگر اینه که یک مسئله رو از ابعاد مختلف نگاه میکنه، دیدگاههای مخالف رو بیطرفانه بررسی میکنه و در نهایت بهترین راهحل رو بیان میکنه.
کتاب پر از آمارهای جالبه که البته مربوط به قبله و شاید خیلیهاش الان تغییر کرده باشه.
ویژگی دیگه پیتر سینگر اینه که یک مسئله رو از ابعاد مختلف نگاه میکنه، دیدگاههای مخالف رو بیطرفانه بررسی میکنه و در نهایت بهترین راهحل رو بیان میکنه.
August 19, 2023
خیلی عالی بود. کاش ما ایرانی ها علاقه بیشتری به این سبک کتاب ها نشون میدادیم. چون همونطور که نویسنده میگه، ایران در موقعیتی به سر میبره که باید دانشش رو در این زمینه تقویت کنه.
January 7, 2015
I love/hate reading Peter Singer because his ethical arguments are so clear and logical that he almost invariably succeeds in making me feel guilty. In that it makes me reflect on the morality of my own lifestyle this is a good thing. In One World, Singer is strongest at the individual level, advocating for an individual's responsibility to help those less fortunate (with a specific focus on extreme global poverty). I especially liked his description/prescription of 'two-level utilitarianism' in which an individual goes about her day-to-day life without being overly concerned with the morality of every decision she makes (essential to mental health really), but also has moments of philosophical reflection in which she makes the necessary moral calculations and decides what kinds of general principles/values are going to inform this first level. He basically seems to use this as a means of softening his generally quite rigid moral demands. The chapters on global politics and his call for a democratically-elected, world legislature (modeled on the European Parliament) and somewhat less convincing mostly because they're so farfetched. I understand that he's merely making an ethical case with minimal regard to geopolitical realities, but for me he's just a lot more convincing on an individual level. Animal Liberation is on my list but I'm worried about the impact it'll have on my day-to-day.
April 19, 2017
Although I do not entirely agree. It was a good read
December 30, 2018
I think the ordering of chapters within this book could have been managed a bit more effectively, opening with the foundational philosophical principles that undergird the inevitably of globalization and the ethical issues that arise, followed by the more practical justifications including climate change, human rights, and our obligations to give and expand our moral sphere. Nonetheless, it's a great piece that poke the obvious holes in moral relativism, as well as the narratives pushed by those with a proclivity for isolationism.
December 29, 2007
Singer is intelligent but this book is just downright boring. Its repetitive and mostly relays common sense.
I only made it to the third chapter on the new global economy. Expecting a broad, political, and philosophical discussion, I found only a lengthy attack on the WTO.
This book just simply didn't seem worth my time.
I only made it to the third chapter on the new global economy. Expecting a broad, political, and philosophical discussion, I found only a lengthy attack on the WTO.
This book just simply didn't seem worth my time.
November 10, 2018
To be a responsible citizen (of the world) is to have a globally acceptable ethics, but then;what are globally acceptable ethics? It doesn't necessarily falls within your moral conduct.
Sometimes 'making morality so demanding threatens to bring the whole of morality into disrepute' :Peter Singer~glad to have found this book.
Sometimes 'making morality so demanding threatens to bring the whole of morality into disrepute' :Peter Singer~glad to have found this book.
March 23, 2008
Singer writes this book with a discussion on ethics in the inevitable evolution of our worldwide community. I enjoyed his arguments and his accusations were well supported. The main topics are globalization, the ethics of WTO, and our role in the environment.
April 17, 2023
I was only supposed to read a few chapters, but this book has proven to be much more interesting than I initially thought. Singer may be known for his ~slight~ (alas?) controversial ethics but I very much liked how this particular writing has traced the link between globalisation and morality.
October 6, 2021
not good
September 16, 2022
God applied ethics can be so uninteresting sometimes. Despite that though I still managed to burn through this book in like a day and some change which is pretty good for me given how slow I read so props to Singer for making it really digestable I guess?
This book isn't bad. It's just a little underwhelming. I honestly don't even have that much to say about it either because there's no real big or core takeaways. The book is essentially a compilation of case studies (some being more widely applicable while others are fairly hyper specific on the time period of the books release and less useful currently) about ethical problems caused by the increasing trend of globalization. Insofar as these case studies operate to show us how complex and highly necessary a consideration of international ethics is - the book does a fantastic job actually. But there's an underlying narrative that's used to tie all the various issues in the book together, this idea that we need to abandon ethical partiality to those within our own borders, deconstruct the very idea of nation-states, and create a new system of justice centered around global ethics which Singer consistently reminds us is a problem our previous ethical systems have NEVER taken into consideration before... And it kinda just does absolutely nothing with it.
The closest Singer gets to making the more abstracted normative ethical contributions that this narrative seems to demand is chapter 5, but the problem is that this is just about the weakest chapter. Singer, to me, does not at ALL argue persuasively against the idea that national ties ought not be somehow morally relevant (not that I think one CAN'T argue this point persuasively - Singer just doesn't lol), nor does he provide some new foundation for international ethics. Rather, it seems like he just wants to take his good old cut and dry consequentialism (which ALREADY biases me against him... Sorry consequentialists) and apply it to these larger scale problems which almost feels like it goes against the spirit of his message? Again, this isn't to say that the content of the book isn't valuable because it absolutely is - it's just that at it's core, the book is really just a handful of highly specific applied ethical case studies regarding global politics dressed up in an inspiring but ultimately flowery message about global unity on either end of it.
TL;DR - Oh no! 9/11 happened and the environment is going to shit! Someone should really figure out some moral code for the world to collectively follow sometime soon...
This book isn't bad. It's just a little underwhelming. I honestly don't even have that much to say about it either because there's no real big or core takeaways. The book is essentially a compilation of case studies (some being more widely applicable while others are fairly hyper specific on the time period of the books release and less useful currently) about ethical problems caused by the increasing trend of globalization. Insofar as these case studies operate to show us how complex and highly necessary a consideration of international ethics is - the book does a fantastic job actually. But there's an underlying narrative that's used to tie all the various issues in the book together, this idea that we need to abandon ethical partiality to those within our own borders, deconstruct the very idea of nation-states, and create a new system of justice centered around global ethics which Singer consistently reminds us is a problem our previous ethical systems have NEVER taken into consideration before... And it kinda just does absolutely nothing with it.
The closest Singer gets to making the more abstracted normative ethical contributions that this narrative seems to demand is chapter 5, but the problem is that this is just about the weakest chapter. Singer, to me, does not at ALL argue persuasively against the idea that national ties ought not be somehow morally relevant (not that I think one CAN'T argue this point persuasively - Singer just doesn't lol), nor does he provide some new foundation for international ethics. Rather, it seems like he just wants to take his good old cut and dry consequentialism (which ALREADY biases me against him... Sorry consequentialists) and apply it to these larger scale problems which almost feels like it goes against the spirit of his message? Again, this isn't to say that the content of the book isn't valuable because it absolutely is - it's just that at it's core, the book is really just a handful of highly specific applied ethical case studies regarding global politics dressed up in an inspiring but ultimately flowery message about global unity on either end of it.
TL;DR - Oh no! 9/11 happened and the environment is going to shit! Someone should really figure out some moral code for the world to collectively follow sometime soon...
January 20, 2023
The most important note about this book is that it old. If we take into consideration the topics it deals with, then it is very old. A lot has changed since 2002 in the field of free trade, climate change and other. Some of these ideas aged well, and some, well...not so much. This is the first Singer's work I am reading, and I expected a bit more philosophy and a bit less politics. It aged quite badly in the field of climate change, in my opinion, as Singer seems to be quite satisfied with the overall idea of the Kyoto Protocol and the emissions trading, which has since, proven to be quite a bad idea.
The critique of the free trade and the WTO is quite interesting, and from a moral standpoint, the ideas on legitimacy of governments and the comparisons with private robbers has got me thinking. However, on the ethical perspective, a decision not to trade with a country because our morals do not allow us to accept the way country is run is a double-edge sword. Whether the citizens of that country are better off that way or not is highly questionable.
In the last chapter, where Singer discusses our moral obligations to those close to us, and those far away, and explains the reasons for (im)partiality, is where the things turn around for the better, and where I was getting what I was coming for. Maybe it was because it got through to me more, but it seemed to me as if Singer was speaking to my individual morality and ethics in this case. His ideas about nationalism, and a call for more impartiality to our 'fellow countrymen' resonated significantly with me.
'Our problems are now to intertwined to be well resolved in a system consisting of nation-states, in which citizens give their primary, and near-exclusive, loyalty to their own nation-state rather than to the larger global community, and such a system has not led to a great enough will to meet the pressing needs of those living in extreme poverty. Imagining ourselves to be part of a national community seems fine when we think of it as broadening out concerns beyond more limited tribal loyalties, but it is less appealing when we think of it as erecting fences against the rest of the world.' - pg. 171
The critique of the free trade and the WTO is quite interesting, and from a moral standpoint, the ideas on legitimacy of governments and the comparisons with private robbers has got me thinking. However, on the ethical perspective, a decision not to trade with a country because our morals do not allow us to accept the way country is run is a double-edge sword. Whether the citizens of that country are better off that way or not is highly questionable.
