Case Study Of The Shallow Pond Case

733 Words2 Pages

PHILOSOPHY 11100 PAPER-1

In this paper I will argue that, whether or not we have a moral duty to rescue in the “shallow pond” case, we have a moral duty to donate our money, when it is of no morally significant cost to us to do so, to save the lives of faraway strangers in need. I will explain all these cases in brief in the coming paragraphs and discuss what my opinion is.
The “shallow pond” case is referred to the case where there is a child who is drowning in a pond and I see him and have to make a decision whether or not I would go and save the child. Saving the child will not have any monetary obligation associated with it but I might get wet or I might be getting late for a meeting or some other reason. I might also think that there are other people nearby too and they are also morally obligated to save the child.
The second case where Singer talks about whether or not we are morally obligated to donate money or not is the case of Bengal famine where thousands of people do not have shelter, clothing and food. Singer argues that all of us think that we are not the only one who can help in this case or who are morally obligated but the entire world is and we would not donate money until someone else does. Also, he argues that people think if one person is donating $5 then we are also obligated to donate $5 only and not more than that otherwise it will exceed the total amount that is needed.
I am fully convinced by Singer’s argument in the “shallow pond” case and I believe that we should definitely save the kids life. I feel that saving a life or just attempting to save a life is much more important than anything in the world. I think that mostly all the people in the world wouldn’t even have given it a second thought if it w...

... middle of paper ...

... air conditioned room while someone does not even have a roof on their head.
If we look at both the cases above and try to relate them to one another then we might not find any similarity and see them as completely different. Some people might think that saving the child from the shallow pond is a stupidity and someone else could do it while some people would think that donating money is a stupidity as government will help them get through it. But if we relate these cases to ourselves and see that child as our own child and put ourselves in the situation of being a victim if famine then we will realize how important it is and why we are morally obligated to help in both cases in the best possible way. It then does not only become a moral obligation but also becomes a moral duty for a person that they should try to eliminate as much bad stuff they can around them.

Open Document