Do better-off people have a moral obligation to end the suffering of others if it doesn't require similar suffering on their part?
Peter Singer wrote an article called Famine, Affluence, and Morality in which he explains that if we are able to end suffering without causing similar suffering to ourselves or our dependents, we have a moral obligation to do so. In short, we shouldn’t necessarily give up our homes to the homeless (because that would produce equal suffering on our part), but we should not be wearing more clothes than we need simply to stay warm when there are people that don’t have winter coats, and that we shouldn’t eat more than we need to live or eat out in restaurants while there are people starving.
Do you believe Singer’s point is valid? If so, why do we not do more to help the have-nots? And if Peter is wrong, why are we not obligated to end the suffering of others by giving up our “extras”?
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.