Singer (1971)
According to Singer (1971), it’s in the natural order that the materials goods are meant to satisfy the needs of humans. Therefore it’s not fair for one person to have a surplus while another person does not have any. He argues that what other people have in abundance is owed to the needy for it to help them survive. The author quotes Ambrosius, “the bread you have in surplus belongs to the hungry, the excess clothes to those without, and the money saved aside is for the poor people.” It’s the responsibility of all of us to help prevent the suffering of others without pushing the thought aside and leaving it for the government. The more we come together, the more we help eradicate poverty in the world.
The author, however, questions how we should be giving. The best way to give he says is by giving to a level which, when you provide any more, it will cause suffering to you and your dependants (marginal utility). He adds that if everyone did this to help the refugees and the less fortunate, then no one would need to sacrifice. Singer believes that due to the development of the world into a global village, no one has an excuse not to donate on matters of geographical distance. He argues that people cannot discriminate against a person because they live far away. Some people like helping those around them, which is okay. With the world operating as a global village, Singer states that providing aid to a person who is geographically far is the same as giving support to a person just close by.
I agree with Singers; it is the moral obligation of us to donate to those that are less fortunate; however, we should not give to the point that we sacrifice something that is of importance to us. Also, I agree there no moral difference in donating for people around you and people who are miles away. The important thing is to help reduce the suffering of others.