# data[].attributes.body
I agree that it is immoral to live a expensive lifestyle from utilitarian perspective as well. As you have mentioned, giving up on spending disposal money on luxuries is just a marginal cost. Therefore, we are not willing to sacrifice this to maximize the total utility of the world then it is immoral.
Ser Pak Yee
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
Also, I have think of that the working class in developed countries may be  unable to donate money, but due to their difficulties faced in daily lives, they may more cherish their food than the wealthier class. So in this view, they are making good use of the food and not wasting the resources when the others lack food. So, how could one say these people are not helping the staring needy? In my opinion, it is not how much money they contributed, it is how considerate they be.
16/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
As I have mentioned I think donation should be seen as charity but not obligation, the level of help contributed could not be only counted by how much money they have given out. Even in a developed country, there are the wealthier class and working class. Working class may also face the problem in their daily lives and may not be able to donate their incomes for the starving needy in those developing countries. In this case we cannot evaluate the help to the needy by money, maybe people in working class are hoping to help, but they just lack the ability in finance.
16/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think it is a  must to donate to the starving needy in the poor countries. It is clear that no one would be pleased to see the famine situation while I think the responsibility is on those governments of poor countries. Because mostly their starvation of people is due to the corruption of the government. Therefore I think to help the needy is the responsibility of the government. However, for us, I think we have the responsibility to not wasting food as the others are lacking them.
16/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
1. I agree with the singer's point of view that people should do their most effort with the least consumption of their own resources for they are not responsible for the problem and, however, for the well-being of their own livelihood and the empathy towards others, then they should do it.

2. I think people from affluent countries can easily help out the starving people in poor countries, with so less that those people won't even care about. Same as the chair group, I agree that the basis of aid should be under your capability and not raising another problem from doing this. I think there is a golden rule for helping hands, which is "you are to safe, not to be saved". If you needs to be saved while you are saving others, then you just create another problem and should rather not do it.

3.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with Chan Chi Chung that personal willing is upmost all when we come to helping others. The whole thing will become meaningless if do it because of obligation. On the other hand, I'm all in favor of charities, and I'm genuinely impressed by people who give their lives to helping others, but it's a mistake to assume that saving lives is easy and simple and all we lack is the will.  That's why Singer's "drowning child" analogy fails. If that child's in front of me, I know that I can take action that will save his life.  If that child is starving in the midst of a horribly complex social, political and military situation five thousand miles away, in a culture and environment I can't begin to understand, I'm not convinced I can do anything for him.

Tsang I Mau, Tim
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I doubt that whether each life is equal to live in this world according to a response of one of the group member. Of course, it would be ideal that every lives are equal to live, and no one is deemed inferior when they were born. However, the truth is that some might think that people who are living in the poorer nation are not as important as the ones who are living in the richer nations since people in richer nations are able to take care of themselves and will not became a burden of the others.  So some might think that it is a consideration of morality or realistically, about the net benefit of the whole world.

Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna
17/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, Singer think that there are some bad conditions caused by lack of basic resource such as food and sufficient medical assistance to make so people who are suffering in poverty, starve. Also, he think that everyone are morally obligated  to prevent those bad things to happen without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance. In my opinions, when we face death even who is in front of us or far from us. People need to provide help because there are no meaning of the distance when we are obligated to helping people by using their possible ability on the moral level. Each live is equal to live in this world. Wealthy are obtaining more those who are suffering in starve or pain, even going to die. They are totally able to help those people and they actually know the situation of the large scale of refugees as Singer mentioned. Therefore, they are obligated to help them because they have enough ability. However, there is no actual method to estimate the value of their assistance. Some people may directly provide medical care, some may provide food or money directly to fulfill their responsibility. Besides, same sacrifice may have different impact to different provider. I think we cannot just focus on the result that people give, we should also see how much they sacrifice from themselves to estimate the values of their help but they have also finished their obligation as they expect. For me, some obligation is hard to be tantamount to same contribution.
For the second question. I have mentioned that there is no meaning of the distance for people in the affluent countries to help the staving needy in the poor countries because this is about people's willing to help needy. As Singer said that people in affluent are obligated to help needy. However, how can one person help this large scale of needy? One's contribution to needy is come from his/her personal willing because it is not easy to estimate how much they can help. Therefore, people should give help to needy by considering with their ability and willing but not the distance and ethnicity.
16/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
Actually, I agree with what Singer said that the wealthy have the obligation to help the poor. Because it is crystal clear that in the poor countries, those what those poor people's requirement to meet their basic needs is only the marginal cost for the wealthiest people. We absolutely have the ability to help those people without deteriorating our daily life. If we are reluctant to help those people, those people will v suffer from hunger or face to death. If most of us are willing to help the boy who are drown, there is no reasons why we do not have the obligation to help the poor people. Of course, it does not mean that for the wealthy people, we are ought to help the poor people for the rest of life because the costs of helping the poor people are accumulating not counting for the net cost. In my opinion, different people can distinguish the difference between charity and responsibility. Once the wealthy people think that helping the poor have some effect or deterioration of their life, they have already fulfill their obligation. After fulfilling the responsibility, if the wealthy people still want to help those poor people, this action should be charity.
I think for the utilitarian, it is always immoral for them to buy new clothes or eat at the restaurants. For the utilitarians' perspective, they think it is a great deal that to scarify marginal cost to get the survive of the poor people in return. What the utilitarians' principle is that they need to maximize the total happiness in the world. Also, helping the poor people is the moral thing that can maintain the stability of the world and create a greater future for our next generation. Therefore, I think the utilitarians should agree with this statement.
15/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why does Singer think we ought to help the starving needy in poor countries? What is his argument?

