Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Is it all that matters?

While first reading through Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality I had no large qualms with his argument.  At the most basic level, Singer argues that dying and suffering from lack of basics needs such as food and health care is bad.  He then goes on to state that if it is within our power to prevent these things “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance” (232) then we should and that we in fact do have the power to do this.  This is my only real problem with Singers’s argument. 

The line between acceptable and not acceptable on the scale of moral significance is so blurred at this point that I am not sure we could even try to decipher it.  The so called ‘line’ would have to be drawn situationally, case by case, because everyone has different circumstances.  Bill Gates’ responsibilities would drastically differ from a married middle aged woman in Ghana.  What I took away from this writing is essentially everyone should do what they can for their fellow people, not just the ones in close proximity. 

Singer has chosen the basic necessities of food, shelter, and medical care as the only causes people should give their time, attention, money, and efforts to.  He has deemed these most important however how has he made these distinctions?  Should education not be just as important to we have people that will be able to govern and protect people as well?  And if not then what happens to the supplemental organizations people give to now if all efforts are solely focused on preventing suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care?  These are the questions I have for Singer; I would be interested in hearing his positions on these questions as a response to the stances he takes in this article.