In Hyde’s article, Bezos is accused of a selfish businessman while trying to be seen as a messiah. I agree with his point at all. Bezos's actions can prove his selfishness. First, Bezos pays much less taxation that he should. Taxation is essential to a city’s development and citizens’ welfare. However, with the help of professional people, Bezos can pay far fewer taxes. This practice is legal in law, but it shows that Bezos has no sense of social responsibility. Second, Bezos sets a philanthropy fund and when he is doing his best to pay less taxation. This behavior is an apparent paradox. If Bezos really wants to help the society, he would spend the taxes at first. Establishing the charity fund gives him a better public figure but paying taxes cannot do that. I can't entirely agree with Singer’s perspective. At the end of the article, the formula can conclude his opinion: Whatever money you are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away. It is not our responsibility to give our money away. Singer is trying to prove the formula by the homeless boy example. I will indeed try my best to save the homeless boy if I know he will be killed without my help. However, helping the poor by donating money is a different scenario. I save the boy because I am the only one who could help him. My behavior is based on human empathy. Today, many people are suffering from diseases, famine, and poverty. If helping those billions of people in the way Singer says is right, I would live a life that cannot bring me any pleasure. No matter how hard-working I am, I can never buy anything except for necessities. Lack of incentive will make me lazy, and so will other people. As a result, total productivity will go down, and there will be more diseases, famine, and poverty. In my idea, it is ethical to donate money and help unfortunate people, and it is also acceptable if we choose not to do it.