Re-interpreting songs

"Pennies in a well; a million dollars in the fountain of a hotel." ~ P!nk, Crystal Ball.

I love this song, it's so pretty! (Very aesthetically pleasing, but that's another subject.) The song is originally about luck and how we make wishes by throwing coins into wells but it reminded me of something else. My head is full of Singer and his stupid book, which I finished today. I call it a stupid book, but I actually found it very enjoyable. The 'million dollars in the fountain of a hotel' reminded me of how much the affluent nations give to each other as opposed to the poor. It's true, we spend money on completely trivial things like luck when we could be helping other people.

I found 'The Life You Can Save' interesting in several ways. Although it was primarily a philosophical text, the philosophy was combined with psychology and statistics, both of which I found interesting to read about. I like that Peter Singer didn't isolate the philosophy of the issue because I think it's a mistake to believe that the philosophical side alone will persuade people around to your way of thinking, as he does. Philosophers can logically deduce something but the average person will not radically change their life because of a logical argument, no matter how flawed.

The philosophy was good too; I found it frustratingly sound when trying to pick holes in his arguments. The analogy of the drowning child is a good one, especially when combined with the psychology of why we feel more for the drowning child than the millions of suffering children in Africa. Issues such as distance, being able to name a recipient of the help and feeling hopeless about the situation were considered. The conclusion being that although these factors do affect our judgement, we should try not to let them.

I have to say, my favourite idea of the book was not the final conclusion where Singer stated what he thought was reasonable to give. Yes, this may be true but I think that a different proposed idea would be more effective. I love the idea of having an opt-out system where a tiny amount (I suggest 1%) of people's wage gets automatically donated to a charity that the company supports. If everyone did this we would have more than enough money to support developing countries (the final figures Singer gives are massively above what is needed and, in my opinion, highly improbable). People would not be very likely to opt out if it was only 1% and it would also create a good 'culture of giving', as Singer calls it. When you know that your friends are giving and this is normal, it promotes discussion of various charities, etc. I believe this would be far more productive than individual giving because of the community aspect. We would know that our colleagues were giving the same amount as us, so we would not be worried about doing "more than our fair share". Most importantly, however, we would not get the sense of being alone in contributing. Knowing that others are striving towards the same goal as you is fantastic for team building and makes you feel better about the whole process.

I don't know much about how companies or offices are run, but I would like to think that after the culture of giving had been created by the automatic 1% donation, there would be an opportunity to create a group of individuals who gave more of their salary who met on a regular basis to discuss giving and which charities to support. Again, this brings the company together and makes people feel more comfortable with the idea of giving as everything is out in the open. And, I think, more fulfilling.

Honestly, if I was a member of a company I would be right now trying to get something like this set up in the organisation to which I belonged. I think it's a fantastic idea. Peter Singer has done a brilliant job - I wanted to hate both him and the ideas in his book. But he's turned me around and I feel really charitable all of a sudden. I think the figures are going to my head.

Another thing I have learnt today: I cannot type and sing at the same time.