What does Singer argue about the distinction between duty and charity with respect to famine and affluence? Charities seem to ask the people for fixed sum of money. In this scenario the charities accept the money and thank people for their contributions. It is assumed that everyone in the society would make the fixed small amount of money. This is not the reality. People in developed nation who live in affluence choose to give their money in charity. It is considered that acts of charity are completely up to the subjective perception of the individuals. Individuals in the affluence society do not consider it duty to donate to people who are starving. They are not judged for spending money on luxuries. They reserve the moral condemnation for acts that are considered to be aberration their subjective societal conformities. It is not considered that giving money should be the duty of the individuals. This is the nuance distinction between definition of duty and charity in the society.
What does Arthur argue about “the ideal moral code” in response to Singer? Arthur in response to Singer states that there would only be detrimental effects to the society. Ideal moral code should be the incentive of hard work. People should be allowed to keep the large fraction of money they earn. If they were made to feel guilty about their earning, people would be forced to conduct acts of altruism. They may not work as hard in the societies. They would consider that their hard work would be squandered away with people. People would feel guilty and the majority of the people in the society will be made to feel bad for working hard and ensuring productivity. In this scenario there would be detrimental effects to productivity and happiness in the society. This is Arthur’s argument for Singers opinions.