Do we have obligations to help the distant poor

Mortality does not require the weighing of the needs from an impartial standpoint of every person on an equal basis, the physically and social distant people are assisted by the affluent having limited obligations and development aid is considered as self defeating. I tend to present an argument by providing aid in addressing injustice and provide an outline on several areas of analysis important in assessing the nature of the obligations of persons who are wealthy in terms of materials to its poor. Singer presents an argument that suffering and death caused by insufficient and lack of food, shelter and medical attention are bad (Singer, 231). He gives an explanation that demise caused by starvation is bad. Singer says that in November 1971, people were dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter and medical attention.

This principle does not make any clear distinctions if he is actually was the only individual who had the possibility of doing something and in the cases in which he is the only person among millions of people in the same situation. Suppose in a certain beach there is a drowning child and more than 20 people could help. According to Singer’s arguments, each of the 20 people has the obligations to help. If all the20 people tried to help the drowning child, the final outcome would be a bunch of confusions and many people would be hurt in the process of saving the drowning child. Singer’s conclusion arguments are at odds with the present moral beliefs and hence his arguments cannot be correct.

Charities are bodies or organizations that collect the funds. One is thanked for generosity if cheques are sent to these organizations. He explains the states that a charitable man may be praised but the man who is not charitable is not condemned (Singer, 235). He then gives an argument that the current way of drawing conclusions cannot supported. Despite many arguments presented by Singer, several objections still emerge. Methodological objections The discussions presented by Singer provoke a number of methodological challenges. One may present doubts concerning the moral justification. A more forward objection states that there is a moral difference depending on how we relate between a drowning child and a child exposed to starvations in a different country. If we were to produce a principle, we would adopt the principles that distinguish emergency cases.

Another objection to Singer’s conclusion is that his study conflicts with our existing standards of charity. We are not obliged to give to an extent that we will be forced to sacrifice what we have of moral importance. Expecting people to contribute 25% the total Gross National Product (GNP) would be too much and expecting people to contribute 1% is way much too low. The western societies accepts the 1% contributions of the Gross National Product (GNP) as an overseas aid. This argument would be sound if there would be a hypothetical explanation in such a way that, if everyone in his situation contributed $10; he would not be obliged to give out more than the ten dollars. The imaginary circumstances could not agree on what is right for him to do in the real circumstance.