Tutoriwell
Login Start Now

Ethics · 11 questions

Peter Singer's Question

The drowning child, the far-away child, animals, and how much a decent life may keep. A higher percent sits closer to Singer's demanding, impartial answer.

About this test

Peter Singer's 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' (1972) argues from a drowning child in a shallow pond: if you ought to ruin your shoes to save that child, distance and the presence of other bystanders do not erase a comparable duty to people dying of poverty. Practical Ethics presses a related argument against speciesism, the idea that species membership alone justifies giving human interests more weight. Critics, including Susan Wolf and others, call the view too demanding. These scenes are original retellings, not quotations. The percent measures agreement with Singer's answer. It does not measure whether you are good.

Question 1 of 11

What this test asks
  1. A child is drowning in a shallow pond. You can pull them out. The rescue will ruin an expensive pair of shoes and make you late. What is required?
  2. The child is not in a pond. The child is far away, and a modest amount of money you will not miss would very likely save a life. Distance is the only new fact.
  3. You already gave last month. Another equally effective ask arrives. There will always be another.
  4. How much comfort may you keep while a gift you would barely feel could prevent death or severe suffering?
  5. You can save one child whose name and photo you know, or five anonymous children with the same money. The five are a better use of it. What do you owe?
  6. Two beings can suffer in a comparable way. One is human, one is not. Species is the only difference. How should the suffering count?
  7. Your child and a stranger are in equal danger. You can save only one. Singer's impartial streak is uncomfortable here. What do you say is right?
  8. Is the pond rescue charity or duty?
  9. A government could prevent the distant harm, and it does not. What does that do to your personal duty?
  10. A career that earns more, so you can give more, would help more people than a career spent directly on care. You would enjoy the care job more.
  11. Looking back at the pond and the distant gift, which sentence is yours?