Singer's Argument

1st Premise

Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, or medical care is very bad

2nd premise

We can prevent such suffering and death by donating to effective charities (in place of consumer purchases)

3rd premise

Many of our consumer purchases are morally insignificant: we could give them up without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant

Single’s Principle (Moderate Version)

If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it

conclusion

therefore, we, ought, morally, to donate to effective charities rather than making morally insignificant consumer purchase

Pond example

If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing

objection to singer’s argument (moral libertarianism)

Both singer’s principle and the conclusion of this argument entail that we are sometimes morally required to help people. But morality does not require us to help people. It only requires to refrain from harming them or violating their rights. So the principle and conclusion must be false.

reply to the objection (with pond example)

obviously, morality does require us to help people sometimes, It’s insane to say that if you let the child drown, you do nothing wring. So the moral libertarian’s claim is false.