The Australian philosopher Peter Singer held that the basic “intuition” most of us have about this situation expresses something deep and important about our shared ethical commitments. If it reflects something we really believe about the moral weight of preventable suffering, then it does not stay politely by the hypothetical water’s edge. It follows us home, into our budgets, our careers, our politics. The world is full of drowning children and we, the relatively affluent, are in a position to help them with a single bank transfer. Death in a Shallow Pond is David Edmonds’ account of how a single philosophical image escaped the seminar room and became an argument that now tugs, persistently, at the conscience of the affluent.
The thought experiment is simple enough to be taught to undergraduates and troubling enough to haunt adults. You are walking past a shallow pond when you see a child face-down in the water. You can wade in and pull him out, but doing so will ruin your shoes and muddy your clothes. Who but a monster would not agree that you should wade in and save the child, whatever the cost to your shoes?
The thought experiment is simple enough to be taught to undergraduates and troubling enough to haunt adults. You are walking past a shallow pond when you see a child face-down in the water. You can wade in and pull him out, but doing so will ruin your shoes and muddy your clothes. Who but a monster would not agree that you should wade in and save the child, whatever the cost to your shoes?
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer held that the basic “intuition” most of us have
Continue Reading on Foreign Policy
This preview shows approximately 15% of the article. Read the full story on the publisher's website to support quality journalism.