![]() ![]() A modest donation to agencies, like UNICEF or Oxfam, from a middle class person would have a high probability of saving a child’s life in a developing country. ![]() Millions of children die each year from lack of food, water, or basic health care. There is a child’s life you can save at a modest cost to yourself. ![]() ![]() While this pond situation will probably never happen to any of us, an analogous situation to this is happening to us right now. The person is responsible simply by being in that situation and the good of saving the child far outweighs his inconveniences. Now pretty much everyone would consider this person to be a moral monster. Suppose this person decided not to save the baby, because it’s not his responsibility: he didn’t push the baby in he’s not the father of the baby the baby has nothing to do with him and it’s not worth the inconvenience of getting his clothes wet. On the other hand, saving the baby would require him getting in the cold pond plus the pond will ruin his shoes and he will have to get his suit dry cleaned. He realizes that he could save the baby without risk to his own safety, since the pond is only waist deep. Imagine a person walks by a shallow pond, and sees a baby drowning with no one but himself to save her. Here is a summary of Peter Singer’s argument for why we should give more to charity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |