According to Singer, we need to examine and deconstruct the ethics of generosity. He argues that our generous actions are typically defined and limited by cultural and political boundaries, with our strongest preferences for immediate family—children, spouses—followed by friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen.
Instead of this typical understanding of generosity, Singer believes that we need to adopt a philosophy of impartiality. An ethical foundation based on impartiality treats the value of human life equally across the planet. This kind of worldview is necessary, argues Singer, in a globalized era where distance and nations are of diminished importance. He makes two major arguments, as far as I can tell, for adopting an impartial ethic: 1) Geographic distance or relational proximity should not be determining factors for helping others and 2) the problems of poverty, hunger, and other unfulfilled basic needs are so grave in some parts of the world that we are morally required to help. With the governments of developed countries (especially the US) apparently unwilling to meet their own foreign assistance goals, Singer calls for citizens with disposable income to donate as much as they can to organizations working for the global poor.
While I think Singer makes an effective logical argument for reexamining our ethical foundations, he fails to properly recognize the significant obstacles to achieving such a significant ethical shift. I would imagine that an impartial worldview that appears to diminish the importance of familial relationships will be met with significant cultural resistance. I also think he doesn’t acknowledge the difficulty in maintaining an impartial worldview when the beneficiaries of our generosity live half a world away. The power of his moral reasoning alone is not necessarily enough to stay invested in the lives of the unseen global poor.
The Urban Impacts of Globalization 