?What are the obligations of the "haves" as opposed to the "have-not's"? (Singer). John Arthur and Peter Singer are highly credited intellectuals on the subject of eradicating global poverty. One applies a hypothetical solution to the question while the other objects those proposals in accordance with my own moral intuition. Singer's focus is derived through the use of two vague and faulty premises that lead to an unsatisfactory conclusion. These premises admit space for John Arthur and myself to speculate and discredit against further support for Singer's hypothetical claim.
             The argument is: Famine, Affluence, and Morality
             1.Suffering and death from hunger are bad.
             2. If it is in our power to prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of moral
             3. It is in the power of the affluent people to prevent hunger by
             sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance.
             4. Affluent people can prevent suffering and hunger by giving up luxuries.
             Therefore, affluent people morally ought to give up luxuries and
             donate extra money to organizations that fight hunger.(1-4)
             Singer's claim in his second premise is certainly one that nobody should agree with. He fails to dignify what something of "moral importance" entails. When I apply this premise in circumstantial ways, I think of my father. Mr. Karlinsky worked hard for nearly 37 years, standing on his feet, dealing with the unimaginable attitudes of angry people day after day. Today, my father's successes allow him to drive a car that even I say I am proud of. Clearly, this is of "moral importance" to him as well as my entire family. It is a symbol and reminder of all the hard work, time, and dedication he put into his life's work. Upon further objection to this premise, what may be deemed "morally right" within one society may be considered taboo in an
             ...