Singer’s argument is extremely flawed, especially when suggesting the general public to donate all extra money beyond necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Suggesting such is, essentially, violating one’s autonomy to force one to donate one’s earnings. Singer, also, would be incorrect to consider that dining at a restaurant, and watching movies at the theater could be unnecessary. Some individuals need to relieve stress by going out or watching television, and stress is ultimately bad for one’s health, so one would be obligated to relieve stress. Narveson merely recommends that human beings do not have an responsibility to benefit one another, but does not suggest that one should not (Shafer-Landau 231). One cannot argue that Narveson has the maximum comprehensible
Singer’s argument is extremely flawed, especially when suggesting the general public to donate all extra money beyond necessities (Shafer-Landau 229). Suggesting such is, essentially, violating one’s autonomy to force one to donate one’s earnings. Singer, also, would be incorrect to consider that dining at a restaurant, and watching movies at the theater could be unnecessary. Some individuals need to relieve stress by going out or watching television, and stress is ultimately bad for one’s health, so one would be obligated to relieve stress. Narveson merely recommends that human beings do not have an responsibility to benefit one another, but does not suggest that one should not (Shafer-Landau 231). One cannot argue that Narveson has the maximum comprehensible