I think Singer would argue we should shame or lock up people if and only if that did the most good. It’s not at all clear, as a fact of the matter, that would be the best option
That accords with my model of Singer’s view.
I just wanted to point out that he wasn’t arguing against shaming or deploying the legal system. Those routes probably wouldn’t do the most good, in practice, but they’re definitely on the menu of things to be considered.
My point is that Ben is in fact able to do whatever legal thing he wants. He doesn’t need to make us wrong to do so. It’s interesting that he feels the need to. Whether EA or Peter Singer has suggested that it’s morally wrong not to give, Ben is free to follow his own conscience/desires and does not need our approval. If his real argument is that he should be respected by EAs for his decision not to give, I think that should be distinguished from a pseudo-factual argument that we’re deceived about the need to give money.