Question

What is the pond example Singer uses, and what is the principle he argues for as a result of this example?

Answer 1

Ans.

Peter Singer's 'Drowning Child in the pond' :

• Suppose you were walking across a shallow pond and noticed a small child having fallen in and was on the verge of drowning, then you will rush to save the child.
• Now Peter Singer questions that if you were wearing your most liked, quite expensive pair of shoes and they’ll get spoiled if you rush into the pond, then will that be a reason for you not saving the child?

Explanation of Singer's Argument:

• We'll save the drowning child because of humanity, even if our costly shoes are ruined.
• Singer has argued that the moral obligation to rush into a shallow pond to save a drowning child at the cost of ruining one’s shoes is same as to the moral obligation to give to trusts and organizations that reduce extreme poverty.
• As in example, it says that you can save many lives at national and international level can be saved with some small donations to the charities that work in reducing poverty or engage in other humanitarian work.

So, that's how Peter's example and his argument makes people understand importance of being altruist and thus importance of their contribution for betterment of mankind.

Note: Hey asker buddy, please do upvote this answer so that I remain motivated to continue questions asked by you

and other fellow questioners. Thanks for asking ! :)