A complicated third premise

Peter Singer's main argument in his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an incredibly convincing argument that I am inclined to agree with, but I do not think his argument is unshakable. I am troubled by the third premise of Singer's main argument: "It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care without sacrificing anything of [comparable] moral significance (232)." While I agree with this statement in a general sense, this sentences use of "our" leads to a far more complex or, at the very least, unclear distinction that must be made clear.

The way in which we interpret the use of the word "our" complicates Singer's premise. We could take the use of the word "our" in an individual sense (i.e. me as a person) or in a large socio-cultural sense (i.e. The United States of America). I suspect Singer would like both the macro and micro senses of our to be applicable here, but there is a huge gap between what we as the USA can do and what us as individual's can do. As an individual I could give some money to the Bengali Relief Fund and as Singer pointed out, if everyone could give something within their means then we have a tremendous ability to raise money to fix the problem. However, how do we mobilize every individual to give what they can? Provided we can do that, how do we judge who we send the money to first? There are thousands of charities out there, all for very good causes, and now we must decide who to send the money to. I believe Singer would be right in answering my questions here with, "Just because redrawing what is 'charity' and what is 'morally necessary' makes our lives more complicated does not mean that we should not do it. It is the morally right decision to give to the relief fund, even if we have to put other charities on the back burner." My point here is merely that Singer's solution creates a very complicated system that must be clearly explained in order to function and, as Singer suggests, would probably require a great deal of retooling to our culture/society to be accepted.

Returning to my earlier distinction between "micro our" and "macro our," it seems that the problem with "macro our" is that it is difficult for us as people to get our government to act on what we want. For example, it seems entirely possible for the USA to allocate some money from it's military spending budget and put it towards humanitarian work. However, it is very difficult for the people from the bottom to fuel that type of change as a society or, as a citizen of United States, it is unclear to me how I could possibly help create this change. Singer might argue that this point is less an attack on his premise and more a concern with the systemic problems that exist within the U.S., but I think the systemic problems and our ability to act morally are intertwined. It is extremely difficult to act morally in a system that does not promote acting morally and it seems that if we want to be able to redraw the lines between charity and morality, we must first address the systemic problems within our own culture that suppress moral action.