As I examine the philosophers' our class has studied this semester, I feel many of them at some moment made valid points, including Peter Singer. However, I must disagree with Peter Singer's point that it is unacceptable to allow people to suffer from starvation, lack of necessities, or insufficient housing; merely because he believes it is our "duty" to help suffering people." Now, I do not want to sound selfish but it is unrealistic to think that the majority of people in our society will feel obligated or that they have a duty to give up things like a plasma television, stylish clothes, or expensive dinners in order to help the less fortunate. The reality is that many people would question why, according to Singer, is it wrong if I purchase a new television or spend money on something I really do not need, instead of sending funds to a relief center. Why would I be morally responsible for the deaths of those who may die? Well, I believe that it is one's choice not a duty, whether a person wants to help people who are suffering or not. .
Consequently, Singer does not see the difference between "duty and "charity." This leads me to think of classmate, Marcus Reddish's point, that we should not feel forced to do anything. I truly feel that people like Oprah Winfrey who has succeeded in her own life and now that she can afford to contribute her wealth to others that it is a great contribution that she helps the less fortunate, but to a certain point. In general, I do not feel that it is her duty or anyone else' in her position to feel obligated to go without her wants; regardless to how superficial they maybe, just to provide for others. It is great that she does give, but it is not her sole "duty. ".
In addition, Singer also states that if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, "We ought to do it. Now I can agree with this statement as it concerns saving a child from drowning in a pool; regardless of the inconvenience of one's clothes becoming wet.
