Tomas 1 Nathan Tomas Professor McCabe Phil 1110 22 July 2023 Response to Peter Singer I agree with Singer’s argument. What I wish to focus on here is the comparison between the drowning child scenario and the saving of a child that is thousands of miles away. I’ve noticed Peter compares the two arguments by a standard of profit and loss. In the drowning child scene, you lose $200 sneakers and profit with the child living. In the notion of saving a child. The same thing occurs. You spend $200 as you give it to charity, and as a result, you save the life of a child. The only major difference between the two scenarios, Peter argues, is the distance between you and the child. I posit additional major differences between the two scenarios to consider. One of those is the trust in the efficiency and honesty of charity organizations. Some people may wish to donate to someone overseas; however, they might not trust the major charities of the day due to news of corruption or money siphoning. These concerns will lead to people needing in-depth research to donate to a trusted charity. This difficulty, of course, doesn’t feel a proper objection to donation as the struggle to find a quality charity does not override the moral goodness that is saving another’s life; however, I believe it to be a fallback excuse that many people use not to donate. Another difference is the psychological difference between seeing a child immediately drowning and saving someone’s life that will be terminated. I believe that there is a difference between short-term and long-term actions. In gut reactions, you typically don’t think through your actions or get a chance to think of excuses that you would fall back on in the long run. There are many excuses, and I believe Singer has refuted many of them, but not in the context of their being different rationales on the short term vs long term. By long-term, I mean that when you donate, life is not always immediately saved. Sometimes your money is used to build infrastructure that leads to the preservation of life over a long period. Saving a life over a long period seems to be a different scenario than saving a life instantaneously. This is not appoint brought up by Singer. The arguments that result from this difference, however, I think Peter refutes. The extra time, extra thought, and regret over the matter will likely result for some people. Was my money used most efficiently? Could it have been better spent? If it could have been better spent, should I be the one to use it so then at least I have control and can make sure I’m happy with how it’s spent? These are thoughts I believe would develop from long-term life-saving programs. Peter refutes this by saying if you are dissatisfied with a certain charity's usage of your money, you are fully entitled to put the money towards another organization you may trust more.
