In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer appeals to the following moral principle to argue that we are morally obligated to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (p. 231). Even on the weaker version of the principle, this would require a drastic change in our moral scheme. Should we accept this principle? After explaining Singer’s argument, either defend Singer’s principle by responding to what you take to be the strongest objection to it, or give reasons for rejecting it. [NOTE: If you choose to reject Singer’s principle, you must provide an alternative explanation for why we think we are obligated to save the drowning child in his pond example.]