Famine, Affluence and Morality by Peter Singer's conclusion-- Donating to charity is morally obligatory and not supererogatory.
When further asked how much to donate-- as much as we ourselves end at the receiving end of the charity? He answers a somewhat 'Yes', saying morality in itself is very demanding.
My question:
Can we extrapolate this idea to-- earning as much money as possible, with the intention to donate, is a morally obligatory act, and not going out of your way to earn more is an evil act?
Using his drowning child analogy, if say saving that child means I will get a small cut on my arm, I'm still obliged to save the child. Right? If I am to get severally ill? Or say if I am to lose a finger? Lose an arm? Lose both the legs?
Is there any line that can be drawn before-- I will have to give my own life in order to save the child?
Some of you might agree that in most cases earning more money than you are now, is a possibility, but requires strenuous efforts, so much so as to affect one's physical and mental health, regardless of that, are we morally obliged?
