Introduction A major goal of the human civilization is to get to a point where no individual suffers from the lack of basic necessities. However, this ideal is yet to be met and millions of people continue to suffer and die from lack of access to basic needs. Efforts by governments and policy makers to come up with effective solutions to the problem have not yet led to a permanent solution. The article “Famine, affluence, and Morality” by author Peter Singer attempts to provide a solution that can alleviate and even eliminate suffering. Singer proposes that people from wealthier countries can end the suffering of those in need of basic needs by giving away a large part of their wealth to the suffering. 1 The author argues that citizens of developed nations have a moral obligation to use their wealth to assist those suffering from want of basic necessities. This paper sets out to Singer’s conclusions that people from wealthier countries have a moral obligation to do something about the suffering of others in the world. It argues that while Singer’s argument for the suffering and death from lack of basic necessities is bad, his conclusion that it is the duty of the wealthy to do something to alleviate the suffering if not justifiable. Peter Singer’s Argument The main aim of Singer’s argument is to demonstrate that people in developed nations such as Australia, Britain, and the US have a moral obligation to assist those who are suffering from a lack of basic needs due to natural or artificial calamities. He begins by highlighting the deaths of thousands of people in East Bengal in 1971 from starvation and lack of shelter and medical care. 2 He asserts that their deaths and suffering is avoidable as the richer nations have the capacity to give enough assistance to dramatically reduce the sufferings of the Bengali. However, Singer notes that the decisions and actions needed to prevent the suffering have not been made as few people have responded by providing aid. A major argument by Singer is that it is our moral obligation to prevent a bad thing from happening if it is in our power to do this without great sacrifice on our part. He elaborates that there has been inaction at the individual level and the government level. 3 Individuals have failed to give large sums of money to relief funds or pressure their governments to provide more aid. Singer notes that the governments have the capability to provide more aid than they are currently offering. He observes that while the British government has given 14,750,000 to aid the Bengali refugees, it has contributed 275,000,000 to the Anglo-French Concorde project. 4 Another argument made by Singer is that the physical distance between the wealthy nations and the people in need is inconsequential when deciding to offer aid. He asserts that the principle of preventing the bad and promoting the good does not consider distance. Our familiarity with the person benefiting from our action is also inconsequential. As individuals who ascribe to the notion that equality is an important attribute in society, we should not ignore the needs of those who are not geographically close to us. Singer also tackles the issue of whether an individual should feel obliged to help whe