Singer’s core argument contained two principles that enforced richer societies to help people living in poverty, as Singer felt suffering to be a preventable issue. Singer’s first principle states that the lack of food, shelter, and medicine around the world should not be a cause of suffering: “If …show more content…
Many people may not agree with the expectations welfare consequentialism financially demands. Many people may not donate to causes across the globe as the impact does not directly interfere with their life. If Singer’s principles were applied many people in richer countries may not agree with his methods as loss of control, individuality and decision making could be impacted. That being said as a whole, the richer countries of the world supporting and helping suffering societies to a large enough extent. Singer’s core conclusion regards two principles that do not consider today’s modern society as the expectations are too demanding for people to fulfill. People should not be expected to donate their hard-earned money but rather that initiative should come from within. Many people believe that a small contribution would not make a difference to ending famine as there are many organizations, charities and people with greater funds that could help but choose not to. If poverty continues to be a global issue due to a lack of funds actions within governments could be taken to create more resources. Such as small percentages of people incomes who can provide for themselves and family could be required donate a percentage of their earnings to famine