It is more than 50 years since Peter Singer first set out this ‘shallow pond’ problem, and he is asked about it so often he likens it to fans demanding the Rolling Stones play ‘Satisfaction’ at every concert.

Death in a Shallow Pond: A Philosopher, a Drowning Child, and Strangers in Need
DAVID EDMONDS

(PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS, 288 PP, £20)
TABLET BOOKSHOP PRICE £18 • TEL 020 7799 4064

It’s a no-brainer. You’re going to a job interview. Your route takes you past a shallow pond, in which you realise there’s a drowning toddler. There’s no one else around, so if the baby is to be saved, you’re going to have to do it, no time to waste. But you’re wearing a new suit and shoes. What to do? Unless you’re a sociopath, there is only one answer. It’s your duty to rescue the baby. The harm done in ruining your clothes, or in arriving late for a prospective employer, is nothing compared to the harm done by letting that child die.

So far, so straightforward. But if you’re willing to go that far, says the philosopher Peter Singer, it follows that you should be donating a large share of your income to poverty-fighting charities. If that means a change in your shopping habits, so be it. That suit, those shoes – you ought never to have bought them in the first place. Money spent on anything that isn’t purely functional is money that could have saved a stranger’s life.

Get Instant Access

Continue Reading

Register for free to read this article in full

REGISTER

Subscribe for unlimited access

SUBSCRIBE NOW

From just £37.50 quarterly

  Print copy of The Tablet delivered directly to your door.
  Complete access to all Tablet website content including all premium content.
  Access to the weekly digital copy of The Tablet.
  Full access to The Tablet’s archive – over 180 years of back issues.

Already a subscriber? Login