peter singer argument

it assumes that the tragic condition of the person that needs 'saving' is wasn't optional. like being born into extreme poverty or a natural disaster

I think the most fundamental question of this problem/argument is are you really morally responsible for preventing the tragedies of another person? )or just your own

one side is:
some people are just born into bad situations or have tragedies happen to them, that is a part of life, and other people are not morally reponsible of them.

another side is:
As societies we have agreed that taking care of the wellbeing of others is an obligation (in many cases by law, in others socially), like emergency doctors having to attend every patient no matter who they are. This is also part of our human nature as social species.

it is morally aceptable to first take care of your own well being before others, you can argue that accumulating wealth after necessities are covered is a method of prevention / security for future possible tragedies. you can't (or at least it is very hard to) set an amount of how much is morally correct to accumulate, you might be accumulating for your entire family and future generations.
dead end) bc the argument refers to luxuries that you don't need (and I would add another condition: that these luxuries don't retain value, like a an expensive dinner)


proximity is also irrelevant as a counter because the argument a lot of people still don't donate or help to tragdies inside their city > community > family

Although it is completely possible that the closer you are to a situation the more socially obligated you are to help. Like helping the kid in the fountain example. you are socially pressured to help your family (unless you have a very good reason not to like they did you a lot of wrong) or help your country in war.
I think people think this way regarding proximity because people know that preventing all tragedy in the world is an impossibly large task to accomplish, so we deem more important the people that are more closely related to one personally or situations that you can directly impact.

how much you should give to charities is also another complex and important question
modern societies value money A LOT. if you think about it, money is a representation of the value you offer to others, your time and your efforts. So money does technically hold a lot of value itself. I do however believe that the amount of value people should assign to money is largely offset by consumerism that is widespread nowdays.

the argument does hold true to give as much money until your condition is equal or close to the person that is suffering from the tragedy / poverty, But that is because premise 3 assumes that luxuries are not of moral significance and to know if this is true or not we would have to go down a whole communism rabbit hole.

another point that interests me is why is do people feel disconnected to charities or not feel morally obliged to donate to them? is it because there is misdirection in the impact you have? in the sense that your action of donating money is passed on to other people that take on that responsability and then they go out and carry the actions that actually save the lives.
)however charities is a group effort, donators have as much value as the volunteers and logistics efforts.

you can't really prevent every tragedy.
)but are you morally responsible to prevent as many as you can?