Singer: The Drowning Child

Description: Peter Singer presents the powerful hypothetical of the drowning child.
This Carnegie Council event took place on October 6, 2011. For complete video, audio, and transcript, go to: www.carnegiecou...

[@aristolochene]

WARNING: cognitive dissonance in the comment section

[@Pepperoni290]

Totally. And I know that anyone I know would refuse to understand as well. It's a lonely feeling.

[@ThinkTwice2222]

Dumbest example... This guy is a scam artist

[@PatternShift]

Peter Singer’s argument is that the situation ordinary people are in is like standing by a lake watching a child drown and not jumping in to save them because you might ruin your nice clothes. But it’s actually much more like standing in a field, nowhere near a lake, buying a harpoon gun and handing it to a stranger who you know has a helicopter. True, you’ve heard there are many drowning children in ponds out somewhere in the distance. You feel a little guilty sitting there having a picnic with your family-this is a frivolous luxury after all-when you could be joining a search party and traveling out to the ponds. But you also know how the children are winding up there: many of them are being thrown in by other people standing near those ponds. Shouldn’t those people be saving children instead of throwing more into ponds? And also you don’t want to walk away from your family sitting there at the picnic yourself, just to go get thrown into a pond yourself and never return. Then a stranger approaches you and offers a safer alternative: Hey, can I have $3500? I’m going to use it to save one of these children? That’s a lot of money, but that seems to make sense to you. You’ve saved much more, and this is saving a life. “What will you do with it?” You ask. “I’m going to buy a harpoon gun and give it to this guy over here who has a helicopter. Then he’s going to shoot it into one of the ponds near one of the children who is drowning so they can grab onto the harpoon. Then the helicopter will fly a short distance over near the shore so the child can let go and walk away safely. This guy he’s pointing to does have a helicopter, and he also already has a million harpoon guns of his own. He uses hundreds of them himself now and then. It seems like he would never run out of harpoons and harpoon guns if he used his own supply. Surely it’s not so important that I buy one harpoon gun and give it to a random strange with money that can pay for some of my children’s education? Or yes, even pay for a hundred picnics like the one I’m enjoying now. Isn’t that just saving helicopter guy the cost of one harpoon? Also I’ve seen pictures of people standing by the lakes, not shooting the harpoon near the drowning children, but actually shooting them. And I also see helicopters fly over and shoot children with the harpoon guns, or sometimes dump entire cargo loads of children into the ponds. How do I know that’s not where the harpoon is going, or that’s what this guy does with his helicopter when I’m not looking? Even if I give the harpoon to a stranger and it goes on a helicopter, is fired correctly, and the child reaches out and grabs it and ends up out of the pond, aren’t there thousands of people standing by these ponds picking up children and throwing them in? What if I give that money away and the child just ends up right back in the pond? Personally, I’m not buying anyone a harpoon gun, especially when the guys with helicopters-who have direct control of how the harpoon guns get used-have all the harpoon guns they could ever need. Unless they’re living a life as or more modest than mine, all my money is doing is saving them the cost of one harpoon gun.

[@daveslacking]

I noticed no one is asking the obvious question, how did the kid get in the fountain in the first place? Well we all put that kid in the fountain, first worlds exist at the expense of third worlds, so it's really just a guy throwing kids in a fountain then saving them and saying "what a good boy am I!"

[@leonardothomson8309]

If you think about it, every time you buy something, you are letting a child somewhere in the world die. The money you spend on a pair of shoes could be used to feed/treat that child.

[@HondoTrailside]

That line of thinking is pretty self-agrandizing, for those who hold it. It holds that people in other countries are incapable of running their own affairs and protecting their children. And the solution to that is to rob them of even more power, which is exactly what happens when international actors throw money at problems, and local politicians spend all their time scrabbling for a share of it, and ignoring their own people. That projected money also dollar for dollar displaces local money that might be able to hire people to do something if it weren't competing with the deep pockets of a foreign charity. What that money buys is corrupt governments that look to world institutions, and control their populations.

[@HondoTrailside]

Obviously poor comparison, because experience shows that the claim that you should treat the poor of the world as if they were a drowning child in your presence has no ending. If you fish the child out, you may loose something of lessor value like your shoes, but you will not be asked to give up all your property or prosperity for ever. You may in fact strengthen the social bonds of the society in which you live. But we are currently being asked to radically change our way of life for the nebulous promise of climate change, that might make waterfront property in the Seychelles more habitable. England accepts millions of unscreened immigrants and hands over social goods to them at the expense of their own people and their democracy is withering as politicians busy themselves thinking about anyone other then their own people Would you respond to an appeal to help a drowning child somewhere else in the world? For one thing it would depend on the the motives of the person asking the question. Do they care about drowning children, or just want more power and control over you.

