Morality

 Singer believes that charity is inseparable from morality, and no distinction can be drawn between charity and duty.  The modern world does not support Singer’s view, treating charity as a voluntary activity, but an act of generosity that needs to be praised in public. There are multiple arguments that are provided to support the view on charity as a negative phenomenon, which is not effective in reducing poverty and cannot benefit those in need. He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. His claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality because it's easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense.  when Singer evidence  presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right..?