Writing aegument

Peter Singer argues that we have a very (indeed, a surprisingly extensive) obligation to help the global poor and hungry. 

There are a lot of arguments put forth by Singer for his main position, and also for other claims he makes along the way. He also describes a number of arguments against his position (these count as “objections” to his position), and he attempts to put forth counter arguments (replies) against these objections. 

One kind of argument against – or challenge (or objection) to -- his position (or one kind of attempt to avoid this conclusion) claims that, as a matter of empirical fact, it is not the case that we have the ability to bring about these benefits to the global poor in this way that Singer assumes we do (or at least that we can’t be confident of this). [Hence such an objection challenges the premise that “By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death (from lack of food, etc.) without sacrificing anything nearly as important.”]

            Choose and describe carefully and in as strong a manner as you can what you take to be the most significant or important challenge to Singer’s argument of this type.

            Then critically evaluate it: Decide whether you think that this argument works or not, and explain what your reasons are for holding this view. (Make sure that in the process you describe as carefully as you can what you think Singer would (or ought to) say in reply.)

There is a good chance that the objection (as well as the Singerian reply) may be found in Singer’s writing, but it is of course fine if they are not but are instead generated by you. If they ARE in Singer, then be sure to put this in your own words, and make clear just what the argument says. There doesn’t need to be a quotation, but there needs to be a citation.