Singer aims to make charitable giving a moral obligation of those who have more money than is necessary to support the basic needs. He concocts a thought experiment with an apparent conclusion that strongly favors altruistic behavior, and uses it to assert his belief that everyone should give absolutely everything they can afford. He compares the choice not to give to charity as comparable in moral misery to letting a child die in front of you, so as not to lose your precious, albeit useless, luxury goods. Singer then attempts, using some statistics, to determine how much the average American is capable of giving. He then concludes by addressing the most likely objections to his argument, such as the possible response that no one is obligated to exceed his or her "share" of contributions to the needs of others, even to compensate when others fail in their moral obligations . Singer creates the analogy of a man named Bob, whose precious Bugatti will one day ensure him a more than comfortable retirement. A modification of the infamous streetcar problem, the circumstances of the thought experiment force Bob to decide between allowing a child to be killed by a train or hijacking the train in order to destroy his luxury car, thereby saving the unknown child of any possible danger. . If Bob chooses his car over the child, this would be considered morally wrong. Every child's life is inherently more valuable than the car. Singer says this choice, between letting innocent children die and sacrificing luxury items, is one that almost all Americans face every day. He believes that because many Americans live above poverty and spend too much money on ... middle of paper ... Singer's argument gives them a broadly inclusive definition, they constitute an unignorable portion of the world economy. It is difficult to predict how things would develop if the extreme altruism proposed by Singer became the norm. Although the conclusion Singer produces appears to follow logically from his thought experiment, its relevance to actual real-world application requires much greater justification. However, if we assume hypothetically that the expected positive outcome will always be the result of our charity, Singer's argument still relies on several utilitarian assumptions; namely, that we view the lives of strangers as having equal value to those of our loved ones, and that we should view saving a life as a greater good than marginally improving a person's quality of life in average health and financially secure. individual.