2) Peter Singer argues that our current conception of moral obligation requires a drastic revision. After explaining Singer’s position and his argument for that position, critically evaluate his viewpoint. If you disagree with Singer, explain what is wrong with his argument and/or position (you may also defend one of the objections he himself raises and rejects). If you agree with Singer, then respond to the following objection to his viewpoint: Nobody should have to do more than their fair share in terms of preventing bad things. If everyone gave to save children dying of chronic malnourishment, then no one person would need to give more than about $170 per year; consequently, that amount is currently all anyone is morally required to give – that is their fair share of giving. Singer is therefore wrong to claim that I, as an individual, have a moral responsibility to sacrifice any more after I’ve given $170 for a year. If you choose to defend Singer, then show what is wrong with this
