Defense Of Singer s Shallow Pond Argument - 881 Words

In Defense of Singer’s Shallow Pond Argument Peter Singer is known in philosophy for many different writings, one of them being his â€Å"Famine, Affluence, and Morality† which includes his shallow pond argument. Many philosophers have argued against his shallow pond argument and for it, for many different reasons. In Singer’s â€Å"Famine, Affluence, and Morality†, 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 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