In this paper I propose an argument against the moral and practical viability of the strong ethical principle found in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” against the notion of division of responsibilities. I intend to develop my argument in two main parts. Firstly, I will consider the moral impartiality of the principle, examining both Singer’s thought on the matter and the views of four critics. These four critiques, examined together, will compose a useful illustration of how division of responsibilities could be theorised. Secondly, I will examine the practical impact of the principle on the developed world, with particular regards to charitable giving within the United Kingdom. I will conclude that division of responsibilities in a relationship-based framework seems to be the more reasonable choice.