Notes on Peter Singer,
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
Bob and the Bugatti Thought Experiment
Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare
and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The
Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the pleasure he gets from driving
and caring for his car, Bob knows that its rising market value means that he
will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day
when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway
siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees that a
runaway train, with no one aboard, is running down the railway track.
Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely
to be killed by the runaway train. He can't stop the train and the child is too
far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the
train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed
-- but the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car
and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch.
The child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys owning his Bugatti
and the financial security it represents.
The Drowning Child Thought Experiment
On your way to work, you pass a small pond. On hot days, children
sometimes play in the pond, which is only about knee-deep. The
weather’s cool today, though, and the hour is early, so you are
surprised to see a child splashing about in the pond. As you get
closer, you see that it is a very young child, just a toddler, who is
flailing about, unable to stay upright or walk out of the pond. You look
for the parents or babysitter, but there is no one else around. The
child is unable to keep his head above the water for more than a few
seconds at a time. If you don’t wade in and pull him out, he seems
likely to drown. Wading in is easy and safe, but you will ruin the new
shoes you bought only a few days ago, and get your suit wet and
muddy. By the time you hand the child over to someone responsible
for him, and change your clothes, you’ll be late for work. What should
you do?
Singer’s Basic Argument
(1) Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are
bad.
(2) If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without
sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
(3) By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from
lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything
nearly as important.
(4) Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing
something wrong.
Objections to Giving
•
•
•
“Why should I give more than my fair share?”
“Government should increase its overseas aid allocations.”
“Human nature just isn't sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that
many people will sacrifice so much for strangers.”
Ten Drowning Children Thought Experiment
You are walking past the shallow pond when you see that ten children
have fallen in and need to be rescued. Glancing around, you see no
parents or caregivers, but you notice that, as well as yourself, there
are nine adults who have just arrived at the pond, have also seen the
drowning children, and are in as good a position as you to rescue a
child. So you rush into the water, grab a child, and place him safely
away from the water. You look up, expecting that every other adult
will have done the same, and all the children will therefore be safe, but
to your dismay you see that while four other adults have each rescued
a child, the other five just strolled on. In the pond there are still five
children, apparently about to drown. The ‘fair-share’ theorists would
say that you have now done your fair share of the rescuing. If
everyone had done what you did, all of the children would have been
saved. Since no one is in a better position to rescue a child than
anyone else, your fair share of the task is simply to rescue one child,
and you are under no obligation to do more than that. But is it
acceptable for you and the other four adults to stop after you have
rescued just one child each, knowing that this means that five children
will drown?