http://www.
Now, we know from population studies that before you finish reading the end of these instructions, several children, somewhere in the world, will die from entirely avoidable circumstances like curable disease, lack of access to clean drinking water, etc. We also know that the cost of saving one life is not terribly expensive (i.e. how much does clean drinking water cost for one person in the U.S.?). The ethical theory demonstrated by the “Drowning Child” scenario was established by philosopher Peter Singer, and argues that if you can do significant good with little or no detriment to yourself, then the most ethical choice is to help as much as you can. Every person in this class (students and faculty alike) inarguably has the means to help alleviate some of the suffering around the world. Yet, we know that not all do (somewhere between half and two-thirds of all American households give money to charity, and less than half volunteer their time), and even if you are one of those who are already helping, you are very likely not donating everything you possibly could (don’t be offended…this is a reality for almost everyone…myself included). Given this reality, are we all not shirking a moral obligation by neglecting an opportunity to help others, and even save lives, when doing so is within our capability?
Think carefully on this point. Your response should include a reflection on the moral duty of one human being to another. How much help is enough help? Is it morally defensible to live with the creature comforts of first-world civilizations when one is aware of the destitution to which other people are relegated through no fault of their own? In other words, if we’re about to spend $10 on a movie ticket, and that same $10 could literally save a child’s life elsewhere in the world, then are we not morally obligated—as fellow human beings—to forego the movie and send our money where it makes the most crucial difference? And to do the same with every dollar we don’t literally need in order to provide the most basic necessities of life for ourselves and our families?
Singer’s ‘Drowning Child’ scenario was designed to evaporate many of the common excuses that people assert for not contributing to help others. As examples…
1. If a person would help the child even though other bystanders would not because it’s “not their problem” or “not their fault”, then they can’t say that they won’t donate to charity because other people don’t donate to charity.
2. If a person would help the child even if they helped another child yesterday, then they can’t say that they won’t contribute ten more dollars to charity today because they already gave ten dollars yesterday.
3. If a person would help the child even if they weren’t American, then they can’t say that they won’t contribute to global charities because we should focus on American poverty and destitution first.
4. If a person would help the child even though they know there is, say, a less than 50% chance that they will succeed, then they can’t say that they will not donate to charity because they don’t know for certain that their money will actually go to those in need (as opposed to the pockets of charity executives).
This is a tough introspective exercise…welcome to the world of ethical inquiry 🙂
Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 250 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Responses should be a minimum of 120 words and include direct questions. This discussion submission serves as your official entry into the course.
0 comments