Unfeasible Argument

Singer is accurate when he states that “If it is in our power to prevent something bad without suffering anything of [comparable] moral significance, then we morally ought to do it (231, 241)”. From a moral perspective yes, we ought to help someone who is suffering from starvation, a lack healthy living arrangements and a lack of/sub par medical treatment.  However, distributing everyone’s wealth evenly is unrealistic. Helping someone in a form of foreign aid requires a transfer of wealth. More specifically, Singer’s point advocates that we all ought to transfer as much of our wealth as possible until everyone is living at an equal standard. 

Unfortunately this philosophy is an impractical. While in it of itself it is impossible to expect individuals with different morals to relinquish their personal wealth, that’s the not the main issue. If you look at this from an economic standpoint, it defies human logic. People work hard simply because they want to be successful, if you remove someone’s wealth/what they have earned, you've removed their incentive to work harder. Essentially, while this would make everyone equal, you would have no progression or advancement.  Everything we have to this day is a result of progression or advancement.  I’m not saying aid should not be given to people in need, what I am saying is that to distribute all wealth evenly would be impossible.