We discuss Peter Singer's work in many of my classes. He's been arguing for decades that affluent people are morally obligated to help those that are destitute and suffering from famine and lack of resources (including things like clean water, medical resources, and education). What Singer is ultimately arguing for is an alteration of our conception of what counts as charity. According to him, we should view helping those in dire need as a duty, not something that would simply be nice for us to do. In other words, he thinks we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help those in dire need.
I'm curious what you think about Singer's arguments. His famous "pond example" is convincing to some people, yet others find it entirely unpersuasive. What do you think and, more importantly, why?