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 that have become immobilized and hoping for handouts from hardworking people that choose to keep trying. We already have that built into our welfare system as it is. People that have good educations, good judgment abilities, and lots of drive are motivated by money and that is exactly why they complete their educational goals, invest in stocks, and get up everyday and go to work. Once they have proven themselves and finally receive those promotions, with the extra benefits and perks, why would they even think about giving it away? The high-grossing, executive salaries that they earn belong to them and their families and they should be blessed with richer lives than the ones that do not discipline themselves to reach as high; they simply deserve more freedom that larger salaries provide.
