He makes it clear in this piece that almost everyone has the ability to make a difference in the lives of others. dents." Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, regardless of whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, then that's fine (morally speaking), as long as you don't neglect your obligations to your family. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans should not donate money to the needy when they can afford countless luxuries that are not essential to preserving their lives and their Health. In case you choose not to sacrifice yourself for charity, that's fine too. According to Narveson's position, it is up to us to help or feed the hungry and whatever we decide is correct. What Narveson argues is that it would be wrong for others to force us to donate, for example, by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This statement does not contradict anything Singer said in his book “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utilitarian like Singer there is no principled reason why it would be wrong to force people to donate. If the policy that forces people to donate maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand Narveson makes a distinction between