How far do our moral obligations extend? Is saving a drowning child right in front of us enough? Should we give everything we can to the less fortunate around the world? With these problematic questions there are two types of acts that follow. One is supererogatory and the other is obligatory. A supererogatory act is an act that is good but which is acceptable not to perform. An obligatory act is an act that would be wrong or unacceptable not to do. Peter Singer has very strong opinions about the global poor. This article will share his theory, provide some objections to his theory, and explain why his theory of reason has good intentions. Singer believes that we have a moral obligation to help the world's poor that is as strong as our obligation to save a child drowning in front of us. His theory states: (P1) Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. (P2) If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything morally significant, we should do so. ( P3) It is within our power to stop some suffering and deaths due to lack of food, shelter, and medical care without sacrificing anything morally significant. (C) We should stop as much suffering and death as we can stop without sacrificing anything morally significant. First of all, we should talk about the drowning child. Imagine that one morning while walking near a shallow pond you happen to see a small child who appears to be drowning. Should you go look for the child? The obvious answer is yes. Singer links this type of reasoning to the situation of the world's poor. One thing usually questioned in these cases is the distance. Singer doesn't think this matters. We may be… at the center of the card… and your actions in relation to others. Distance does not decide the level of moral obligation someone should feel for a situation. Whether it's a child drowning right in front of me or a child starving on the other side of the world, both deserve the same moral obligation from people. I agree that it's much easier to take care of the drowning child right in front of me, but it doesn't decide which circumstance deserves more attention. Your actions should not depend on those around you. To some extent you are morally obligated to do some things, but you shouldn't just accept it and move on with life. If you are able to go beyond what is expected, then you should. There are some people out there who would like to go out and help but can't for various reasons. Giving to those less fortunate should be considered more of a group thing and not an individualistic one.