Peter Singer's Moral Obligation

Peter Singer argues that all people have a moral obligation to donate all that we can to the poor. The suffering and starving of those people living in poverty are not inevitable; many of us have the ability to eliminate this suffering, however, we choose not to. We have a moral duty to prevent bad things from happening as long as it does not cost at the cost of “sacrificing anything morally significant”. (Ethical Theory). Therefore, making such donation is moral duty for people living in affluent countries. Singer supports this claim by providing an example of a scenario in which a person witnesses a child drowning, and questions that if it is our duty to save the child, even if the child is at a far distance, and most people would agree that the person has a duty to save the drowning child. He suggests that this duty exists because we believe that the drowning of a child is a bad thing, and we ought to prevent anything bad from happening. However, I do not think he is correct in holding that failing to offer such aid when one is able is morally equivalent to allowing a small child to drown in a pool where one could easily rescue, because this case is too simple
The person standing by the pool deciding whether or not to save the child and a child who is powerless to do anything, but wait for the person to decide his/her future. It is not reasonable to compare people who live and struggle against poverty to drowning children. (Against Shallow Pond). Poor people still make different decisions in attempt to survive and escape poverty, it is not right to compare poor people to drowning children, and say that the fate of poor people rests entirely on the moral choices of the wealthy people, because they are entirely free to make any decisions, and totally capable to survive and increase their chance of survival base on their