In the last chapter, where Singer discusses our moral obligations to those close to us, and those far away, and explains the reasons for (im)partiality, is where the things turn around for the better, and where I was getting what I was coming for. Maybe it was because it got through to me more, but it seemed to me as if Singer was speaking to my individual morality and ethics in this case. His ideas about nationalism, and a call for more impartiality to our 'fellow countrymen' resonated significantly with me.
'Our problems are now to intertwined to be well resolved in a system consisting of nation-states, in which citizens give their primary, and near-exclusive, loyalty to their own nation-state rather than to the larger global community, and such a system has not led to a great enough will to meet the pressing needs of those living in extreme poverty. Imagining ourselves to be part of a national community seems fine when we think of it as broadening out concerns beyond more limited tribal loyalties, but it is less appealing when we think of it as erecting fences against the rest of the world.' - pg. 171
August 29, 2019
Didn't read the whole thing because it was mostly about ethics rather than the mechanics of globalization. But it provides a more practical application of the ideas in his other book (a better work of ethics, imo), The Expanding Circle. And provides useful information on historical events relevant to those who want to study globalization from the perspective of moral philosophy and politics.
March 30, 2022
Miss rona has been kicking my ass for the past few days but I have managed to get a few reads in.
Needless to say, I have yet to come across a read by Peter Singer that has not exceeded my expectations. Considered one of the most controversial philosophers alive, Singer continues to educate & advocate in this eloquent examination of the ethics of globalization from the global economy to global law to the ever so concerning emergency of a global atmosphere under climate change amongst others.
This read is insightful with heaps of data along with achievable solutions with regards to climate justice from a philosophical as well as a pragmatic standpoint. Expectedly, everything is reviewed as a monopoly including our climate with emissions trading between countries being commonplace & we are reminded that Rawls is forever relevant when it comes to any type of justice albeit with a considerable failure to address justice BETWEEN societies & not just within them.
The chapter on ‘One Economy’ was reminiscent of Michael J. Sandel in some parts which in turn reminded me to order his newest publication ’Tyranny of Merit’! By any means, the chapter was quite informative about the World Trade Organisation, what it takes for a global economy to function & how sharply trade agreements can intrude the most critical decisions a government can face.
‘One Law’, the chapter that followed, was equally engaging informing us as to how (expectedly) complicated it can be to maintain an International Criminal Court exploring valuable examples (lessons learnt) from the past, of all the atrocities against humanity from the well known to the lesser known genocides amongst others.
This was very timely indeed considering the current geopolitical situation as International Military Intervention & when it is justified was discussed including the possibilities of abuse by such mandates leading to a greater evil: anarchy over tyranny for e.g. in Gaddafi’s Libya when the UN sanctioned NATO military operations ‘overcorrected’ the wrongs carried out by the dictator or similarly in the US led invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein; the often neglected consequences of such interventions that leave power vacuums are thoroughly considered by Singer who consistently puts forth meaningful questions as well as attempts to answer said questions.
Singer argues that more & more issues increasingly demand global solutions.
He reminds us that those times, when we thought we owe no obligations, beyond that of non-interference, to people in another state, are long gone. Today, our greenhouse gase emissions alter the climate in which EVERYONE in the world lives. Our purchases of oil, diamonds & timber make it possible for dictators to buy weapons & strengthen their hold on the countries they tyrannize. Our agricultural subsidies make it harder for peasant farmers in developing countries to sell their crops at prices from which they can earn enough income to feed themselves & their families.
A compelling read indeed, Singer is proving to be my most revered philosophers/thinkers of all time!
Needless to say, I have yet to come across a read by Peter Singer that has not exceeded my expectations. Considered one of the most controversial philosophers alive, Singer continues to educate & advocate in this eloquent examination of the ethics of globalization from the global economy to global law to the ever so concerning emergency of a global atmosphere under climate change amongst others.
This read is insightful with heaps of data along with achievable solutions with regards to climate justice from a philosophical as well as a pragmatic standpoint. Expectedly, everything is reviewed as a monopoly including our climate with emissions trading between countries being commonplace & we are reminded that Rawls is forever relevant when it comes to any type of justice albeit with a considerable failure to address justice BETWEEN societies & not just within them.
