If you were part of that not-so-exclusive fraternity of students chosen to make up the final class of NYU’s former General Studies Program, than you probably spent August of 2007 immersed in either one of two activities: deciding whether it was finally time to post the standard “Hey Roomie!” message on your new suitemate’s Facebook wall after the awkward round of pokes, or resisting the urge to hurl the required summer reading—Peter Singer’s How Are We To Live?—at the nearest household pet when you got to the chapter concerning speciesism, a theory that equates eating meat with being a Nazi, among other things.

Singer was back at NYU, and considerably more down to earth, yesterday for the Sharp Lecture Series in Kimmel to promote his 30th book, The Life You Can Save. While the Australian philosopher’s bold opinion that most Americans need to lead more ethical lives can be mildly condescending (if not accurate) when read in his books, listening to him speak is a far less irritating experience.

Though idealistic for sure, the former professor seemed entirely genuine in his call for society to develop an “ethical standard that people would feel is obtainable.”

Singer arrived packing his signature arsenal of stats, asserting that the affluent West could significantly decrease world poverty if 90% of Americans would donate just 1% of their income to charity.

He stressed how “It only costs $300 to provide a third-world child with immunizations” to the audience of increasingly uncomfortable-looking undergrads, some of whom were discreetly rotating the labels on their Starbucks’ cups out of plain sight, and all of whom were presumably shelling out something close to 50 grand a year in tuition.

Never mind that most of those students would probably spend that same 1% on Jamba Juice, as I certainly did, or something equally nonsensical before they made it home. The strength of the lecture was in the broader argument for social change, not the details.

The Q&A, however, in true Peter Singer style, sparked plenty of obscure hypothetical rankings (curing one hundred blind people is better than saving one human life, in case anyone was wondering). But it also led to a more practical discussion about conquering domestic poverty vs. trying to solve problems overseas as well.

“It would cost thousands of dollars to elevate an American above the poverty line, and only a couple hundred to do the same for someone in another part of the world,” explained Singer, “I like to get the most for my money in any situation.”

And you know those ethicists, they’re all about the money.