Abstract

A commonly held view is that giving to the poor is superogatory i.e., that while it is a good thing to do, it is not morally wrong for us not to do so. This essay sets out to show that for the affluent in the world giving to the poor is not superogatory but is rather a moral obligation. The paper critiques Singer's famous argument in ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ and finds that although the argument is a cogent and powerful one, Singer, when trying to apply the argument to how we should act, somewhat skews the argument's real implications. Furthermore, it is argued that a cosmopolitan concern for the global poor is the morally correct response to have, and the author defends this view by examining the proper effect that aspects like geographical distance, nationality, reciprocity, and the nature of the global economic system should have on our moral considerations. In conclusion, it is argued that since the way that each person utilises his/her resources is a reflection of what he/she values, then for many of us in positions of affluence, in order to be moral, much more should be done in order to help those experiencing dire, life-threatening poverty across the globe.1