The chapter on ‘One Economy’ was reminiscent of Michael J. Sandel in some parts which in turn reminded me to order his newest publication ’Tyranny of Merit’! By any means, the chapter was quite informative about the World Trade Organisation, what it takes for a global economy to function & how sharply trade agreements can intrude the most critical decisions a government can face.
‘One Law’, the chapter that followed, was equally engaging informing us as to how (expectedly) complicated it can be to maintain an International Criminal Court exploring valuable examples (lessons learnt) from the past, of all the atrocities against humanity from the well known to the lesser known genocides amongst others.
This was very timely indeed considering the current geopolitical situation as International Military Intervention & when it is justified was discussed including the possibilities of abuse by such mandates leading to a greater evil: anarchy over tyranny for e.g. in Gaddafi’s Libya when the UN sanctioned NATO military operations ‘overcorrected’ the wrongs carried out by the dictator or similarly in the US led invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein; the often neglected consequences of such interventions that leave power vacuums are thoroughly considered by Singer who consistently puts forth meaningful questions as well as attempts to answer said questions.
Singer argues that more & more issues increasingly demand global solutions.
He reminds us that those times, when we thought we owe no obligations, beyond that of non-interference, to people in another state, are long gone. Today, our greenhouse gase emissions alter the climate in which EVERYONE in the world lives. Our purchases of oil, diamonds & timber make it possible for dictators to buy weapons & strengthen their hold on the countries they tyrannize. Our agricultural subsidies make it harder for peasant farmers in developing countries to sell their crops at prices from which they can earn enough income to feed themselves & their families.
A compelling read indeed, Singer is proving to be my most revered philosophers/thinkers of all time!
December 1, 2025
I wish I read before my philosophy exam so I knew how to write
December 26, 2023
My final book review from 2023 is on “One World Now: The Ethics of Globalization“ by Peter Singer. This is not among his most influential works but still a familiar brand of practical philosophy Singer is known for. It comes as a timely commentary on the world order as it stood when the book was written. “One World” was first published in 2002. It was updated and reprinted in 2016 hence developments like Brexit, Paris climate accord and the declining influence of WTO found their place in the updated version of the book. And yet observing from 2023 it feels, dare I say it, a little dated. The world seems to be entering a deglobalizing stage. At least, so it seems judging by the current US inward-directed politics, military conflicts in Europe and Middle East, a looming question of the future of China and its place in the world, etc.
Even if the book doesn’t catch the nerve of the day in 2023, it is still a valuable and thoughtful reminder that globalization, despite all its flaws, is lifting all, or most of, the boats, making people around the world more prosperous. In fact, unless we destroy ourselves during this period of seeming volatility, the current turn to nationalism may be a temporary glitch, a passing phase in humanity’s history.
Long-term, when we abstract ourselves from the world we see around us today and try to imagine humanity in a distant future, it almost feels inevitable that we will come to some form of a post-sovereign-state world order. Would it be a global federation or something else. For Singer it would be a welcome development.
“I have argued that as more and more issues increasingly demand global solutions, the extent to which any state can independently determine its future diminishes. We therefore need to strengthen institutions for global decision making and make them more responsible to the people they affect. This leads in the direction of a world community with its own directly elected legislature,” he argues.
As a utilitarian philosopher, Singer is preoccupied with an idea of reducing suffering of all sentient beings. He is famous for his shallow pond thought experiment, which is a thought-provoking analogy that asks if you should help a child drowning in a shallow pond, even if it costs something. If the answer to this question is yes, we should similarly care about children dying from preventable diseases on the other side of the globe too. Distance shouldn’t matter in this moral calculus. Understandably for him, globalization when done right is a step in the right direction. He is calling out many examples when it is done wrong causing harm to local communities and the environment, etc. Globalization on an institutional level has turned out to be challenging for humans. Like many people these days, Singer is drawing our attention to a total dysfunction of the UN Security Council. In the ideal world, according to Singer, the United Nations would have sufficient revenue to have its own military forces available to defend civilians anywhere in the world threatened with genocide or crimes against humanity. He also suggested, quite controversially, that there are reasons for moving toward a democratic idea of sovereignty which would make it easier to justify intervention against a government that was not even minimally democratic.
The Security Council has five permanent members—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia—corresponding to the major powers that were victorious in 1945. The General Assembly elects ten additional states to the Security Council for two-year terms, but no substantive decision can be taken against the overt opposition of any of the five permanent members.
“There can be no justification today for giving special status to states that were great powers in 1945 but are no longer so today. Why should France and the United Kingdom have veto rights, and not Germany or Japan? Why should China be a permanent member, and not India or Brazil or Indonesia? Why should four of the five permanent members be European states or states of European origin when there is no permanent member from Africa or Latin America or southern or southeastern Asia, or from anywhere in the southern hemisphere? Is it desirable that four of the five permanent members are states with roots in Christianity, and none of them has Islamic roots?” writes Singer.
“What, then, should be done? Expanding the number of permanent members with veto rights runs the risk of making the Security Council unworkable. A better idea would be to replace the veto with a requirement that substantive decisions be made by a special majority, perhaps two-thirds or three-quarters, of a reconstituted Security Council,” suggests the author.
Something similar is long overdue in the European Union too where decision-making is paralyzed due veto powers of each Member state. It is so painfully obvious, yet nothing is done for way too long. And that’s the problem with Singer’s book. It is written in a pretty practical action-driven way. However, all we can hope for is incremental changes, not a paradigm shift.
In fact, Singer seems to be OK with that. It is widely believed that a world government will be, at best, an unchecked bureaucratic behemoth that makes the bureaucracy of the European Union look lean and efficient. At worst, it will become a global tyranny, unchecked and unchallengeable, author states the common fears.
"To rush into world federalism would be foolhardy, but we do not have to do that. We could accept the diminishing significance of state boundaries and take a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to greater global governance. The preceding chapters have argued that there is a good case for global environmental and labor standards and for adopting international standards of “clean trade” in order to cease buying resources from regimes that have stolen the goods from their people. These and other specific proposals for stronger global institutions to accomplish a particular task should be considered on their merits. In time, we will see how well they work and whether they point toward opportunities for more comprehensive global governance," writes Singer.
A great lure of philosophy for me is that it invites us to ponder upon things not from a short-term vantage point but from a point of view of the universe or view from nowhere as Thomas Nagel put it. I imagine there are alien civilizations which have progressed far ahead of us and built truly global or even multi-planetary communities.
Singer philosophizes, “the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are celebrated for the voyages of discovery that proved that the world is round. The eighteenth century saw the first proclamations of universal human rights. The twentieth century’s conquest of space made it possible for a human being to look at our planet from a point not on it and so to see it, literally, as one world. Now, the twenty-first century faces the task of developing a suitable form of governance for our world. It is a daunting moral and intellectual challenge but one we cannot refuse to take up, for the future of the world surely depends on how well we meet it.”
Well said, professor.
Even if the book doesn’t catch the nerve of the day in 2023, it is still a valuable and thoughtful reminder that globalization, despite all its flaws, is lifting all, or most of, the boats, making people around the world more prosperous. In fact, unless we destroy ourselves during this period of seeming volatility, the current turn to nationalism may be a temporary glitch, a passing phase in humanity’s history.
Long-term, when we abstract ourselves from the world we see around us today and try to imagine humanity in a distant future, it almost feels inevitable that we will come to some form of a post-sovereign-state world order. Would it be a global federation or something else. For Singer it would be a welcome development.
“I have argued that as more and more issues increasingly demand global solutions, the extent to which any state can independently determine its future diminishes. We therefore need to strengthen institutions for global decision making and make them more responsible to the people they affect. This leads in the direction of a world community with its own directly elected legislature,” he argues.
As a utilitarian philosopher, Singer is preoccupied with an idea of reducing suffering of all sentient beings. He is famous for his shallow pond thought experiment, which is a thought-provoking analogy that asks if you should help a child drowning in a shallow pond, even if it costs something. If the answer to this question is yes, we should similarly care about children dying from preventable diseases on the other side of the globe too. Distance shouldn’t matter in this moral calculus. Understandably for him, globalization when done right is a step in the right direction. He is calling out many examples when it is done wrong causing harm to local communities and the environment, etc. Globalization on an institutional level has turned out to be challenging for humans. Like many people these days, Singer is drawing our attention to a total dysfunction of the UN Security Council. In the ideal world, according to Singer, the United Nations would have sufficient revenue to have its own military forces available to defend civilians anywhere in the world threatened with genocide or crimes against humanity. He also suggested, quite controversially, that there are reasons for moving toward a democratic idea of sovereignty which would make it easier to justify intervention against a government that was not even minimally democratic.
The Security Council has five permanent members—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia—corresponding to the major powers that were victorious in 1945. The General Assembly elects ten additional states to the Security Council for two-year terms, but no substantive decision can be taken against the overt opposition of any of the five permanent members.
