e of rich nations responsible for the consumption of vast amounts of food that could otherwise be utilized elsewhere. Such waste continues to perpetuate absolute poverty, and with just a simple act of redistribution, can some alleviation of absolute poverty be seen. Singer states that because industrialized nations do not contribute enough resources that are needed by poverty-stricken countries, the citizens of these wealthy countries are allowing those in poor countries to suffer from absolute poverty. He argues that every absolutely affluent (wealthy beyond necessity of human survival) individual is responsible. For each individual who lives affluently has an opportunity to do something about absolute poverty. Singer suggest that allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone. Thus, those who live affluently and do nothing to alleviate the suffering and death of those in absolute poverty, in essence have, murdered them. An opposing argument is presented by stating, there are two distinct motivations in deliberately killing a person and spending money lavishly on luxuries instead of using it to save lives. On the one side, in killing someone deliberately, one must have a motivation and desire to see the person dead; they perhaps may go to great extremes to meet their end result. Their motivation to kill is one of enmity and malevolence. On the other side, an individual who spends money on luxurious items desires to possess luxurious things in life. Though the money was spent for the individual's own comfort and not for the saving of another life, it is nonetheless not a unthinkable act. Singer suggest that this individual's motivation could be defined at wors...
