In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer appeals to the following moral principle to argue that we are morally obligated to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care: 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 (p. 231). Explain how the weaker version of the principle, this would require a drastic change in our moral scheme. Should we accept this principle? After explaining Singers argument, either defend Singers principle by responding to what you take to be the strongest objection to it, or give reasons for rejecting it. [NOTE: If you choose to reject Singers principle, you must provide an alternative explanation for why we think we are obligated to save the drowning child in his pond example.]