“There can be no justification today for giving special status to states that were great powers in 1945 but are no longer so today. Why should France and the United Kingdom have veto rights, and not Germany or Japan? Why should China be a permanent member, and not India or Brazil or Indonesia? Why should four of the five permanent members be European states or states of European origin when there is no permanent member from Africa or Latin America or southern or southeastern Asia, or from anywhere in the southern hemisphere? Is it desirable that four of the five permanent members are states with roots in Christianity, and none of them has Islamic roots?” writes Singer.
“What, then, should be done? Expanding the number of permanent members with veto rights runs the risk of making the Security Council unworkable. A better idea would be to replace the veto with a requirement that substantive decisions be made by a special majority, perhaps two-thirds or three-quarters, of a reconstituted Security Council,” suggests the author.
Something similar is long overdue in the European Union too where decision-making is paralyzed due veto powers of each Member state. It is so painfully obvious, yet nothing is done for way too long. And that’s the problem with Singer’s book. It is written in a pretty practical action-driven way. However, all we can hope for is incremental changes, not a paradigm shift.
In fact, Singer seems to be OK with that. It is widely believed that a world government will be, at best, an unchecked bureaucratic behemoth that makes the bureaucracy of the European Union look lean and efficient. At worst, it will become a global tyranny, unchecked and unchallengeable, author states the common fears.
"To rush into world federalism would be foolhardy, but we do not have to do that. We could accept the diminishing significance of state boundaries and take a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to greater global governance. The preceding chapters have argued that there is a good case for global environmental and labor standards and for adopting international standards of “clean trade” in order to cease buying resources from regimes that have stolen the goods from their people. These and other specific proposals for stronger global institutions to accomplish a particular task should be considered on their merits. In time, we will see how well they work and whether they point toward opportunities for more comprehensive global governance," writes Singer.
A great lure of philosophy for me is that it invites us to ponder upon things not from a short-term vantage point but from a point of view of the universe or view from nowhere as Thomas Nagel put it. I imagine there are alien civilizations which have progressed far ahead of us and built truly global or even multi-planetary communities.
Singer philosophizes, “the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are celebrated for the voyages of discovery that proved that the world is round. The eighteenth century saw the first proclamations of universal human rights. The twentieth century’s conquest of space made it possible for a human being to look at our planet from a point not on it and so to see it, literally, as one world. Now, the twenty-first century faces the task of developing a suitable form of governance for our world. It is a daunting moral and intellectual challenge but one we cannot refuse to take up, for the future of the world surely depends on how well we meet it.”
Well said, professor.
May 1, 2019
This is not a complete ethical view of what globalisation is and what ethical frameworks should govern it. It is at best a collection of thoughts on some of the issues globalisation brings to the forefront in our current time. It is as well a collection of previous ideas and writings by Singer put together in one book including his writings on animal rights, equality, humanitarian interventions, foreign aid, etc.
The issue I have with this book is that it feels that since Singer brought previous ideas he had since the seventies and put them together, the problem with that is that each idea is consistent with itself from his thoughts on animal liberation to his on foreign aid. They can be argued and not all of the are equally logical although all of them are based on a utilitarian argument which Singer adheres to throughout his book (and his career). While each idea is more or less consistent, the collection is not at all. How can he put it in one place that there is no moral justification for speciesism but that there is no alternative to capitalism: this sounds wrong because it is and the fact that each of the two statement s is in a different chapter doesn't forgive the inconsistency.
The other problem is with how conservative Singer is in pursuing his ideas. While he argues for example that state sovereignty should not be absolute and that the right to protect should be accepted, he also goes to conclude that unless there is a water-tight plan for the day after intervention, an intervention has to be abandoned even at the cost of people being killed, maimed, imprisoned and oppressed by crazed dictators... sorry, we fucked Iraq so you have to pay the price in (Yemen, Syria, etc, etc).
For a moral philosopher, Singer finds it too easy to discard those who are oppressed. In a way, I had hoped that he looks at them al least with the same consideration he afforded to animals he wants to liberate.
The issue I have with this book is that it feels that since Singer brought previous ideas he had since the seventies and put them together, the problem with that is that each idea is consistent with itself from his thoughts on animal liberation to his on foreign aid. They can be argued and not all of the are equally logical although all of them are based on a utilitarian argument which Singer adheres to throughout his book (and his career). While each idea is more or less consistent, the collection is not at all. How can he put it in one place that there is no moral justification for speciesism but that there is no alternative to capitalism: this sounds wrong because it is and the fact that each of the two statement s is in a different chapter doesn't forgive the inconsistency.
