Mindcoolness

A Cool Mind for a Full Life

  • Blog
  • Glossary
  • About
  • Contact

Singer’s Child-In-The-Pond Argument

December 15, 2020 Dominic Reichl

Peter Singer’s child-in-the-pond argument goes like this: Imagine you are walking past a shallow pond and you notice a small child drowning in it. Would you ruin your favorite, quite expensive, pair of shoes in order to rush into the pond and save the child, or would you rather save your shoes and let the child drown?

It is pretty obvious that only a sociopath would prioritize his shoes over a child’s life. So far so good.

But then comes the analogy: There are so many children all over the world, dying from starvation or preventable diseases, whose life you could save by donating to a charitable organization. Helping such a child would not cost you much more than an expensive pair of shoes. So if you agree that you are morally obliged to save a child from drowning at a relatively low cost, then you must also agree that you have a moral obligation to save starving children at a comparatively low cost.

Aye, there’s the rub! How is rescuing a drowning child the same as writing a check to a charity? The child-in-the-pond argument rests on a faulty analogy that is designed not to be accurate, but to trigger in our mind a heroic archetype and all the powerful prosocial emotions associated with it.

To correct for the undue pumping of our intuition, we can formulate a more proper analogy: Rather than rushing into the pond to save the child, you hire another person walking past the pond to do the rescuing. You quickly pay him your shoes’ worth in dollars, he saves the child, and everybody is happy.

What does your intuition say about that? Isn’t this even stranger behavior than letting the child drown? No matter its moral worth, paying someone else to do the rescuing is certainly more analogous to the bureaucratic act of donating money to charity than being the hero yourself is.

Thus, while the idea of the child in the pond may be a motivating story for some potential philanthropists, it is weak as an analogy, let alone a philosophical argument.

Now maybe you ask, “Why would I need to be the hero of the story? As long as the child is saved, I am happy with the outcome.” No, of course you do not have to be the hero of the story, but if you do not care about being the hero, why would you care about the story?

Blog ethics

Latest Post

Newsletter

Please check your inbox to confirm your subscription.

Copyright © 2023 • Content Disclaimer • Privacy Policy • Affiliate Disclosure • About
Dear reader, this website uses cookies for analytical purposes. We'll assume you're ok with it, but you can opt-out if you wish.
OK Give me more information.
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT