When Singer wrote his famous article on "Famine, Wealth, and Morality" in 1972, few people had ever thought philosophically about charity work. Since then, the issue of donations to organizations that claim to alleviate suffering in different parts of the world has been the subject of much debate. The recent discussion, developed by MacAskill (2014), believes that individuals should pursue well-paying careers and donate excesses of their income to charitable organizations. This model is commonly referred to as “earning to give.” While acknowledging that the approach leads to satisfaction in giving, being a moral obligation of every person, and that engaging in such acts can lead to a better world, such dedication requires due diligence, economic reasoning and a demand for responsibility. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayAccording to Singer (1972), giving is a moral obligation of every individual. The author uses the moral theory of utilitarianism to explain his statement by proclaiming that human beings should only engage in activities that lead to the happiness of everyone in society. Giving, especially to relieve suffering, can therefore be considered part of such activities. According to Singer (1972), each person should spend their money to the extent they are able to live a modest life, committing the remainder of their excess income to helping those affected by famine, among other disasters. The author believes that when people spend money on luxury items that they can do without, they are not fulfilling their moral duty and are therefore wrong in doing so. Thus observe that giving is not an act of charity, but an act that we are obliged to perform. Considering all factors, giving is in itself a good thing. The fact that it can save a life, alleviate human suffering, and make the world a better place makes Singer's ideas an ideal scenario. MacAskill (2014) supports this claim by developing an ideology of “earning to give” encouraging people to choose professions where they can earn higher wages. Their excess earnings should in turn be donated to charity. MacAskill (2014) notes that the idea has been adopted by several countries with some employees donating 50% of their income to charitable organizations. It is probably in the moral instinct of most people that helping those in need is the ideal. The philosophy of earning to give has received widespread support considering the effects it could have on those facing untold challenges around the world. In particular, the theory has been extended to include individuals in academic professions who have greater potential in the business world. In this case, those who can earn more in business are advised to do so and abandon the academic profession. The intention must be solely to earn more to donate and carry out charitable activities. Several authors have questioned the philosophy. For example, Bremner (2017) indicates that thinking emphasizes caring for the needs of strangers more than those of individual families and communities. The author notes that such actions can lead to neglect of responsibilities. However, Unger (1996) notes that humans have a tendency to put their own families and societies before the needs of strangers and that in most cases what is considered excess earnings does not include money for the maintenance of the family or society. Furthermore, this statement does not take into account the fact that supporters of this philosophy argue that an individual gives to the extent that thesacrifice does not lead to a worse outcome. The modest life of altruists and the observance of moral character, under which care for family and society falls, are encouraged. Therefore, when it is within a person's ability to earn more for charity, then he should do so. It is also noted in Singer's article that financial aid is not the only way to appease moral character, physical aid can also go a long way in forms of volunteerism (which can save money by not having to pay employees). While emphasizing that earning for giving is in itself good behavior, there are several issues that need to be taken into consideration. Singer (2016) advocates effective altruism, emphasizing that giving is not enough. The author believes that how money is used determines how useful charitable acts can be. Many times, altruists have donated to charitable organizations without any real concern for what they do with the money. MacAskill (2014) notes that some charities are corrupt and often use resources for personal gain rather than to improve people's well-being. Charitable organizations often post images of people in pain, emphasizing that the money raised is used to help such individuals. It has always been a matter of debate whether the funds are actually used to meet these needs. Singer (2016) indicates that most organizations are openly fraudulent. Foundations are not very transparent and therefore do not deserve donations from people who work hard to earn money, he also states that financial help is not the only way to appease the moral character, even physical help can go a long way in the form of volunteering (therefore saving money by not having to pay employees). According to Singer (2016), most people give emotional response. The author notes that most altruists barely engage their minds when making the decision to donate to certain organizations. As a result, their innocent actions do not have the expected results. This observation leads to the assertion that while earning to give is ideal, it should not be based on emotional responses. The mind must be engaged critically to avoid wastage of funds. Unless rationalism is adopted, donations alone therefore cannot make the world a better place. One of the issues donors should consider is accountability. MacAskill (2014) insists that donors should prioritize transparent foundations. These are organizations that account for the money they use, list the results achieved and indicate how they have improved the lives of those who suffer. There are such organizations, some of which provide annual reports that reflect the use of money over a certain period of time. Singer (2016) states that donors who do not seek accountability risk losing their money to scammers. Therefore, if you value responsibility, then earning to give can make the world a better place. MacAskill (2014) also notes that proper use of money is not a measure of its impact. Sometimes charities invest in projects that are not effective in addressing existing problems. Singer (2016) provides an example of Make-A-Wish, an organization that spent $7,500 to make a child's wish to be Batkid come true. The child had apparently been undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia, a deadly disease. Singer argues that it was unreasonable to use such a significant sum of money just to make a boy's wish come true. Could there have been other significant projects? SurelyYes. Singer (2016) believes that an emotional response to altruism prevented the company from investing in projects that would have a greater impact than simply fulfilling a wish. The money probably could have helped three children in worse conditions. The argument here is that altruists who earn to give must not only seek accountability, but also ensure that the use of resources has maximum impact. Considerations here might involve how an organization chooses, evaluates, and decides which projects to implement. Evidently, effective projects can make the world a better place. What's more? Bremner (2017) indicates that altruists prefer a world with less suffering and more happiness rather than a world with less happiness and more suffering. In this case they should therefore invest in projects that maximize the former. Probably, how aProject can lead to happiness depends on the nature of the crisis that a person is experiencing at the time he receives help. Singer (2016) states that when charitable work is directed at individuals severely affected by a disaster, it leads to greater good and therefore the funds are well used. Thompson (2015) is critical of people who strive to meet the needs of their own societies when there are other individuals worse off in other regions. For example, The Singer (2016) argues that donations to museums or an opera house do not lead to the greater good while there are people in other countries dying of starvation or lack of adequate healthcare. The question every person who “earns to give” must ask themselves is whether their donations lead to a better outcome elsewhere. Donations must be targeted to the regions where suffering is worst, thus maximizing its potential impact. Happiness, unlike many other things in the world, does not care about boundaries. The argument is based on the marginal principle in economics. The concept is best explained by Thompson (2015). The author indicates that the satisfaction a person derives from having a cup of tea is different from the satisfaction of an individual who has already drunk two cups. The former enjoys it more because he is thirstier. The principle is used extensively by the author, indicating that a new doctor working in the United States would have less of an impact than in Africa, where there is a shortage of doctors. If such a doctor decides to work in sub-Saharan Africa, his altruistic actions matter more. Thompson notes that even if such an action were good, it still wouldn't be the best. For example, if the doctor chooses to work in the United States and earn a high salary by donating part of it to hire two doctors in Africa, then this act would lead to something more good and is therefore better to select. The application of marginal utility economics is a new concept that could revolutionize the giving attitude among altruists. The change would be worth it if the actions of authentic donors counted in making the world a better place for everyone. The three factors, responsibility, impact and effectiveness, require that all individuals who “earn by giving” become more rational in their activities. The commitment to seeking information and engaging the mind is what differentiates effective altruists from other givers. The author notes that there are organizations that provide willing donors with information regarding charitable organizations whose activities are considered effective. These institutions are committed to monitoring the use of funds at various foundations while measuring the economic benefits of the selected projects. Access to such information is evidently not a problem for active donors. Passive donors may, ultimately, not.