Problem:
In "Famine, Affluence and Morality", Peter Singer argues for the conclusion that if you do not donate to aid agencies (charities), you are doing something morally wrong. Explain Singer's argument for this conclusion, making sure to specify the conclusion's scope (i.e., how much Singer thinks we should be doing to help reduce human suffering). Next, explain John Arthur's criticism of Singer's argument (in his "World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer").
Finally, explain why Arthur's criticism of Singer is not persuasive, and then explain, in a reasoned way, why his criticism fails.