Tension between the rich and the poor is not a new phenomenon. As the rich grow their personal wealth and shrink in numbers, the poor grow in percentage and diminish in fortune. Although multi millionaires are usually the first to receive criticism for not donating and helping countries in need, they are not the only people financially capable of helping. Regular, middle class individuals are also monetarily stable enough to give to the poor. Those who can afford more than a single car per family, a vacation or two a year and the luxury of going out for dinner on special occasions have the capabilities to donate. There are many simple, easy and realistic ways to save money. For instance, a bottle of water in the United States cost around $1.50, which of course is being modest and assuming that one is buying a standard brand. Tap water in the United States is filtered enough to be safe to consume and will cost less than a penny to drink the recommended eight glasses a day. Besides the cost, bottled water is incredibly damaging to the environment, yet in 2006, Americans consumed more or less 31 billion liters, which is equivalent to over 41 billion 750ml bottles of water and cost over 61 billion dollars. Another easy way to save money is with coffee. .
Brewing coffee at home can cost pennies a day but people are still paying up to $5 for a single cup, sometimes purchasing coffee multiple times a day. It is evident that bottled water and purchasing instantly made coffee is a waste of money. Money that can be sent to help improve the life of people living in extremely poor and difficult conditions. In my opinion, if you are financially stable and you do not donate to charities that help Third World countries, you are amoral because as privileged people it is our duty to help the extremely poor. Thus, that is the point of view I will argue in favour of in the following paper. .
Peter Singer's is an Australian philosopher.
