A positive duty is a duty that we are expected to perform (Singer, 1965). Consequently, through Singer's argument that we have a positive duty to give all we can afford to charities that help fight poverty, he removed the notion of supererogation from the act of helping, doing beyond what is asked for but without being punished for not doing so, instead describing assistance as a moral obligation. When he refers to “us” it must be clear that Singer is referring to those who live in wealthy countries with funds that allow them to live above and beyond the basic level. I must also make it clear in my essay that when I refer to poverty, I assume that Singer is addressing those in absolute poverty around the world, those in severe deprivation, supported by his use of the people of Bengal as an example . In this essay I will outline the three premises Singer offers about our moral duty, and then introduce limits to these claims. After that I will conclude that, although Singer is right that we have a duty to help those in need, his case is not strong enough to conclude that we have a duty to provide whatever we can afford. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Singer's argument assumes that "suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, or health services is bad." This is a statement that can be easily supported since it is known that such services are critical for humans to survive (Singer, 1972). Since we can hold this premise, Singer goes on to present the second: "If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of (comparable) moral importance, we should do so." With this premise Singer offers two principles in the hope of strengthening his argument, the weak principle: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything morally significant, we should do so” and the strong principle: “if it is in our power to our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something comparable on a moral level, we should morally do so." In my analysis I will focus on the strongest principle, the one favored by Singer in reaching his conclusion. To support this premise, Singer presents the "pond" analogy that links the act of saving a boy from drowning in a pond with the sacrifice of ruining his clothes to issues of global poverty. Singer believes that if we can save the child it is logical to assume that we have the capacity to provide help to those in poverty. From this it is assumed that it logically follows that "by donating to poverty relief agencies rather than purchasing luxury goods one can prevent distress without sacrificing anything of moral importance", thus concluding that we have a moral obligation to give everything we we can afford to alleviate poverty. charities (Singer, 1972). Singer is aware of the flaws in this argument, so he tries to answer potential objections within his "Pond" analogy before they arise. It focuses first on the proximity objection, in the case of the pond the individual is right in front of you while those living in absolute poverty are very distant from those living in rich countries. According to Singer, however, this should not matter if it is our moral obligation to help. The second objection concerns the number of people they help. In the pond analogy you are the only individualable to provide help, while globally it is not just you who is personally responsible. Singer once again responds to the objection by stating that this is just an excuse for individuals to not fulfill their moral obligation because they believe it is borne by another individual (Singer, 1972). While I agree with Singer that we should all maintain a moral obligation to provide help to those who need it, responsibility, more importantly, must be placed on those in power. We may be able to provide financial aid, but if leaders make poor judgments about the management of their country, this will have even more catastrophic consequences on poverty levels that cannot be influenced by a simple donor. If we are to connect this to the "Pond" analogy, I might be able to help the boy from drowning, but if a lifeguard came by, wouldn't he be able to save the individual more effectively? I assume the answer is yes, but that doesn't mean that I myself wouldn't be willing to help, just that there are other individuals who could be more effective with their actions (Wisor, 2011). The "Pond" analogy in my judgment also fails to be effective in demonstrating how we have an obligation to prevent the suffering of those living in poverty, simply because we have the means to do so through financial aid. The analogy highlights how the sacrifice of an individual who ruins his clothes is not comparable to the loss of a life, going on to suggest that the sacrifice of an individual who gives up his luxuries is not comparable to giving the money he could have used for help those living in poverty. There are a number of problems with this link, the first being that there is a big distinction between the two, where one is an emergency and the other is a chronic condition (Badhwar, 2006). If we were to make the analogy more comparable, the individual would have to constantly rescue children out of ponds since absolute poverty is not a one-time event, so you have to be willing to constantly ruin your clothes because morally it is not It is not comparable to saving the lives of individuals. What was a small cost has now turned into a constant cost to save others by highlighting the demanding nature of what Singer is asking for. This brings doubt as to whether we have a positive duty to provide whatever we can afford to those in need, since what was originally disguised as an easy task from the "Pond" has now been presented as a persistent task about which we should feel obliged. to be accomplished through our ability to do so, regardless of the impact it might have on our lives, until we reach the same level of equality. Singer, however, stands by his claim that we have a positive duty to give whatever we can afford to charities that help fight poverty, since the cost of our help is nowhere near as substantial as that of those who they live in absolute poverty, even if it is challenging. what is demanding is not only present in the "Pond" analogy, but if we are to accept Singer's conclusion that we have a moral obligation to give everything we can afford to charities that help fight poverty, it seems that much of our time and resources will be required of us. Singer believes this is fair, however it would appear to be a violation of the individual's personal wishes (Otteson, 2000). Singer suggests that to act morally you need to give everything you can afford to charities that help fight poverty, however you may want to devote your time to other passions that may be morally.