Singer first announces that suffering caused by a lack of the most basic of resources is bad. Secondly, he maintains that if it is the case that we can prevent some bad from happening, without thereby giving up something of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so. These two assumptions are the foundation upon which he draws the conclusion that most individuals have a very strong moral obligation to relieve famine. After all, giving a great deal of money to aid organizations is hardly comparable to the enormous amount of suffering that the money will offset. For example if we are walking past a pond and see a child drowning in it, we ought to wade in and pull the child out. This may ruin the clothes but that would be insignificant compare to the death of the child. Singer believes that we could help without thereby giving up anything of significant moral importance. In other words, we can reduce avoidable death and suffering by giving to famine relief etc. and the cost of doing so is a morally insignificant reduction in our standard of living .

In addition Singer also proposes that geographical or emotional proximity are irrelevant to morality. It suggests that whether or not I have a duty to aid someone should not be influenced by features concerning how far away I am from that person, either physically or emotionally.

2. Do you agree with Singer? On your view, how far should people in the affluent countries sacrifice to help the starving needy in poor countries?

I agree with Singer that the richer nations are ought to help nations like the East Bengal, facing with serious problems such as the lack of food, shelter and medical care. In my point of view, the stand of this argument is depend on whether you value the benefit of the whole collective the most important consideration or you think that the interest of one’s self is the most important. To me, the benefit of the whole collective always come first. This is why morality exists. This is why people set up standards of virtue. Having to be regarded as noble, mighty and virtuous can achieve the purpose of keeping people in line, obeying laws which are aimed to protect human’s safety and properties, and eventually maintaining the social order. Realistically, if everyone, or most of us, are not willing to give a helping hand to the needy, even if we can do so without having to bear a heavy cost, the general benefit of the whole collective will be reduced. In the case of the famine in East Bengal, imagine the waste around the globe produced by numerous wealthy countries, the richer nations are definitely capable of supplying the countries which are in difficult situations with basic materials and food.

If richer nations are willing provide East Bengal with basic needs, or even assist them to address the roots of the problems such as economic problems, education system and wars, more people in the world would become safe, able to enjoy their life and even have the ability to contribute to one’s country or the world. However such assumption is only based on the condition that the richer nations could help the poorer ones without suffering from another problem, which is emerged due to the assistance to the poor nations. It is of its own choice whether to help or not if the outcome of the assistance will lead to serious sacrifice or predicament of the country because if the wealthy nations are forced to help the poorer ones, neglecting its own benefits and capability, it turns out to be a harm to people in the wealthy nation in general, failing to reduce the average suffer of the world.

3. From the utilitarian point of view, is it always immoral for us to buy new clothes or to eat at expensive restaurant?

Enjoying relatively luxurious entertainment is not moral from the utilitarian perspective. Total happiness is the biggest concern for Utilitarianism. Purchasing new clothes or dinning at expensive restaurant are examples which people do to promote their quality of life. Spending disposal money on luxuries can be a way for people to relax and enjoy their lives, and it generates happiness for them.

According to Singer, it is an immoral action because it equals not giving enough money to the starving needy. However, in utilitarian point of view, if considering spending disposal money on unnecessary is immoral, then it might lower the level of happiness of large group of people, since buying new clothes or eating at expensive restaurants has become the lifestyle of citizens who live in a developed country. Therefore, it will be against the principle of utilitarianism, if it is an immoral act. Donating money to those who are in need is obviously a good act but it does not mean it can maximize the total utility. In this case, if it asks people to scarifies their right to enjoy their lives based on their own preference to help others, then it opposes the belief of utilitarianism. Although acting the way Singer suggests might increase the level of happiness in less developed countries, it can decrease the total happiness in the world.