• Suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad
• If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it

Mill, Utilitarianism - The "more than my share" Objection

• The excuse that you wouldn't have to donate/give more money if other people just did their part
• The reality is that while no one else may do something, it's your responsibility to take action

• If everyone gives as much as possible, we'll all have given unnesscarily (there will be excess aid)
• This could only ever happen if we all dontaed money to the same organizaton in secret
• Which would never happen anyway, because once a few people give all they can possibly give, the problem would be solved 

Too demanding

• Do you really have to consider the moral distinction between two buying Fritos or Sun Chips? :{|
• However, we can form basic good habits about how to spend our money

• We distinguish between things that are good to do and things we ought to do 
• Charity is not something that most people consider an obligation--it's not a moral duty
• However, we're actually moral failures--when we fail to give all that we can possibly give, we're promoting the misery of the people less fortunat than us, people we could be helping

Government responsibility, not individual

• Just having people send a bunch of money to a charity is not the most efficient solution
•  we should give our money to the government and let them handle this?
• No, we should get involved! make sure that our resources (money) are being properly spent

Population Control

• Well, maybe this is just nature's way of controlling the population?
• it's impossible that this is the right solution
• we can happily say that as outsiders looking in from our