In this article it clearly states that almost everyone has the ability to make a difference in the lives of others. blows.” Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices in giving are morally permissive, whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxury for charity, then that is fine (morally speaking), as long as you have not neglected your obligations to your family. In "The Singer Solution to Global Poverty," author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans shouldn't give money to the needy when there are countless products they can afford. luxury goods which are not essential to the preservation of their life and health. In case you choose not to sacrifice yourself for charity, then that's okay too. In accordance with Narveson's position, it is up to us to help or feed the hungry and whatever we decide is also correct. What Narveson is arguing is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, for example by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This statement does not contradict anything Singer says in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” Nowhere in this article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utility like Singer, there's no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand, Narveson makes a distinction between