[@DANCEGARAGEPUNK]

We are all increasingly conditioned into selfishness & greed in order to boost the economy : ( This video is a blueprint for creating equality, unity & peace on earth ! We could see this in practise if the christian church was less corrupt, & actually kept to christ`s teaching that the wealthy cannot get into heaven, but should help the poor ! : )

[@michael4250]

We are a social species, not a solitary one. Morality for a social species MUST include the interdependance intrinsic to a successful social species. We are all single consciences...but we are ALL wired to be part of a whole, whether we like it or not. Morally, we serve two masters...self and others (our group or tribe), setting the stage for eternal conflict. Empathy is the subjective mechanism our DNA provides to conduct that balance, a DNA-directed behavior to foster SOCIAL behavior in a human temperment. It is what makes us a social species, what makes us humans...not solitary animals. But, like hearing or vision, not everyone gets the same degree of that wiring. Empathy, because it is in our very biology, can be resisted, but not ignored. It is biologically mandated when not countered by utility or pathology.

[@soufkerrlina7484]

How could you all come here , view this, and not comment?...anyway....this was a good analogy....POINT........WELL........TAKEN

[@beckettsamiam]

+Souf Kerrlina Because apparently if you agree with Singer, you get threatened by selfish people with guns?

[@soufkerrlina7484]

duh...of course I would feel threatened by a SELFISH person with a gun.....you just said the right keyword...smmfh....that's like me telling you, you get threatened by a PARANOID person with a butcher knife...of course...duh.....once again....smmfh.......

[@Jay-vk4fj]

+beckettsamiam What? I don't understand what you mean.

[@beginization]

I wonder how many helpless people he walked past to come up with that analogy

[@the-warriors-heart]

I think what this argument does not take into account necessarily is the immediate emotional and psychological distress that one would feel when seeing the actual child drowning, versus the more distanced, abstract notion of a child somewhere on earth under similar circumstances. That being said, this is my strongest objection to Peter Singer's analogy, and it is rather tenuous to say the least. So yes, those of us that are privileged with even modest economic means should pitch in what we can to help those who are suffering. However, what the most effective way of improving the conditions of the billions of poor people around the world is, to me remains unanswered.

[@MJW238]

Singer addresses this on other occasions. And he finds the objection wanting. Really an 'out of sight out of mind' thing with regards to suffering in the world.

[@PaladinswordSaurfang]

Matthew Outerbridge It's not really an objection to his analogy, though you are correct. There is no such thing as "true altruism". People would save a child in front of them because they are forced to empathise with the child, because they would regret it for the rest of their life if they *don't* save the child, and because saving a child will make them feel relieved. When it's just a number on a screen referring to someone on the other side of the world, it doesn't affect you. I think Singer's point may be that we need to care less about empathy, and more about ethics.

[@ALPHAHXCORE]

+Matthew Outerbridge Somehow through some way, introducing wealth and infrastructure to them, so they start to form service industries rather than resource based ones, and a healthy EU style economy is born. Aka the wealthy middle east, but kickstarting such things everywhere in the world is a multifaceted, cultulural as well as financial organizational issue. There's not enough outside interest in doing all this, somehow a genuine excitment that goes beyond "feeling bad" for the third world needs to arise.

[@ALPHAHXCORE]

+MJW238 You're still not going to feel that level of immediate distress though, no one can or will. Also solving global issues require planning, jumping in for a child saving him and setting him on his way is straightforward. A better analogy, helping the child once from drowing is 1 thing, raising it, is another. I'm not arguing against his point to help them, I'm just saying the analogy is not entirely apt, he obviously uses it as a sort of "cold water to the face" thing for people to raise awareness.

[@melohelloo1248]

@@ALPHAHXCORE you do know, those so called "developing countries are in need because, western or so called developed world keeps stealing their contribution or resources to benefit their concerns or community

[@BRIANVANDUYN]

What you are suggesting is treating the symptoms of the disease and not the actual disease

[@elcid2651]

Very poor analogy. You're not talking about normally well fed children who just happened to run out of food for a week and next week will be eating fine again. You're dealing with endemic poverty and the solution is not hand-outs, however emotionally satisfying that thought may seem. The correct analogy would be something more like a child who keeps walking back into the same pond no matter how many times you save them, and you saving the child potentially encourages more children to walk into ponds because now they expect someone to save them when they do so. Not a perfect analogy there either, but it's closer to reality.

