The Drowning Child Argument

...

Another point I disagree with is when he says people should feel guilty and shameful about spending money on new cars and expensive clothes when we should have donated the money to famine relief. I object to this thought because people work hard therefore they should be able to spend their money on what makes them happy. People should not be judged or condemned for how they spend their money. We all have a moral obligation to help with the suffering and misery in the world. The moral obligation is different for every person; we should not be condemned for not giving even though we are praised for giving. Most of human nature is aimed towards doing good and not doing what is wrong, which is part of moral obligation. I think it’s an individual decision about how much to give.

Ultimately, I disagree with Singer’s thoughts about the Utilitarian Concept of working full time to balance out the misery of the world. I disagree with this concept because if we are working full time to relieve the hunger situation, it takes away from our motivation to make ourselves happy. In the end, this will make the outcome worse because people may become tired and overworked from making others happy and not making themselves happy. This will lead them to become bitter and resentful for putting others before themselves for so long. It seems it would contradict the theory of Utilitarianism and the pursuit of happiness.

Singer may be right about moral obligation but I do not fully agree with him about sacrificing what one has worked for. Suffering is bad and if we can prevent it we should. Even though the problem is far away or no one else is helping, that is not an excuse to not do anything ourselves. We should not be condemned for not giving nor should we give up our own happiness to try to save the world. How much moral obligation a person should give to the worlds suffering depends on the individual and is different for everyone.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In situations where there are children in the world dying of starvation, we have a moral obligation to save them if we can. Most of the cases if every person gave a few dollars it would solve the problem.

a person may not feel as guilty if they see no one else giving or doing anything for the problem. But just because no one else is doing anything for the starving children of the world should not make a difference on my decision

I think comparable moral importance is if we can prevent this bad thing from happening without giving up anything that is the same value or less than what we are trying to prevent. For example, with the drowning child, getting my clothes muddy is nothing compared to saving a life. This is what is meant by comparable importance

But if we give more than five dollars it may help with the suffering less.