Response to Singer

Peter Singer offers a follow up to his premise that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” by arguing that with the resources available area able to do so (Singer 231- 232). Due to the phenomenal rate of globalization every geographical region seems to be connected. Singer makes an argument that it does not make a difference whether the person receiving aid is the neighbor or someone overseas (Singer 232). To add on to his point, this rate of increased globalization also links these regions economically. Any change of economic status in a country that is involved in trade directly affects the affluent country. This only adds to the reasoning of why someone ought to support a country overseas facing a disaster such as famine.

After Singer makes a clear point that we should and are capable of supporting, he mentions as to how much aid should be in place. In this point Singer goes to the extreme of applying the strong version of the principle. The strong version, however, does not allow for individuals and families to live beyond necessity. It ultimately deprives them of any luxury and even condemns it. As an example, Singer states that instead of buying new clothes, money should be sent for aid of those dying of hunger. An alternative to such harsh rules would be to have a system that requires one to be forced to give a minimal amount of his wealth without suggesting that spending on luxury is blameworthy. This way a moral system then does not condemn people for going into luxuries that they may sometimes desire. Also, it allows for a steady income for the consumer dependent regions that are challenged with poverty. The steady amount should be a percentage of each individual’s wealth and assets that the individual possesses.