Abstract

In Practical Ethics Peter Singer argues for an ‘obligation to assist’: First premise: If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it. Second premise: Absolute poverty is bad. Third premise: There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. Conclusion: We ought to prevent some absolute poverty. This paper is dedicated to a criticism of four readings of the first premise and an undesirable link the first premise has with the third. The paper ends by offering a alternative formulation of an ‘obligation to assist,’ which suffers from none of these problems.