Peter Singer advocates a fundamental shift in the attitudes of people in affluent countries toward the poor and starving of the Third World. His argument is that (i) suffering and death from lack of food and other necessities are bad; (ii) "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening" without excessive sacrifice, we have a moral duty to do it; therefore, (iii) we have a moral duty to help the poor and starving of the world (regardless of their proximity to us or how many other people are in a position to help). If this argument is sound, it shows that giving to famine relief and similar causes is not an act of charity (and therefore optional)-it is a stringent moral obligation.
The second premise comes in two forms, strong and weak. The strong version says that we have a duty to prevent something bad from happening if we can do it without "sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance." This principle requires us to give aid to the level of "marginal utility"-to the point where we could not give any more without causing as much suffering to ourselves or our families as we would ease by our giving. We must reduce our circumstances almost to the same degree of hardship experienced by those we are trying to aid.
Singer thinks the strong principle is the correct one, but he believes the weak version would also transform how we view our obligations to the needy. According to this less stringent principle, we have a duty to prevent something bad from happening if we can do it without "sacrificing anything morally significant." It requires us not to sacrifice to the point of marginal utility but rather to stop spending money on comparatively trivial things. It would have us give money to famine relief instead of spending it on a new car or new clothes.
-According to Singer, we have a moral duty to help the poor and starving of the world regardless of

Question

Peter Singer advocates a fundamental shift in the attitudes of people in affluent countries toward the poor and starving of the Third World. His argument is that (i) suffering and death from lack of food and other necessities are bad; (ii) "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening" without excessive sacrifice, we have a moral duty to do it; therefore, (iii) we have a moral duty to help the poor and starving of the world (regardless of their proximity to us or how many other people are in a position to help). If this argument is sound, it shows that giving to famine relief and similar causes is not an act of charity (and therefore optional)-it is a stringent moral obligation. 
The second premise comes in two forms, strong and weak. The strong version says that we have a duty to prevent something bad from happening if we can do it without "sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance." This principle requires us to give aid to the level of "marginal utility"-to the point where we could not give any more without causing as much suffering to ourselves or our families as we would ease by our giving. We must reduce our circumstances almost to the same degree of hardship experienced by those we are trying to aid. 
Singer thinks the strong principle is the correct one, but he believes the weak version would also transform how we view our obligations to the needy. According to this less stringent principle, we have a duty to prevent something bad from happening if we can do it without "sacrificing anything morally significant." It requires us not to sacrifice to the point of marginal utility but rather to stop spending money on comparatively trivial things. It would have us give money to famine relief instead of spending it on a new car or new clothes.
-According to Singer, we have a moral duty to help the poor and starving of the world regardless of

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is B

Peter Singer Advocates a Fundamental Shift in the Attitudes of People