In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", in Reason and Responsibility, Singer makes an argument that we ought to give our money to help save the starving. I will argue that both a utilitarian and a Kantian points of view can be validly concluded the same way Singer concludes his argument. I will also explain that even both thoughts of mind agree I still don't follow Singers argument.
             Singer argues that, "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought to morally do it."(535) One might argue that what is out of sight is out of mind releasing them from their moral duty, yet Singer replies that, "proximity and distance have no account on your duty."(536) One could ask if nobody else does it, Why should I? One could make a situation of a drowning baby, in which there is many people are around. Just because one person is not saving the baby does that mean that no one should save the baby? (535) No, just like Singer argues, "the number of people in the situation one or a million has no account."(536) Singer after stating his argument goes further and divides acts into two categories: supererogatory and obligatory. A supererogatory act being that which is above your duty, an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do, for example, buying someone lunch when they forgot their lunch money. (Lecture). An obligatory act is an act that you ought to do, and is wrong not to do so, an acvt that you will be morally blame worthy for. (Lecture) Singer than uses these statements to conclude that giving you money to the starving is an obligatory act, a duty which is wrong not to do. (Lecture)
             Looking at Singer's argument as a utilitarian, one will come to the same conclusion that Singer did that it is wrong not to give up your money to the starving. A main idea for morals a utilitarian argues that &
             ...