In Defense of Singer’s Shallow Pond Argument
Peter Singer is known in philosophy for many different writings, one of them is his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” which includes his shallow pond argument. Many philosophers have argued against and for his shallow pond argument, for many different reasons. I think his argument is sound and will attempt to defend it against criticism here.
In Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972), he describes how he believes everyone’s approach to global poverty should be. He starts by describing how people in many places in the world are dying from hunger, having no shelter or access to medical care. Other people have the ability to stop this from happening if they make the right decisions. He
…show more content…
compares Britain’s use of money, using three times more for certain projects than they’ve used to give to the needy, which he says shows they care more about these projects than those lives. He then says that he’s going to argue why this is wrong, and how affluent countries should be using their money and why. First he says that dying from starvation or lack of food is bad, a premise we should all accept for one reason or another. His next point is that if we have the power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of equal or greater value, then we have the moral obligation to do it. He compares this to a child drowning in a pond, you have the obligation to go and pull the child out of the pond and help them, your clothes will get wet and dirty, but this is insignificant compared to the child’s death. He then states that you have this obligation regardless of distance, you know somewhere in the world, people are dying from preventable causes such as starvation, so you have the obligation to save them just as you would the drowning child. The number of others that could help is also irrelevant, because they may not help at all, he goes back to the drowning child and says that if people were watching the child drown and doing nothing, would that mean you have any less of an obligation to help? He then goes over how much we should give, which is until we’re just above the line of poverty ourselves, before we cause any suffering to ourselves. In our society now it’s considered a “charity” to give to the needy and suffering, you are thanked for giving and not condemned for not giving. No one thinks it’s wrong to go out and buy new clothes, but we have no need for these new clothes, there would be no sacrifice to use that money to give to famine relief instead he says. He goes into more detail about his argument and possible refutes he could receive but this is his entire shallow pond argument. This argument is for effective altruism, something Singer has encouraged for years in the field of philosophy. He has written multiple books and pieces on the different aspects of effective altruism, and gives as much as he argues people should give every year. He has also created his own organization, The Life You Can Save, which recommends charities to donate to (About Us, 2016). And he is a board of director for the Animal Charity Evaluators (Board of Directors, 2016). Scott Wisor, another philosopher, responded to Singer’s argument in his “Against shallow ponds: an argument against Singer’s approach to global poverty” (2011) in which he argues against the shallow pond argument.
He explains that the shallow pond argument is simplistic and encourages an oversimplified view of worldwide poverty. Before going into detail he goes over how Singer’s work still has value and has benefitted the philosophy community. Singer’s work has brought the discussion of poverty into philosophy, in which there was almost no one talking about it before, and Singer has kept the focus of the nation-state as the boundary. These have kept the focus on human rights and a globalized context, he says. He then describes why he thinks the shallow pond argument is incomplete or lacking in its entirety, such as the people that are the ones in poverty. They would probably be offended to hear themselves being likened to a helpless drowning child, it insinuates that they have no control over their fate and wellbeing. He says that these families are not living “hand to mouth”, or consuming any and all resources as they become available, rather they’re managing their money and expenses as best as they can. The argument also has no context whatsoever, there is no race, gender, power or anything else involved, all of which are heavily involved with people who are actually in poverty. Poverty can be purposeful or an outcome of war or some other event. It lacks institutions, who owns the pond? Is someone responsible for the pond and anything that happens regarding the pond? He then explains why the argument has negative implications about poverty. The first is that it encourages that people do what is the easiest and requires the least amount of thinking, because in the case of the drowning child, you should act fast, but poverty is more complex and a plan should be more thought out. It also encourages that wealthy westerners are the “saviors” of the poor, which he
says is a terrible mentality to have given history, because of the relationship the rich have had to the poor and the possible self-delusions of the people giving. He says it also encourages that you don’t need to know much about a situation to give. It’s very easy to end up doing more harm than good when you know very little about a situation. His last point is that Singer’s argument could be doing more harm than good when it’s being used. He states that Singer may reply to his essay saying that his argument has helped many people and therefore works, but Wisor argues that the good outcomes may not necessarily outweigh the bad ones. I think, first of all, Wisor is being too harsh on Singer’s shallow pond analogy, because that’s all it’s meant to be, a simple analogy to get the point across of why people should be giving. He’s correct in saying that Singer has affected the field of philosophy by bringing in the subject of global poverty and there was close to none before. A simple search on the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which shows the frequency of certain words or phrases found in all recorded books, shows a clear upward spike starting around 1972. This is the year Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” was published, and the trend continues upward from there to be about six times more used than it was before. Wisor claims next that the poor would be offended to be likened to a drowning child, but is this really true? I’m sure there are some that would hate to be compared to helpless child, but I’m sure there are others who indeed do feel like the drowning child, helpless and unable to save themselves. Not to mention this is in an effort to help them. Sure the wording is iffy, but if it leads to them receiving help, getting food, shelter, helping their children, would they really be that against it? His next comment about it not having any context is unnecessary. He says that Singer’s argument encourages that if we just donate, these people will be saved, and he states that no famine has ever occurred in a functioning democracy. Nowhere in Singer’s argument does he imply that just by donating we will save these lives indefinitely, no one would argue that