Are We Morally Obligated to Help Others?

Modern media coverage bombards us constantly with reports of charitable acts by those in the public eye, as well as advertisements that encourage us to share what modest wealth we possess. Our society teaches us from a young age that if we are given any kind of expendable resource, we need to share it with those less fortunate, those who cannot afford or even fathom the basic necessities. This can be seen early on with the very basic concept of sharing toys in the sandbox and continues through adulthood by rewarding participation in philanthropic endeavors like food drives or Relay for Life. Those who are passionate about these causes are not above even using guilt as motivation... the sad eyes of famished orphans in Africa coupled with pleas for aid leaves one who is sitting on a comfortable couch with their hand deep in a bag of chips remorseful enough to reach for their wallet with their free hand. Peter Singer’s Utilitarian theory highlights this phenomenon and argues that people living in abundance while others are starving is “morally indefensible”. His reasoning is that if you are already living a comfortable life, purchasing anything to pursue more comfort is morally reprehensible and lacks virtue. To his credit, Singer supports his theory through practice, as it is reported that he donates 25% of his salary to Oxfam and UNICEF, and is a member of Giving What We Can, an international society for the promotion of poverty relief. As a result, Singer feels that people who are able to live in excess should work towards reducing poverty among others, not enhance their own comfortable conditions.
According to Singer’s Utilitarianism, the proper course of action is one that maximizes utility. This is defined specifically as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. According to extreme utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, thereby focusing primarily on the consequences of the action. However, can that