Granting Singer’s utilitarianism, it is still not clear why donating to NGO’s to save lives will lead to a happier world. There are several reasons for that. First, how far should one go? Should I dedicate my whole non-essential spendings to donations? What if I plan to go to a graduate school to pursue mathematics because of my passion for it? Singer’s position seems to suggest that I should give up my pursuit and keep donating and work only to donate. However, under this condition, everyone who is affluent will give up other pursuits that they have and work only to help save lives. In other words, you might have to give up your own life and serve others. Will this lead to a happier world? Not for those who give up their pursuits in life. Especially if one follows Mill’s qualitative approach to pleasure or Bentham’s quantitative approach to pleasure.
Moreover, there will be no morality if there is an obligation to help for circumstances that one is not a cause of. The reason for that is simple. If there is no choice then there are no good or bad choices. There is only one choice — an obligation to help. Therefore, this theory makes morality into a strict code. Everyone who decides not to help are doing something morally wrong. Everyone who donates is doing something morally right. This is simplified version of morality. What if you are in a better position to help someone? Then maybe you have a more pressing obligation to help, than others who are not in the position of responsibility.
Even if I understand Singer’s appeal to altruism and rescuing of life, I think that the moral theory needs to be revised and altered by more details.