Moral duty exceeds human nature

People with wealth beyond their essential needs ought to give most of it to help people suffering life-threatening poverty, rather than spend it on luxuries.

Money spent on luxuries rather than necessities should be given to help the world's poor, because necessities already account for much of a household budget.

There is no morally important distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ traffickers and an affluent American who spends on a TV upgrade instead of donating to save children.

All people with surplus wealth are in the same basic moral situation as Bob: they must choose between preserving personal comfort and saving an innocent child's life.

Selling a child to organ traffickers is morally comparable to spending money on a luxury upgrade when that money could instead save a child's life, because both acts sacrifice a child’s life for nonessential comfort.

There is no morally important distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ traffickers and an affluent American who spends on a TV upgrade instead of donating to save children.

Bob acts gravely wrongly when he refuses to divert the train to save the child, even though the sacrifice would destroy his Bugatti and its financial value.

A person who can afford to donate $200 to overseas aid but does not do so is acting in a way that closely resembles Bob's refusal to save the child on the tracks.

People in affluent countries spend large amounts on nonessential goods and services, and donating that money to charity could save children’s lives.

About $200 donated to organizations like Unicef or Oxfam America can help save a child's life by funding effective aid.