The Singer Solution to World Poverty

In my opinion this paper pulled a little to much of a guilt trip on me. I felt pretty bad thinking that I was essentially screwing some poor kids life up (possibly killing them) by not donating my "fair share" of $200 to the cause. When I sat and thought about this paper for a few minutes, taking in all of the points given, I came up with a conclusion of my own: I agree that Dora was correct in retrieving the child to prevent his murder and I think that Bob was wrong to pick his Bugatti over the child. The part I don't agree with, however, is the comparison between Bob's situation and mine. If I were Bob I would definitely have saved the kid, but when it is said that I'm in Bob's position when I buy any luxuries, and that I could be saving a child's life instead, I'm a little more skeptical. The child's life in Bob's situation was fully dependant on a choice he made between a luxury and the kid, but my position is entirely different. I'm not going to give up all luxuries and live a life of complete asterity just to potentially help a child. I'm not going to go into my life's history, but I was on welfare a while back and am now miraculously in Hawaii, going to Punahou. This is because of help from some rich relatives. Because of this, however, I don't exactly have very much I could give up to help others when I'm struggling to help myself. Therefore, I can say without guilt that I don't directly hold a child's life in my hands because I'm not in Bob's position, and there is a difference between my position and Bob's (the paper disagreed with this saying that while Bob "killed" a kid to save his Bugatti, I'm "killing" a kid by accepting small luxuries), but I do appreciate the good intent this paper holds and I think that if I'm ever rich, or in some other position where I can offer help I will readily do so.