Singer's Slippery Slope Argument

In this essay I argue that Singer’s principle is false as a moral obligation to prevent bad does not necessarily translate into the appropriate help needed for the recipients involved. My argument proceeds in four sections: In the first section, I articulate Singer’s argument. In the second section, I show that Singer’s argument is invalid as it relies on the premise that donation to charity organisations will prevent bad without considering the inadequacies of human nature and hence making it a false premise. In the third section, I offer a response on Singer’s behalf by explaining that the objection offered earlier is a slippery slope argument that relies on doomsday conclusions which are unrealistic in actuality. In the fourth section, I
Singer claims that by donating to aid agencies or charity organisations, who will in turn pass it on to the needy in other poorer parts of the world that desperately need these resources, we can help prevent the suffering and death that comes unnecessarily if not for that fact that they had the basic necessities that we can offer help with, and this is true on the basis that we could, as an affluent society, comfortably do since many of us need not an extra piece of clothing or car that can be considered indulgences, and it could have been better used as donations to help those suffering. While it sounds logical that the able should help the needy especially if it is not too bothersome to do so, Singer might not have considered the reality that exists in aid agencies and their practices, whereby even with the best intentions, the donations might not truly be delivered to the recipient, leading to the idea that his premise might not be as sufficiently thought out, perhaps due to the time when it was written, which was a time before there was an increase in awareness of corruption in regards to global aid to the needy, and this does not support his premise, that people would be saved if we were all obligated to do so as realistically speaking, we cannot guarantee it. Singer is right to claim that donation equals aid and decreased suffering and that aid agencies is one good way to help the needy directly, but it is difficult to fully conclude this would, together with the other premises, help prevent suffering and death as it is difficult to completely prevent an issue that is prevalent in many third world countries, aside from East Bengal, the main focus of his argument, as it is multi-faceted and complex in nature. The fact that the people living within these countries are unable to fend for themselves might not fully be due to merely external events such as wars and natural disasters, as part