Peter Singer develops an influential argument regarding one's obligation to assist those in poverty. He explains that there is a moral imperative to help those in extreme poverty, without sacrificing anything of comparable significance. Singer explains that “[s]ince extreme poverty is a much more serious evil than being deprived of some new clothing, or entertainment, etc [...] there is a positive obligation to give much …show more content…
An objection made against this argument is that some have special relationships, such as family members, that we hold to a different standard. It is difficult to treat all humans with an impartial view. Singer provides an analogy to his argument, where you come across a drowning child and choose to save it or not. Most people would rationally save the child, thinking of the greater good. His rebuttal is that the biological need to protect those close to you (or yourself) does not justify not helping those who need it. He elaborates by saying that prioritizing family and community is a “modest degree of preference”, and is “decisively outweighed by existing discrepancies in wealth and property” (Singer 69). Since Singer is in favor of sacrificing only things of moral significance, it is drastic to say that providing for your own child before a hungry stranger is not without incredible evolutionary and biological significance. Many object that this sets the standard too high for impartialism. Singer’s rationalization cannot always be followed perfectly, due to his major assumptions of what will be comparable moral significance. The feasibility of his theory is lessened due to its high interpretability. For Singer's theory to be realized around the world, it must operate on a universal scale, and it