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. 

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.   

  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. However, if the money is spent to save the needy, it can increase the survival rate. 

  According to Singer, it is an immoral action because it equals not giving enough money to the starving needy. The utilitarianism will agree with this opinion, since this action can maximize the utility. 5 billions people approximately live in absolute poverty nowadays, and every 3.6 second there is someone who is dead because of hunger. Giving up a luxurious lifestyle is utterly an insignificant cost comparing to letting people die of hunger.If people are willing to change their lifestyle and donate the money, a large population can be saved. Therefore, owing to the principle of Utilitarianism, it will be immoral to live an expensive lifestyle.