In this article I will begin by explaining Singer's utilitarian argument in "The Life You Can Save" regarding the obligation of wealthy nations to donate to alleviate global poverty. Second, I will analyze an objection to Singer's argument against charity. Third, after examining the objection to Singer's argument, I will present Singer's remarkable response. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer's argument and Singer's refutation, I will offer my view on whether Singer's refutation is convincing or not. In discussing Singer's argument, it is important to explain his definition of global poverty. Singer clearly states that extreme poverty is “not only a condition of unmet material needs” but also a “degrading state of helplessness” (6). Singer's argument states that citizens of rich nations behave badly because they fail to contribute to the end of the poverty they know exists in poor countries. It postulates that the ordinary person has the ability to point the finger at others, when they should still do everything they can. Singer's argument is a direct criticism of a capitalist system in which extreme wealth coexists alongside extreme poverty. For Singer, the ethical calling to contribute to the eradication of poverty lies in one person's ability to help another. In his full argument, Singer considers three premises. The first is the common knowledge that suffering and death are inherently bad. Singer's argument for the Golden Rule is encapsulated in this premise: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (16). No sane person would want to suffer; therefore it is only moral to help those who suffer. Singer argues in the next premise that people have… middle of paper… poverty conditions could be saved. It is often said that people are generally motivated by self-interest. Singer believes that the existence of altruism in society is higher than most people believe. Therefore, if people prioritize this altruism, their lives will be further satisfying and just. This brings me to the question of whether material objects are nearly as important as saving a child from death? Singer's interpretation of morality and measures to alleviate global poverty reflect a truly utilitarian perspective. In deciding between right and wrong, he often considers what people should do. It recognizes that deep down people understand that the honest truth is always the one they would rather not do out of selfish desires. Singer's novel is a paradigm of moral philosophy as it is well discussed, engaging, and an important topic in today's society.