The other problem is with how conservative Singer is in pursuing his ideas. While he argues for example that state sovereignty should not be absolute and that the right to protect should be accepted, he also goes to conclude that unless there is a water-tight plan for the day after intervention, an intervention has to be abandoned even at the cost of people being killed, maimed, imprisoned and oppressed by crazed dictators... sorry, we fucked Iraq so you have to pay the price in (Yemen, Syria, etc, etc).
For a moral philosopher, Singer finds it too easy to discard those who are oppressed. In a way, I had hoped that he looks at them al least with the same consideration he afforded to animals he wants to liberate.
April 20, 2014
A book about the problems of globalization. For the most part, in this book the author stays away from the controversial themes for which he is infamous. His suggestions seem quite sensible on the surface. But the devil is in the details.
At some point he argues for a global governing body to encourage human rights for instance. But, just how much can this be pushed? What to some may seem as a fundamental human right (the so-called right to abortion) is to others a license to commit murder. And even now, for instance, some people are already pushing the U.N. to pressure its members into accepting abortion as a human right under the guise of a right to healthcare. It is not surprising that the ones pushing the U.N. are citizens of a country which has the most power within the U.N. At what point does a global government become the megaphone and instrument of acculturation for whichever government is truly running said global government?
In other words, what if the global government gets it dramatically wrong? Surely fighting a murderous government is easier when that government isn't backed up by all the armies of the world?
At some point he argues for a global governing body to encourage human rights for instance. But, just how much can this be pushed? What to some may seem as a fundamental human right (the so-called right to abortion) is to others a license to commit murder. And even now, for instance, some people are already pushing the U.N. to pressure its members into accepting abortion as a human right under the guise of a right to healthcare. It is not surprising that the ones pushing the U.N. are citizens of a country which has the most power within the U.N. At what point does a global government become the megaphone and instrument of acculturation for whichever government is truly running said global government?
In other words, what if the global government gets it dramatically wrong? Surely fighting a murderous government is easier when that government isn't backed up by all the armies of the world?
July 23, 2007
Peter Singer is an incredible writer, and a brilliant thinker. His biggest strength is as a philosopher and in One World, this is the tool he uses to debunk Western political philosphy, specifically as it relates to the concepts of nation-states, diplomacy, and capitalism.
Peter Singer is a professor (in New Mexico I believe) and this book definitely reads as a text designed for students. I found it hard to turn off the impulse to underline and highlight as the architecture of his arguments leapt off the page.
Singer's thesis is to suggest that the current course of western civilization is at best, inadequate, and at worst suicidal. He explains that to honor global democracy, we must make a shift away from nationalism and capitalism and create a more socialized global government in which members are wholly accountable for their actions locally and globally. Because the thesis is so broad, I found the book slightly repetitive at times, and occasionally boring, but at 200 pages, it goes by quickly enough to keep you going - another reason it seems destined for a classroom.
Peter Singer is a professor (in New Mexico I believe) and this book definitely reads as a text designed for students. I found it hard to turn off the impulse to underline and highlight as the architecture of his arguments leapt off the page.
Singer's thesis is to suggest that the current course of western civilization is at best, inadequate, and at worst suicidal. He explains that to honor global democracy, we must make a shift away from nationalism and capitalism and create a more socialized global government in which members are wholly accountable for their actions locally and globally. Because the thesis is so broad, I found the book slightly repetitive at times, and occasionally boring, but at 200 pages, it goes by quickly enough to keep you going - another reason it seems destined for a classroom.
January 3, 2009
Peter Singer brings his well reasoned and superbly lucid writing (he is as lucid as any philosopher I've ever read) to the task of assesing the ethics of globalization. Singer covers not only the economic aspect of globalization (which is what most people are referring to when they say "globalization") but addresses international law, poverty, and global warming.
Singer's treatment of poverty is nothing new to those already familiar with his views on this subject. He argues that we should give more money to aid organizations like Oxfam and goes into some detail as to why.
The economic chapter is substantially an assessment of the WTO, using the WTO's own outline of its operating policies and seeing how well the WTO follows them. Singer takes the most common criticisms of the WTO and determines how accurate they are.
The global warming chapter addresses the resposibility each nation has regarding how much greenhouse gas emmissions are to be curtailed.
An excellent book overall that stands up to the extraordinary quality of Peter Singer's past works.
Singer's treatment of poverty is nothing new to those already familiar with his views on this subject. He argues that we should give more money to aid organizations like Oxfam and goes into some detail as to why.
