This reading took me back to our class example of if we were morally obligated to stay hooked up to a machine in order to preserve someones life. And it all ties back to the fact that you do what you can live with. It would not necessarily be bad to unhook yourself from the machine because it is not your moral responsibility to keep this person alive using your body. But it also would not be good to unhook yourself from the machine.
A good majority of people in the world are not oblivious to the problems of poverty happening across the world. A good good majority of these people that are informed about it, do nothing to help. So this obviously means these people are content and can continue on living knowing they are not helping these suffering people across the globe.
Personally I agree with Singer in the sense that you ought to help if you can. If you can help someone then you should. You may not morally HAVE to but if you have the option and time and resources etc. to make someones life, or day easier then why not help. And if its not taking a huge part out of your life then you should. But I also agree with Arthur’s reasoning too, For example I have picked up a homeless person hitching and given them a ride to where they have had to go. I had the car and I had no where to be in a hurry so why not? But this doesn’t mean that I have the time and gas money to go around all day picking up homeless people and taking them where they have to go. And I think this is what Arthur is trying to say.
Poverty is such a huge topic to tackle and everybody’s morals are so different that some would let the child drown in the river and some could not bare to have that on their conscience if they didn’t in some way help to save the child. It is an issue that is very hard to judge.