Poverty and death must be reduced. I believe that if we can help someone stay alive and it will not harm the “helper”, then why not do so. People from a places near or far should not change our moral obligation, it should not matter if the child is a neighbor or a child from across the seas. Allowing someone to die is the same as killing someone. If it is wrong to watch someone dying and not help, then why should we not save multiple lives, by feeding the hungry? All people have the right to live and it is not just for those who have the wealth to satisfy daily necessities to live. Contrary to Mill’s individualistic view on utilitarianism, Singer takes utilitarianism into a societal view. His societal view being that there is a need for people on a global scale who should be helping each other without looking at materialistic and socialistic interests. Singer would want to put more emphasis on the need to help poorer parts of the world end famine, shelter shortages and medication deficiency. For example, Singer says, “My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it” (Pojman, 760). Bad could be anything from the extremes of a death to a something minor like an injury. Singer justifies this idea by using the Bengal emergency, but it could also be applied to other severe situations like the droughts in California. Helping out the region with water can help people receive their needed water intake. “From a moral point of view, the development of the world into a global village has made an important, though still unrecognized, difference to our moral situation” (Pojman, 761). Becoming a global community will open people’s eyes,