I agree with Peter Singer’s argument, for the most part. While I do feel obligated to help those in need, I do not agree with the way that Singer justified his desire to help others. Singer treated giving to those in need almost as if it were a competition. More specifically, I do not believe that Peter Singer is an altruistic giver in the least, despite his claims about the importance of “altruistic giving.” He placed different values on donating money, time, or another asset, such as an organ. I believe that if one wants to donate something specific, or to a specific cause, that should be valued. Whether that reflects altruism, or not, should not be at Peter Singer’s discretion. As far as I’m concerned, any giving is a good deed. I also believe that people who are in a position where they are able to give, should give. This is regardless of one’s motivation to do so. Whether one’s donation is in time, money, organs, etc., it is something of value. I also believe that it is important to donate resources locally, rather than abroad. While solving global issues is something of great importance, it is important that a happy medium is found between the two. There are many instances of poverty, homelessness, and hunger much closer to home than one might typically think. It is important that we not only support those in need abroad, but also in our own communities.