Duty to Aid & Human Suffering

2. Duty to Aid and Human Suffering (Singer)

Singer’s Pond Analogy

• Scenario: Imagine walking by a shallow pond and seeing a drowning child. You could save the child at the cost of getting your clothes muddy.

  • Moral Question: Are you obligated to save the child?

  • Answer: Yes. The cost to you (muddy clothes) is insignificant compared to the benefit (saving a life).

• Moral Principle: If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so.

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

• Singer applies the pond analogy to global poverty and suffering:

  • Premises:

    1. Suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, and healthcare are morally bad.

    2. We can prevent these harms at relatively low personal cost (e.g., donating money instead of buying luxury items).

    3. Moral Conclusion: If we can prevent such suffering without sacrificing something equally significant, we must do so.

The Global Pond Argument

• Distance is morally irrelevant: A drowning child on the other side of the world has the same moral claim as a drowning child nearby.

  • Modern technology allows us to help distant people just as easily (e.g., donating to effective charities).

• Charity vs. Duty: Singer rejects the idea that helping the poor is optional charity. Instead, it is a moral duty.

Practical Implications

1. Donating to Effective Charities: Donating a small percentage of income (e.g., 10%) can save lives and reduce suffering.

2. Lifestyle Changes: Luxury spending (e.g., expensive clothes, dining out) should be minimized if those resources could save lives.

Example:

• A $5 donation to an effective charity can provide malaria-preventing bed nets, saving lives. Failing to donate, while spending the same money on trivial comforts, is morally comparable to ignoring the drowning child.

Objections and Responses

1. Demandingness: Critics argue Singer’s principles are too demanding. If we follow his logic, we would need to give away most of our wealth.

   • Singer’s Response: Even small contributions make a difference. People are not expected to give everything but should contribute significantly.

2. Uncertainty: Some claim donations may not effectively reduce suffering.

   • Response: Effective altruism research identifies charities with measurable impacts, addressing this concern.