Some Considerations

In this piece Singer attempts to draw some connection between suffering and morality and for his main argument demands that the reader (an affluent member of the world) is morally compelled to reduce the suffering of others as long as this does not require heavy sacrifice. Looking at the argument, I believe that most people can agree that suffering is not desirable. Even a masochist would probably consider slow death by starvation and disease morally wrong. Although some people would disagree with the notion that we should make small sacrifices, the amount that singer asks is seemingly insignificant (~$10). Furthermore, because of the sheer difference such a contribution could make, Singer argues that we are morally compelled to donate. Singer's argument is valid, although whether or not it is sound is up for debate. It can be argued that while not as destitute that those suffering as refugees, there are a good amount of individuals who are barely above the poverty line, and perhaps for these individuals such a contribution may be asking for too much.

As for Singer's intended target audience, the middle class of the world, I feel like his argument would be stronger if he tried to personalize the refugees in need of support. Similar to how Singer states how he (or anyone else) would pull someone out of the mud he needs to show that the refugees receiving aid would be directly benefited by the contributions. UNICEF is very effective at this by giving the recipients of the aid an actual face and making calculations regarding how much it would take to feed a child (pocket change to those in industrialized nations).