Peter Singer’s argument of our current conception of moral obligation and how it requires a drastic revision
Peter Singer argues that our current conception of moral obligation requires a drastic revision. After carefully explaining Singer’s position and his argument for that position, critically evaluate his viewpoint. If you disagree with Singer, explain what is wrong with his argument and/or position (you may also defend one of the objections he himself raises and rejects). If you agree with Singer, then respond to the following objection to his viewpoint (from Kwame Appiah): Singer is right that those who can help should do so, but people are not morally required to give more than their “fair share”, and that can be determined by calculating how much each member of the affluent nations would need to give to eliminate the problem, on assumption everyone is giving. So, once you have given this amount, it is morally acceptable to buy unnecessary luxury items for one’s self, even if the money could save a child’s life.
