Australian philosopher Peter Singer: It's our duty to give

This is the argument that we ought to save the lives of strangers when we can do so at relatively little cost to ourselves. Australian philosopher Peter Singer says that where world poverty is concerned 'giving to charity' is neither charitable nor generous; it is no more than our duty and not giving would be wrong. if you are living comfortably while others are hungry or dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behavior. Peter Singer, Humility Kills, Jewcy, May 2007 Singer says we have a duty to reduce poverty and death simply because we can. ...the failure of people in the rich nations to make any significant sacrifices in order to assist people who are dying from poverty-related causes is ethically indefensible. It is not simply the absence of charity, let alone of moral saintliness: It is wrong, and one cannot claim to be a morally decent person unless one is doing far more than the typical comfortably-off person does. Peter Singer, Achieving the Best Outcome: Final Rejoinder, Ethics & International Affairs, 2002 This isn't the sort of duty that is enforceable, so it's charity in the sense that giving is up to you – no one will make you give. Professor Singer puts his money where his mouth is and gives away around a quarter of his income to charity, although he says he should be giving away even more. Why is it our duty to give? Singer's argument goes like this suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it 'Sacrifice' here means without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent for example: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This may ruin my clothes but that would be insignificant while the death of the child would be very bad we can reduce avoidable death and suffering by giving to famine relief etc. and the cost of doing so is a morally insignificant reduction in our standard of living This argument applies both to immediate emergency famine relief and long term development aid. therefore we ought to give to famine relief etc.