According to Singer’s perspective, people who live in developed countries have the moral obligation to help those who live in worse conditions. Donating part of own income is a way to help people in developing countries who starve. The peculiar detail is that Singer writes about the sacrifice of something comparable to famine that people in poor states experience.
Population control and the decrease in the number of people are the most effective ways to solve the problem of famine in developing countries, as the philosopher states. He claims that people in developed countries should reduce their level of life to marginal utility, giving the rest to those who starve and live below the poverty line.
In other words, Singer asserts that people in affluent countries have the moral duty to give others their resources and to share their income to improve the quality of life in developing countries.
Peter Singer’s argumentation shows that people should give much to the poor to alleviate famine. In this case, five dollars donation might not make most people in developed countries equal to people who starve, which shows that this hypothesis is inconsistent.
Moreover, it is not realistic that five dollars of donations would relieve famine in poor states, and they would not solve global economic problems that cause starvation. Improving water management systems and developing local agriculture that can solve the problem of famine requires centralized financing from the government.
Even though I agree that it is necessary to change income inequality in affluent and developing countries and to solve the problem of famine, I do not support the solutions Singer proposes. Therefore, I cannot entirely agree with the claim that people in developed countries have the moral obligation to donate five dollars to fight famine because it is simply not enough to change the existing situation.