It should be granted that Singer’s broadly utilitarian framework to donate to OXFAM will save lives. However, by considering Bentham’s quantitative distinctions between pleasures, it becomes more difficult to clearly show that we are adding to the sum of human happiness, like Narveson claims. While there are clear benefits that can be seen from donating to OXFAM, there is no clear definition for the happiness that is being created. For example, having life and surviving death may be something that people will recognize as good in many cultures. However, if we continue to donate to areas with extreme poverty, then we may also create major challenges, like the Inuit cultures that choose to commit infanticide, based on the resources they have.
Basically, the line between saving life and the resources the people have becomes very unclear which can create greater problems that people outside of the culture do not see or understand on a daily basis. In addition to this, while donating would save lives, it is still not clear about what type of quality those lives are in and if they have enough pleasure that does not give them greater suffering. While people should have a responsibility in helping others, there are some situations where people are too detached to know if they are helping or harming.