[@igonarule]

That isn't the point of his argument, of just saving 1 child, 1 time. He's just making a question to the audience or viewer as to 'why is ruining your "new expensive clothes" easy when the issue, or child, is right in front of you, and why is it difficult to give up these clothes to help a child that isn't in your proximity'. Also, often the money spent in charity work isn't simply spent on a single meal or what not. It is often spent to better a community for a while. Like a well, or spent on bringing animals over that they could then raise and breed, etc.

[@igonarule]

Cliff Hanley yeah I agree. He says in a later interview that because it’s “out of sight, out of mind” is only an explanation why it happens, but it doesn’t answer the question of if it’s moral. It’s quite fascinating

[@aristolochene]

The analogy appears to be robust. Your understanding of it appears to be fragile and impoverished.

[@dartagnanvoegt3713]

I think the analogy breaks down when looking at the problem on a bigger scale, lets say instead of there being one child in the pond, there are thousands and every time you pull one out, another fills the gap, eventually you will stop pulling them out. Even more accurate would be if you were only allowed to hold onto the child and as soon as you let go the start drowning again, which I think(not certain) is the case when you stop and start charity, it's not a permeant solution to keeping children out of poverty.

[@DrPeabrain]

In response to your first point: There’s a beach with thousands of starfish washed up on it. A person is throwing the starfish back into the sea one by one. Another person says “What’s the point in doing that? There are thousands of starfish on this beach, you can’t make a difference to all of them.” The person throwing the starfish replies “But I can make a difference to this one.”

[@stodykoopmeinhuis4118]

Now you're assuming there's a causal direction. "If I pull one child out of the pond, someone else will drown instead as a result." Reality is more like "if I pull one child out of the pond, other children will remain there but at least I saved this one child-an actual human being." With regards to your second point, I just want to encourage you to do research on the topic beyond the very understandable concern that you're raising. Organisations such as GiveWell do very thorough research on charities that have a large and lasting impact. For example, if you buy someone a one-time effective medicin that likely prevents blindness, it doesn't suddenly stop working when people stop donating. In the case of direct cash transfers, each dollar donated increases economic activity by more than twice the amount (google GiveDirectly), and it literally "takes money to make money" when you're extremely poor. If your income is only enough for subsistence, there is virtually no way in which to increase your earnings.

[@landonpowell6296]

I appreciate your comment but you're mistaken. The effects of charity have a measurable positive impact long term. Check out givewell's research on Hellen Keller international.

[@apocalypticskepticus3299]

Yes, if you are arguing for a VOLUNTARY help, then that is a MORAL obligation to all of us. But something being a moral obligation on a personal level, does not imply that you can therefore point a gun to my head in order to extract the money from me, so that you can supposedly help that child. First of all, foreign aid does NOT develop any country, it only fills the pockets of the dictators who happen to run those countries, and the ignorance of Peters Singer on economics is profound. Secondly, the only long-term solution is for the developed nations to educate the developing nations on how to CREATE wealth, because that is the only ever found viable solution that truly helps.

[@satanlucifer4437]

too bad the reality is that whenever developed nations have ever "educated the developing nations on how to create wealth" then end up just exploiting them, using their natural resources and keeping all of the money. your response/reaction is rather literalistic; this was nothing more than a thought experiment that helps you realize that you should choose (voluntarily) to help others in developing countries.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Show me an organization that is competent, results-oriented, free of corruption, and actually capable of bringing about real, positive change, and I'll think about donating. Until then, piss off.

[@daydreamreels]

Sounds like you could use a little research on the subject: www.givewell.org/

[@markus4698]

It's not that there's zero legitimacy to your concern, but it seems rather apparent to me you're using it to feel less guilty.

[@joshs2986]

you don't see it. imagine there is a 20% chance that the child would die from drowning. You should still jump in and save him correct. Or would you say.. Piss off. come back to me until you can give me 100% he is going to die (of course then it will be too late)

[@martyngmeyers]

No Peter, I am not responsible for saving the Global poor nor the hypothetical drowning child.

[@MJW238]

Now put forward an argument for that position.

[@justgonnastay]

I believe that the tenet which is necessary for this analogy to hold is that we are all "one human family," or something along those lines. If you believe this, then the analogy makes perfect sense. That being said, there are many who believe that humans are individuals, responsible only for their own choices and actions. Many think the only real social responsibility humans have to each other is to not do each other harm. Personally, I believe that individuals acting in their own best interest generally contribute to society more than those trying to force others to contribute to society.

