There is no moral difference between shooting a poor person and failing to contribute money or resources to a charitable cause.
Singer is way too optimistic about humanity.
We don't need an explicit definition of moral significance; people can define it for themselves.
Our entitlements, such as rights and deserts, outweigh our obligations to help other people.
The Unrestricted Moral Principle says that we must always help someone in need, unless helping them would cause a similar harm to oneself.
Giving resources to poor nations will actually result in a decrease in the population.
Outcomes do not draw a moral difference between actively killing and letting die.
The victim of wrongdoing does not have to be identifiable for the wrongdoing to be wrong.
Motivation does not draw a moral difference between actively killing and letting die.
We are all murderers.
Arthur's reliance on the concept of the affluents' entitlement to their resources is misguided.
The Restricted Moral Principle says that we must help someone in need if we don't have to sacrifice anything of moral significance in the process.
Richer nations shouldn't help poor countries because it will just worsen the problem.
Looking at history and the present, we can see that much of the affluent did not acquire their cushy lives fairly.
Morality is only useful to the degree that humans can & will actually adhere to it.
Hardin's claim that aiding poor nations will only increase their problems and worsen the state of things is wrong.
It is better to ensure the certain safety of a group than to risk the group's safety in order to help more people.
It is immoral to gamble with human life.
We cannot be obligated to give away any of our time, money, or possessions that we acquired fairly.
