Part 3/9:
The crux of Singer's paper rests on a pivotal distinction between obligatory and supererogatory actions. An obligatory action is one you must do, while a supererogatory act is one that is commendable but not morally required. Most people view charitable giving as supererogatory; a good deed that is nice but entirely optional. Contrarily, Singer argues that contributing to relief organizations dedicated to fighting famine is as morally obligatory as refraining from actions like murder.
Dissecting the Argument
Key Premises
To develop his thesis, Singer lays out the following premises:
- If it is within our ability to prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of moral significance, we are morally obligated to act.