after saving the drowning child, it’s impossible the child could end up in the same situation the next day. While I agree that no major famine has occurred in a functioning democracy, which does not mean that people are not starving. Even if there’s only a handful of people starving, isn’t it worth it to help them? Nearly every day I see homeless sitting on sidewalks, sleeping in empty lots. When do you think was the last time they ate anything? Taking a look at the statistics of hunger and poverty for the United States, close to fifty million people are in poverty, and about fifty million are in food insecure households, meaning they’re not getting three meals a day (Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics, 2014). Wisor seems to be dismissing these people completely, and he claims that different events that lead to hunger and poverty should be treated differently. Sure they’re different events and different things must be done to fix them, but Singer’s argument is for the relief of suffering in the short term. In the end, where it was a natural disaster or civil war, humans are suffering and the suffering can be alleviated by aid. He states that it encourages people take the easiest course of action and do what takes the least amount of thinking, I don’t understand how this is necessarily bad. Singer’s argument is encouraging that everyone should have this mentality, you can’t expect the average Joe to think about this critically and politically and come up with hypotheses, and it’s not realistic. For the average person doing what’s easiest and requires less thinking is the most they can do. Singer’s argument doesn’t encourage more thought out plans sure, but it doesn’t discourage them either, Wisor is arguing on something Singer didn’t even touch on. Singer never says that a group of people can’t get together and empty the pound out or fill it with something so the child can’t fall in again. His next point is that it encourages “rich” westerners to believe they’re the saviors of the poor. This line of thinking, for one, is already prevalent in westerners regardless of Singer’s argument. I feel this brings me back to the comparison of the poor to a child, in that the words are definitely phrased negatively, but the outcome is worth it. Singer’s point is that some aid, some alleviation of suffering, is worth giving. So in events of westerners not having complete understanding of a situation and giving less than they possibly could have, is irrelevant as long as something was given at all. Wisor’s example is that some people had paid to travel to a country in need to help with efforts after a disaster, he argues that the money would have been better spent if they had instead hired out locals to do the job. While he’s right that it would have been a better use of money, Singer doesn’t make any claims on doing what is most efficient, as long as something, any small amount, is given. His final point, that Singer’s argument is doing more harm than good, is ungrounded. Taking a look at Singer’s own organization, A Life You Can Save, Singer’s argument seems to be helping quite well. The organization is responsible for moving more than one million dollars into its recommended charities such as the Against Malaria Foundation and Fistula Foundation (Behar, 2016). The Fistula Foundation, dedicated to helping woman with fistula treatment, has helped nearly twenty thousand women worldwide who have no access to health care (Fistula Foundation, 2016). The Against Malaria Foundation, in an effort to stop the spread of malaria by mosquito bite, has given out more than thirty million nets to mosquito infested areas (Against Malaria Foundation, 2016). In conclusion, Singer’s argument may be simple, and lack in complexity, but this is really what makes it a strong argument. It’s simple, you have money that you would use on luxuries, but you should instead use it to save lives.
The City Council of Boomtown, a fictitious city, wants to expand their current borders and is considering building new houses and apartments on one of three locations: Green Hill, Delta Wetlands, or Seaside Cliff. Though each of the landforms have differing advantages and disadvantages, the cliff would be the best place to build. It is located along the East Bay, north of the Rolling River. Seaside Cliff has the most stable land and the easiest solutions to its problems. It is also the least flood-prone and damaging to the environment. The most logical location to build in Boomtown is Seaside Cliff for several reasons.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for
Singer, Peter. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.” in The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 5th ed. New York: Longman, 2009. 545-49. Print.
Peter Singer states two principles on the effects of famine, affluence, and morality which he feels that everyone should abide by. The first argument made is that lack of food, shelter and medicine is bad and can lead to feeling pain and death. I for one, could agree on this assumption just by analyzing it carefully. We see Singer on his thesis elaborate the causes of famine within East Bengal in 1970s. As governments and individuals within the world see the massive flooding’s and mismanagement of food issuing one hopes that we all as a society could take action to help stop such suffering and act on a situation like the impaired damage that happened with East Bengal. This then leads to Singer’s second argument; is if it is in our power to
Singer presents his argument specifically in terms of famine relief and, although it has broader applicability, the discussion mostly falls under this specific topic. Thus, he conforms his argument around aspects relevant to famine and/or poverty when laying out his three core premises.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
The writer behind “Singers Solution to World Poverty” advocates that U.S. citizens give away the majority of their dispensable income in order to end global suffering. Peter Singer makes numerous assumptions within his proposal about world poverty, and they are founded on the principle that Americans spend too much money on items and services that they do not need.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
“Overfishing occurs when more fish are caught than the population can replace through natural reproduction”. CITATION
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.
From the book The Life You Can Save written by Peter Singer, he addressed that poverty is one of the biggest problem that most of the world faced today. Singer defined poverty as shortage of food for all of a year, do not have saving, can’t afford education, live in unstable house, and have no source of safe drinking water (5-6). This can lead to the death of children. On page 12, he questioned whether is that wrong if we spend money on things we don’t need while thousands of children die each day? He also asks how far does our obligation to the poor go? I personally think that it is not right for us to live comfortably while we know that there is some people out there who are suffering and needing our help. There is nothing wrong if we offer them some help whether directly or indirectly as long as it costs no harm to us. Also, helping poor people does not mean that we are not allowed to use the money that we earned for ourselves.