Yes, I agree with Peter singers argument on duty to render aid to others to an extent because it is the right thing to do for example take the drowning child scenario into consideration. The importance of saving the life of the child far outweighs the risks it doesn't necessarily need to even be a child when you see someone in need of help and you are able to help you ought to help them. Also the booze cruise scenario when everybody is off drinking,partying, and having a good time upon asking for their help they say they're to busy drinking even though saving the lives of the 20 naval officers is what they ought to do because it outweighs drinking instead you ought to try and save as many lives as you can. The parts I don't agree with Singer are his fair share view which says that if others aren’t doing enough you are obligated to do more than your fair share and when he says give till it hurts at all times because it is required of you that is a bit extreme and necessarily isn't true because for example in the drowning child argument if you're unable to help perhaps because you're a paraplegic then it isn't required of you. …show more content…
You should help them to the point where they are no longer in the same situation that they perviously were in because instead of following Singers argument and giving more till it hurts you're not making a difference you're only putting yourself in that same position as that person which in turn doesn’t maximize utility at all. helping others is very rewarding., Helping others is a way of enabling that persons full potential so that later on they can help