Arthur criticizes Singer’s principles regarding aid to needy nations and suggests a principle of his own in support of such aid. Arthur’s principle gives greater weight to the property rights of the affluent than do Singer’s principles.

Singer offers two principles in support of providing aid to needy nations. The first is that if someone can prevent something bad from happening without giving up anything of comparable moral significance, one has an obligation to do so. Singer suggests that starvation is bad, so the affluent have an obligation to prevent it. This principle would place some stringent requirements on people of wealthy nations.

Singer holds that a more moderate principle would not be as stringent, but it would still go a long way toward alleviating poverty in the world. The more moderate principle is that if someone can prevent something bad from happening without giving up something of moral significance, one has an obligation to do so.

Arthur is concerned that Singer’s principles place too much emphasis on welfare rights. He offers an alternative that gives greater weight to liberty rights—specifically, property rights. Arthur’s principle is that if it is in our power to prevent the death of an innocent without sacrificing anything of substantial significance then we ought morally to do it. Singer’s principles seem to require that a person sell something to get money for famine relief, since providing for famine relief is a duty. The extent of duty, according to Arthur, depends on how much happiness is sacrificed by the giver. If the material given up is something that produces happiness over time for the giver, the duty is less stringent. On the other hand, if the material given up produces only momentary happiness, the duty to contribute to famine relief is more stringent. The extent of the duty, in Arthur’s view, rests on the level of the giver’s dependency on material goods to make him or her happy.

Because Arthur turns to the individual's interest to measure the extent of duty, his position may be classified as libertarian.