The Drowning Child Argument

The Drowning Child Argument

Zale Small

PHIL 110

In 1972, Peter Singer, the philosopher published “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In this article his argument is that we have a moral obligation to help others that are suffering from famine and starvation. He uses Bengal as the example in his article but also any country with suffering and death from starvation can be applied in the situation. Singer is right about how we are morally obligated to help the suffering, although, I disagree with his statement about giving up or sacrificing all that one has worked for to eliminate famine.

 I agree when Singer makes the first assumption that, “all suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad” (p.790). I think this is a straightforward statement that yes, all suffering and death from lack of food and necessities is not good.

        Singer is right in his second assumption when he states that, “if a person has it in their power to prevent something bad from happening without losing anything of comparable moral importance we ought morally do it” (p.790). Peter Singer uses his famous pond example to prove his point. It goes like this, if you were walking by and saw a child drowning in a pond, would you jump in and save the child even if it meant getting your clothes muddy? Most all of us would jump in and get our clothes muddy because having muddy clothes is nothing compared to saving a life. If we have it in our power to stop something bad from happening, without causing something worse to happen or doing something wrong in doing that, then we should do it. I think that this thought experiment is a good way to prove moral obligation.

Then, I agree with Singer’s point about the distance of the problem of the starving children of Bengal. “It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away” (p.790). From this statement, I agree that many people turn a blind eye to starving children because they are in another country. Since it is far away and the problem is not staring them right in the face, the children and the problem can be easily written off. I have been one of those people. I felt like because the problem was so far away it could be someone else’s problem. If one were to ignore it, it would eventually go away. But after reading Singer’s pond example and how he compares the problem in Bengal and around the world with a child drowning, I look at it a different way. It does not matter if I knew the child or not, I would still jump in and save the child from drowning.

Another point I agree with in this article is when Peter Singer says, “the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position” (p.790). I believe this is true because if I looked around and there were other people close by and they knew the child was drowning and still did nothing, this would still not affect my decision. I would still jump in the pond to help the drowning child. A moral obligation is something inside of myself that I choose to do or feel obligated to do. It does not matter what others around are me are choosing to do.

Singer makes an additional point when he discusses how if everyone gave five dollars to Bengal it would solve the suffering problem. Yet, not everyone is going to give five dollars. Therefore, I disagree we should compensate for the people who do not donate any money. How much than do I give if five is not enough? I feel I am obligated to save the suffering of the world by myself if I have to compensate for everyone who is not giving. But of course I cannot give that much; I can only give what I can.

I do not agree with Singer’s point about the traditional views between duty and charity. He says our society views giving money as an act of charity and to not give any money is not seen as wrong. Since people are praised for giving to charity he says, “a man who is not charitable is not condemned” (p.792). I think it may sound acceptable on paper but I do not believe this is realistic. I disagree with condemning others for not donating to charities. It is not right to bring more negativity to an already desperate situation. A person only has time to focus on the positive in situations like these.