[@mrj3nk044]

*Peter:* There is no risk to your life, which you value, if you help the child. *Also Peter:* You'd ruin your property if you tried to save the child (property which adds value to your life in some way and by ruining that property diminished and risks your life and welbeing) Contradiction. It's like Peter can't fathom that the shoes do have a positive impact on the quality of the adults life in some way. But the adult also values their own life, and life generally- but not equally. The child is losing their life by downing. To not act by saving the child then would be a sacrifice of one's values. Assuming doing so does not sacrifice a lower value to a higher one. Morality isn't the summation of life-boat ethical deliemas.

[@aajjeee]

come join the first church of signerism

[@codswallop321]

It's not a good analogy. Of course you would help a child in the circumstances he describes. Solving global poverty is a different problem entirely.

[@Mopstorte]

+codswallop321 it's not about solving global poverty though, it's about each and every individual. Even if you save 100 starving children you're not even close to making a significant impact on global poverty, but you saved one hundred individual human beings.

[@codswallop321]

+Mopstorte OK, so how many is the correct number for me to attempt to save? What level of material extravagance should I reject, measured in dollars? Which regions of the world should I target first? How can I ensure the beneficiary doesn't get locked into a lifetime of dependence on charity? Just some of the many practical questions unanswered by the "toddler in the pond" story.

[@Mopstorte]

codswallop321 I don't think this is supposed to say "you now have to do this, this and that in this certain way and spend that much money on charity, or you're unethical". It seems to me like it should just give you something to think about. Most people don't give any money to charity, and there are lots of people who can quite easily but don't.

[@codswallop321]

+Mopstorte Well yes, but people appealing to us to give money to charity is hardly a new or radical idea. Think of the huge Live Aid/Band Aid movement in 80s for example. Not sure what value Singer is adding. Another problem with the story is that it just ends with the rescue...in reality you would want to know who should have been looking after the child, why they weren't, how they will be held to account and who can be trusted to look after the child in future. There are analogies here with corrupt governments in the third world. Just my tuppence!

[@Sol-nh4qd]

There is a major difference between lending aid that costs you relatively nothing and is within your immediacy, and lending aid that is far removed from your life and, collectively speaking, costly (for a permanent solution). This is a bad analogy.

[@landonpowell6296]

How many feet away before the child loses moral value?

[@MegaMementoMori]

I will give you the answer. The first thing that Singer said anyone should do after seeing a drowning child would be to look for parents or guardians. Well, about the poor kids, we don't have to - there are either parents who have the moral obligation to take care of their kid (thus absolving us from any duty toward them) or if they are orphans, the country assumes this obligation. Problem solved, and I can proudly wear my expensive shoes until I see an actual toddler in a pond.

[@fazthepoet5374]

But the problem is many of their parent can't afford to look after them, and the countries either can't afford to or are too corrupt. It is much easier to just blame someone else for this than accept that we (myself included) share some responsibility. Even if the countries and families are to blame, if you saw someone a toddler drowning and a parent stood there not doing anything, does that absolve you of blame for not doing anything?

[@MegaMementoMori]

***** If I saw a kid in the pond and a parent nearby, I would assume the parent is teaching the kid how to swim. Of course, if I was close enough to see that the kid was in real danger of drowning, I would save him (and call the police about the parent's negligence). But if the pond was sufficiently far away, I wouldn't know that. No, we do not share responsibility for things that we are aware that somehow exist, but do not witness directly. We did not cause these issues, we do not sense individual people that are dying - only statistics.

[@fazthepoet5374]

But the parents often aren't to blame, and by saying we ahould only help people if we're the reason they need help is selfish. If you honestly want to tell yourself that kids are living in boxes in Venezuela because their parents are 'teaching them to' then you do that, but dont act as if it isn't because you just want to turn a blind eye

[@MegaMementoMori]

***** Of course I was making the "teaching to swim" argument to signify that a bystander who is too far to notice anything wrong does not have a moral duty to prevent it. If everybody would run toward seemingly normal situations to find out if somebody might be in danger, we would live in a strange world. In my opinion, personal involvement - the fact that you are seeing the scene with your own eyes, instead of knowing that statistically a number of children are dying in places you see on National Geographic - makes all the difference. You are personally saving a specific child (whereas nobody would save it if not for you) instead of being a link in the chain of charity organizations that might or might not save more children with your money involved.

[@3870822]

Before he got to his punchline, I was thinking that I would rescue the child and then find the child's guardian(s) and ask for compensation for my expenses. If they refused, I would sue them. If they were poor and could not pay , I'd sue the municipality for not properly securing the fountain. So, of course, his punchline didn't really tug at my "heartstrings" they way he intended.

[@aparra9074]

Ugh, this man is revolting

[@Jay-vk4fj]

+Andrew Parra Why do you say that?

[@aajjeee]

you fall into the trap of not considering it a possibility and instead fall on your presumptions. signer only considers it as any other situation and looks at it rationally