Famine, affluence, and morality

Think about all the trivial luxuries that you have bought for yourself over the past two months. Recall that, in this context, a “trivial luxury” is anything that does not provide for any morally important need. This may include things like buying nice clothes or a new phone, going to see or renting a movie, paying for a nice meal or fancy drinks, and so on.
Is Peter Singer (1972) right to suggest that you are an immoral person for buying those trivial luxuries instead of donating that money to help children in extreme poverty?
If yes, then why do you continue to spend money on these sorts of things? If not, then why is you having that luxury morally better than you alleviating the suffering of those children?
You don’t need to name any of your specific purchases, unless doing so helps clarify your response.
If you honestly feel that you have bought no trivial luxuries over the past two months, fair enough. Instead, think about your free time spent on morally irrelevant things (leisure, watching TV, partying with friends, and so on). Are you an immoral person for not donating that time to do volunteer work that helps children in extreme poverty? If yes, then why do you continue to do morally irrelevant things? If not, then why is you spending time doing those things morally better than you volunteering that time to alleviate the suffering of those children?

Please use APA in-text citations, along with a reference section at the end of your answer, for any sources that you draw upon in responding to this problem.

Reference
Singer, P. (1972, Spring). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243.

Last Completed Projects