my take on singer's solution to world poverty. what are our moral obligations

update:  Happy belated Halloween!! this was my first Halloween as a freshman in college and I have to say this is the loneliest time of my life, more lonely than the pandemic! but I did have fun with my bsf last night, we went to a vampire-themed party hosted by the secular student society at a neighboring University. hope everyone reading is enjoying fall!

Peter Singer is considered to be a radical activist, and especially for the time in the 70’s when he published his essay “Solution to World Hunger” he’s also written philosophical interpretations supporting animal rights, veganism and wrote, “The Expanding Circle” (1981), which is one of my top 10 favorite novels. I agree with the overall point that we should use our extra money to refrain from Overconsumption of unnecessary goods and use it to help those in need, though I was left with the question; What is our absolute fair share? I believe it depends on how much we already have and whether or not we are in a position to give. We need to know to decide whether we’ve already given enough and how much more we owe to those in need. “When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.” (Singer, pg.5) In Conversations like these I believe that people are quick to blame the government, for example; why should I donate to these organizations when the government should have the finances and resources to help them in the first place? Once you do donate, how do you determine which organizations are more in need than the countless others? Everyone deserves a roof over their head, Everyone deserves a warm meal, Everyone deserves clean air and fresh clothes, and medical treatment to accommodate their needs. But not everyone gets these basic needs met, maybe not a single one of these needs mentioned. Where do we draw the line from needs, worthy of donations to meaningless desires? You could go as far as to justly say that everyone deserves to treat themselves, Everyone deserves to express their gender and sexuality comfortably, and Everyone deserves supportive peer groups but these are not often considered as Immediate and dire necessities as the ones mentioned previously. Why is that? And above all, what are the ethics that support those classifications we’ve situated them in?