Instant Access To 100,000+ Essays!

In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” author Peter Singer believes that wealthy people should not spend money on unneeded objects while there are people starving in the world. Singer feels that the people that have the means to give money to less fortunate, poverty and half-starving people should do it until their standard of living changes. He also states the only exception is that if by providing these unfavorable thing we will be causing something equally bad to happen. I am opposed to these ideas because I believe that a person has the right to do what they want with their money after they have earned it and they should not be forced to give it any to the less fortunate. Giving is based on a person’s own determination and no one is obligated to help others outside his/her immediate family just because they are wealthy. Singer believes that rich people in America should not spend their money on unneeded things while others are starving in the world. Instead, he feels, they should give their monies as one solution in the battle of starvation prevention. I believe that this is an unrealistic argument because why should anyone work hard, invest wisely, and make sacrifices only to give it away to others