When Singer wrote the famous article on “Famine, Wealth, and Morality” in 1972, few people had ever thought about charity work philosophically. Since then, the issue of donating to organizations that claim to alleviate suffering in different parts of the world has been the subject of much debate. This is the recent debate, developed by MacAskill (2014), who believes that individuals should pursue well-paid careers and donate excess income to charitable organizations. This model is commonly referred to as “earn to give.” While recognizing that this approach leads to the fulfillment of giving, which constitutes a moral obligation of each person and that engaging in such acts can lead to a better world, such dedication requires due diligence, economic reasoning and requirement of responsibility. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayAccording to Singer (1972), giving is the 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 all in society. Giving, particularly to relieve suffering, can therefore be considered part of these activities. According to Singer (1972), each person should spend their money to the extent that they are able to live a modest life, while devoting the remainder of their excess income to helping those affected by famine, among other disasters. The author believes that when individuals spend money on luxury items that they can live without, they are not fulfilling their moral duty and are therefore wrong to do so. He thus observes that giving is not an act of charity, but an act that one is obliged to do. All things considered, giving is in itself a good thing. The fact that it could 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 for giving” by encouraging people to choose professions in which they can earn higher wages. Their excess income is in turn supposed to be donated to charity. MacAskill (2014) notes that the idea has been adopted by different countries, with some employees donating 50% of their income to charity. Arguably, most people's moral instinct considers helping those in need to be ideal. The philosophy of earning for giving has received widespread support given the effects it can have on those facing incalculable challenges across the world. Notably, 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 income in business are advised to do so and leave their academic profession. The intention should only be to earn more to be able to donate and do charity. Different authors have questioned this philosophy. For example, Bremner (2017) indicates that this thinking places more emphasis on meeting the needs of strangers rather than those of individual families and communities. The author notes that such actions can lead to neglect of responsibilities. However, Unger (1996) notes that human beings tend to put their family and society ahead of the needs of strangers and that, in most cases, what is considered excess income does not include money intended hasfamily or societal maintenance. Furthermore, this statement ignores the fact that proponents of the philosophy argue for individual giving as long as the sacrifice does not result in a worse outcome. Modest living is encouraged for altruists as well as respect for moral character, which includes caring for family and society. So when a person is able to earn more for charity, they should do so. It is also noted in Singer's article that financial aid is Physical aid is not the only way to soothe moral character, but physical aid can also be very useful in the form of volunteering (which allows to save money by not having to pay employees). While noting that earning for giving is itself good behavior, there are several issues that need to be considered. Singer (2016) makes the case for effective altruism, emphasizing that giving is not enough. The author believes that the way money is used determines the usefulness of charitable acts. Often, altruists have given to charities without really caring about what they are doing with their money. MacAskill (2014) observes that some charities are corrupt and often use their resources for personal gain rather than to improve the well-being of the population. Charities often post images of people suffering, emphasizing that the money raised is used to help these people. Whether funds are actually used to meet these needs has always been debatable. Singer (2016) states that most organizations are downright fraudulent. Foundations are barely transparent and therefore do not deserve donations from people who work hard to earn money. He also mentions that financial help is not the only way to soothe the moral character, physical help can also be very helpful in the form of volunteering. (thus saving money by not having to pay employees). According to Singer (2016), most individuals give an emotional response. The author observes 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 for giving is ideal, it should not be based on emotional responses. The mind must be critically engaged to avoid wasting funds. Unless we embrace rationalism, donations alone cannot therefore make the world a better place. One of the issues donors should consider is accountability. MacAskill (2014) emphasizes that donors should prioritize transparent foundations. These are organizations that account for the money they use, list their accomplishments, and indicate how they have improved the lives of those who are suffering. Such organizations exist, some producing annual reports reflecting the use of money over a certain period of time. Singer (2016) argues that donors who do not seek accountability risk losing their money to fraudsters. So, if responsibility is valued, then earning for giving can make the world a better place. MacAskill (2014) further observes that good use of money is not a measure of its impact. Sometimes charities invest in projects that fail to effectively address existing problems. Singer (2016) gives the example of Make-A-Wish, an organization that spent $7,500 to fulfill a child's wish to be a Batkid. Apparently the child was receiving chemotherapy forleukemia, a fatal disease. Singer says it was unreasonable to use such a large amount of money just to fulfill a boy's wish. Would there have been other significant projects? Certainly yes. Singer (2016) believes that an emotional response to altruism prevented the company from investing in projects that would have had a greater impact than just wish fulfillment. This money probably could have helped three children in worse conditions. The argument made here is that altruists who earn for giving must not only seek accountability, but also ensure that the use of resources has the greatest impact. Considerations here could relate to how an organization chooses, evaluates and decides which projects to implement. Effective projects can obviously make the world a better place. What 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. Undoubtedly, how a project can lead to happiness depends on the nature of the crisis that a person is going through at the time they receive the help. Singer (2016) argues that when charitable work is directed toward people severely affected by calamity, it leads to a common good and funds are therefore well spent. Thompson (2015) criticizes the fact that people are committed to meeting the needs of their own society when other individuals are worse off in other regions. For example, Singer (2016) argues that donating to museums or an opera house does not lead to the common good while individuals in other countries are dying from hunger or lack of adequate health care. The question anyone who “earns to give” needs to ask themselves is whether their donations lead to better outcomes elsewhere. Donations should be directed to areas where suffering is greatest, maximizing their potential impact. Happiness, unlike many things in the world, doesn't 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 experiences from having a cup of tea is different from the contentment of an individual who has already drunk two cups. The first appreciates it more since he is more thirsty. The principle is widely used by the author, indicating that a new doctor working in the United States would have less impact than in Africa where there is a shortage of doctors. If such a doctor decides to work in sub-Saharan Africa, then his altruistic actions count more. Thompson notes that even if such an action is good, it still would not be the best. For example, if the doctor chooses to work in the United States and earn a high salary while donating part of it to employ two doctors in Africa, then this act would bring more good and therefore it would be better to select him. The application of marginal utility economics is a new concept that could revolutionize the generous attitude of altruists. This change would be worth it if the actions of real donors are to help make the world a better place for everyone. The three factors, responsibility, impact and effectiveness, call on all “win-win” individuals to become more rational in their actions. 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 voluntary donors with information about charitable organizations whose activities.