In his essay, Peter Singer poses two questions: What should a billionaire give, and what should you? He proposes that if people (particularly the most affluent) were to donate more of their money, it would greatly benefit those living in extreme poverty and could reduce mortality caused by preventable diseases.

Construct an account of the effectiveness of this argument by providing one outside source to exemplify either the strengths or weaknesses of Singer’s argument. If you choose to argue that Singer’s argument is effective, you can provide a source that raises awareness about waste and greed in capitalistic societies, or perhaps a source about various charity organizations that have made a positive impact. Consider where the world would be without altruism. Another avenue you could take to support Singer’s argument would be to talk about the psychological and physical benefits of altruism. If you choose to argue that Singer’s argument is ineffective, provide a source that demonstrates other alternatives to ending global poverty. Consider the arguments that consumers can be micro philanthropists by purchasing free trade goods or buying from companies that donate a percentage of their profits. You may also consider the argument that simply giving away wealth will not end poverty, rather the root of poverty lies in political policies, lack of education, disease, overpopulation, etc. You may also want to discuss whether or not those with money have a moral duty to help those with less money.Have a clear, concise thesis statement.

?Be free of spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors.

?Have smooth transitions between each idea and paragraph.

?Provide at least one piece of textual evidence from Singer’s text to demonstrate his argument.

?Supplement your analysis of the strengths/weaknesses through the use of at least one piece of textual evidence from one outside source.

?Have correctly formatted in-text citations (works cited page not required).