The economic chapter is substantially an assessment of the WTO, using the WTO's own outline of its operating policies and seeing how well the WTO follows them. Singer takes the most common criticisms of the WTO and determines how accurate they are.
The global warming chapter addresses the resposibility each nation has regarding how much greenhouse gas emmissions are to be curtailed.
An excellent book overall that stands up to the extraordinary quality of Peter Singer's past works.
May 13, 2016
I read this book for my philosophy class and I thought I include it here to boost up my book count haha. I have pretty mixed feelings about this one. I'm kind of glad that we had to read it because it was interesting to read one of Peter Singer's works. He's a pretty controversial person so it was interesting to hear from his perspective. I would say that he makes some great points but then there are things that are completely bullshit in my opinion. Globalization could be considered to be on of my "nerd topics" haha so I might be overcritizing Singer, but I really think some of his arguments weren't that well based. I don't know, there was so much unnecessary ramblings at times. It should also be pointed out that this book was written in 2001, and because of that, a lot of the facts that Singer presents are "out of day" right now, so that made the reading experience less enjoyable.
I'm glad that I read this book and it was pretty interesting at times, but I wouldn't exactly recommend it.
I'm glad that I read this book and it was pretty interesting at times, but I wouldn't exactly recommend it.
March 14, 2008
Unfortunately i have to give this book a low grade. It's an interesting topic and Singer is an interesting thinker, however his research is very sloppy. While I was initially enthusiastic, after doing my own research i found that many of his thoughts are based on faulty information and cannot stand.
However, if you are interested in thinking in ethics, this is an excellent exercise, if not a manual for real-world problems.
http://uk.geocities.com/spikslow/essa...
However, if you are interested in thinking in ethics, this is an excellent exercise, if not a manual for real-world problems.
http://uk.geocities.com/spikslow/essa...
December 29, 2007
Hard to take seriously an ethical assessment of the world by a man so strict in his utilitarianism that he says infanticide can be moral in some situations.
May 10, 2011
I had to read this book for class. It was really dense and though the topic has lots of potential I found it hard to get through the name dropping and awkwardly long sentence structure.
February 25, 2017
Text bookish, hence not that much fun. I'd rather read a summary.
December 1, 2017
Bailing at the 30% mark. This is a text book and I am not a philosophy student. I am interested in the topic, but the way this is written is just way too dry for me.
January 24, 2023
I don't know why anybody would buy what he's selling. I also don't know that Singer has ever said anything worthy of having been said...
June 11, 2023
One World Now is somewhat thought-provoking and an interesting exploration of global issues. There's the argument that given global warming and the ecological influences of industrialization, we can't deny the need for global, international organization (aka globalization).
Furthermore, there seems to be agreement on the need for global law, at least with regard to fundamental human rights and the responsibility to deal with crimes against humanity. This is something I've often thought about: while I like flexible micro-polities, it seems there may be a need for a minimal universal legal layer. We could have a global ban on murder and torture, for example. And on the flip side, what about a global responsibility to help people cover their basic needs (water, shelter, food, social relations, etc)? If a peoples' governance systems are functioning reasonably, then the international community has a responsibility to help the peoples there via the governance system -- yet what if the governance system is siphoning off the money? Is there a moral obligation to support the people bypassing the local government?
For that matter, shouldn't we have two UNs? One for all who have practical control over their domain and one for those who have convincing democratic governance systems in place?
How do we balance off impartial care vs the practical and emotional drive to prioritize our kin most? Once we have knowledge and means to prevent deaths anywhere on Earth, are we not spending on luxuries instead of saving lives?
Furthermore, there seems to be agreement on the need for global law, at least with regard to fundamental human rights and the responsibility to deal with crimes against humanity. This is something I've often thought about: while I like flexible micro-polities, it seems there may be a need for a minimal universal legal layer. We could have a global ban on murder and torture, for example. And on the flip side, what about a global responsibility to help people cover their basic needs (water, shelter, food, social relations, etc)? If a peoples' governance systems are functioning reasonably, then the international community has a responsibility to help the peoples there via the governance system -- yet what if the governance system is siphoning off the money? Is there a moral obligation to support the people bypassing the local government?
For that matter, shouldn't we have two UNs? One for all who have practical control over their domain and one for those who have convincing democratic governance systems in place?
How do we balance off impartial care vs the practical and emotional drive to prioritize our kin most? Once we have knowledge and means to prevent deaths anywhere on Earth, are we not spending on luxuries instead of saving lives?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews