Singer argues that, "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought to morally do it."(535) One might argue that what is out of sight is out of mind releasing them from their moral duty, yet Singer replies that, "proximity and distance have no account on your duty."(536) One could ask if nobody else does it, Why should I? One could make a situation of a drowning baby, in which there is many people are around. Just because one person is not saving the baby does that mean that no one should save the baby? (535) No, just like Singer argues, "the number of people in the situation one or a million has no account."(536) Singer after stating his argument goes further and divides acts into two categories: supererogatory and obligatory. A supererogatory act being that whi

Looking at Singer's argument as a utilitarian, one will come to the same conclusion that Singer did that it is wrong not to give up your money to the starving. A main idea for morals a utilitarian argues that "an act is good if and only if that act tends to maximize the total amount of happiness." (Lecture) This means that one should do an act whose consequences produce the greatest amount of happiness in the situation. Now lets look at Singers question through the thought of a utilitarian. Should we give our excess money that we don't use for the necessities of life to the needy? The utilitarian would say yes. You should do any act that maximizes the amount of good. But how much money should you contribute to the needy? A utilitarian would say we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something of moral importance. This is almost the same that Singer argues in his argument of Marginal Utility. Marginal, "utility being that which a level of giving, which giving any more, one would cause as much suffering to oneself or ones dependants as one would relieve by one's gift."(539) Seeing the structure of how the utilitarian argues, the utilitarian would conclude that it is our moral duty to give the needy our money.

Looking at Singer's argument as a Kantian and Kant's argument of Duties of Benevolence one arrive at the same conclusion that the utilitarian did, that which it is your moral duty to give your money to the needy. Kantians use the Categorical Imperative as their means

Some common words found in the essay are:
Responsibility Singer, Kantian Singer's, Looking Singer's, Categorical Imperative, Utility Marginal, Lecture Singer, Duties Benevolence, money needy, singer argues, excess money, Kantian Kant's, marginal utility, singer's argument, moral duty, excess money needy, money starving, singers argument, utilitarian argues, duties benevolence, argument duties benevolence, looking singer's argument, duty money needy,
Approximate Word count = 1026
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)