Peter Singer's article "Famine, Wealth and Morality" has had a considerable impact on modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the document makes it easy to read, but Singer's clear point goes against the popular beliefs of the target audience. Although most will object to Singer's idea by rejecting a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to negate Singer's solution by showing that the possibility of applying Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not solve the heart of the problem. the assumption that suffering and death due to lack of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance is wrong. I see no problem accepting this hypothesis because it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer goes on to state "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we must, morally, do so" (Singer, p 231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, except perhaps ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute any of its premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to end suffering and death due to lack of essential things, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, according to which giving money to fight famine is not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty for all people who have the capacity to do so. Singer admits it would radically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living on disposable income, people would give money to those living in poor or unsurvivable conditions. But with...... middle of paper...... morally justifies our future actions. This whole proposal is not there to tell society what is being done in the current state, but it tells you what you are obliged to do as a human being. If we took the moral view, as we should, at all times when making decisions, we would find that moral justification would take second place to obligation. As a society, we have fulfilled our obligations in the past, such as during World War II. , yet an occasional dose of action is not what we are supposed to desire as humans. We cannot say: “I am going to help these people who are mistreated today, while yesterday these people were left to their own devices.” Moral obligation is not something as fickle as we would like to make it out to be. Even though the proposition I left with you is difficult to understand, it is the right principle to act on if we want to improve human life and lead a morally good life..