Affluent Case

I believe that the relatively affluent have a moral obligation to make significant sacrifices in order to help the starving. If it's in ones power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything comparable then we should do that. As long as we do not make ourselves starve, the relatively can prevent death and suffering without sacrificing anything morally comparable by giving up their lifestyle.

"The affluent are consistently guilty of failing to recognize this, having large amounts of surplus wealth that they do not use to aid humanitarian projects in developing nations." (Singer). Singer is basically saying that the relatively affluent people today have a ridiculous amount of money and they do not use some of their money to help the less fortunate. By this, Singer believes that the relatively affluent have a moral obligation to make significant sacrifices in order to help the starving. Some people have much more than they need to have or they need to live and others don't even have enough to survive. Whether you give money, clothes, or food you will still help prevent death and suffering without sacrificing anything comparable to what you already have. Little things you donate to charities can help make a big difference even if it's used or old.

Making sacrifices to feed the starving usually makes us feel good about ourselves. When we feel good about ourselves and know we're helping others who are less fortunate then we feel obligated to do it again. So, we do have a moral obligation to make sacrifices to feed the starving/hungry. When making these sacrifices to the different charities you want to make sure your donations are actually going to what the charity says it does. According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, top-rated charities are those that spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25.00 or less to raise $100.00 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive "open-book" status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to Charity Watch. (www.charitywatch.org). When donating to a charity we want to make sure our donations to people who are actually starving and less fortunate. Sometimes seeing commercials and pictures of the children and families that are starving make us feel bad. By seeing these commercials and pictures we want to help and we have a moral obligation to do that thing.

Basic consequentialism is stating that one is morally required to take whatever action/inaction would make the best outcome. By not sacrificing anything comparable to a charity it will cause serious harm to the less fortunate and will have little benefit to help them. The wealthy giving much of their wealth to try and fight hungry will have a good impact and will help save lives. So, the wealthy are morally required to give much of their wealth to