Singer approaches the problem of famine from a utilitarian standpoint. His argument is that it is the responsibility of humans who have the means to relieve persons affected by famine. The effort must be of more importance than material possessions and personal interest. This must also be done without consideration of locality or the moral responsibility of others.

O’Neill faces a little more difficulty because she presents her argument from a Kantian standpoint, which theoretically is based on intention and not action, because of this O’Neill focuses her response on treating those afflicted justly. Using Kant’s categorical imperative O’Neill establishes the obligation-to both-not interfere with the rights of plighted individuals by not using …show more content…
Singer’s approach seems to agree with this doctrine. While there are a large number of people that take interest in the efforts put forth to solve the worlds issue of extreme poverty; the number of people that do nothing are in the majority. Understanding that Singer’s response does not take others moral responsibility into account brings better perspective to this argument. His argument requires complete selflessness, and declares that one’s personal desires should be inferior to the needs of others. Singer views famine as an issue that is preventable, for this reason people that have the resources to help, ought to do so. If people were to follow this rule, it would appear to greatly impact the issues of extreme …show more content…
The charitable act is a means in that the act somehow fulfills our moral obligation. It tells us that we are doing the right thing because we are aiding in the prevention of famine. While both arguments say that charitable acts are morally right; Singer’s perspective has a tone that if one was not to participate, they would morally persecute themselves. Because of the dependent conditions, Singer creates a burdensome effect to charitable acts; this would naturally detract people from the act of giving. Singer’s argument has a communistic implication as well, in that no one person has the right to have more than another. If we look at communist countries this political view does very little to alleviate the crisis of poverty. Often, communist countries have corrupt governments that do not distribute resources equally; instead they keep those resources for themselves leading to a poor population and wealthy heads of government. The similarities of both responses are the attempts to help those that are less fortunate. The arguments suggest that we have moral obligation to donate to charitable causes as a solution to the problem of extreme poverty and famine. To some degree this may abrogate these