Philosophy and Charity

I have recently encountered two arguments related to charity that I thought that I would share and then get your thoughts.

I. Peter Singer on our Obligations
The argument here comes more in the form of a story. We are asked to imagine a person who has a very valuable car (perhaps there are no others like it). This car brings this individual a great deal of pleasure (perhaps even pleasure he could not otherwise attain). Unfortunately, this individual parks his car on some railroad tracks. Sure enough, a train is coming. Worse yet, though the tracks fork and he could redirect the train before it hit his car, there is a young innocent girl stuck on those tracks. He must choose his car or the girl's life. What should he do? Well, hopefully the answer is pretty obvious. He should let his car be destroyed.
What's the big deal? Singer claims that each of us is in the very same situation as the man with the car. Pick any of your favorite possessions, costly habits, savings, etc. that bring you pleasure. It is the case that you having those is coming at the cost of other individuals in the world dying by starvation or some other means. If you think the man ought to give up his car to save the girl, Singer thinks you ought to do the same. Further, the problem is recursive, so once you give one thing up, the claim still applies until you are living at the same level with least of the world.

II. Dan Moller on letting people starve -- for now.
Moller gives the following argument:
1. Future lives count just as much as present lives (we have an equal obligation to them as we do to present lives).
2. There will continue to be at-risk people in the forseeable future.
3. The cost of saving lives will decrease over time.
4. There are ways to increase your wealth over time.
5. It would often benefit you to delay providing aid (your life would be more enjoyable).
6. Therefore, we should let people starve -- for now, since we can do more with our resources for future generations.