Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Welfare

The limit of our Moral Duty in regards to Famine Relief
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
While I agree with Singer 's argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped. For instance, when Singer talks about the strong and weak
The strong principle is this “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it” (136). Singer’s point with this principle is that we are obliged to limit moral wrong, as in this case from famine, in anyway not morally wrong until that point at which by giving any more we cause as much suffering to ourselves as the amount of suffering we relieve. This principle, Singer thinks, is almost as uncontroversial as his assumption, of that I would say I disagree because, as I will show it doesn’t take into account the right to your