Hunger is a very pressing issue and with 24,000 people dying daily it should be. (HS) Unfortunately, it is more than just a moral question of should we help. It is a much more complex question that incorporates political and economic connotations as well. We also have to consider how much to help and at what cost to us? Who do we help? Is it just the starving, or should we help those with substandard living standards as well? What about cases where the people's suffering stems from poor or corrupt governing? At what point if any should we stop helping?
             It can be argued that the duty to assist only applies to people of the same community. Different communities share different morals and our duty to aid should be focused inside our own borders. To an extent this is a valid point. Morals vary drastically in different parts of the world. For example, women in the Middle East have very few rights outside the household. Women's servitude is largely accepted as a way of life there. That is not the case here, but because the two communities share different morals we have no obligation to aid these countries and stand up for their women's rights. However, there are other morals that are valued equally regardless of the community. All people place a high moral value on human life. Therefore, because we have this moral in common, to not help others who are dying needlessly would betray our own morals.
             It seems obvious that there must be some course of action taken, to keep people from starving, at the very least. For one to stand by and live a life of luxury while another starves is not only morally wrong, it is inhuman. Singer states in his arguments that "to let die is intrinsically the same as to kill." While this isn't entirely true, it does hold some validity in a moral sense. Here in the United States we have one of the highest living standards in the world. We also have a higher rate of obesity than any...