The Scenario
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 her head above the water for more than a few seconds at a time. If you don’t wade in and pull her out, she 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 her, and change your clothes, you’ll be late for work. What should you do?
Analysis and Reflection
The scenario described is a thought experiment often referred to as “The Pond Dilemma” or “The Drowning Child.” It is used by philosopher Peter Singer to explore the ethics of our moral obligations to help others in need.
In this situation, you come across a small pond where a young child, unable to stay upright or get out of the water, is in danger of drowning. There is no one else around to assist. Although helping the child is as simple as wading in and pulling her out, doing so would ruin your new shoes, get your suit wet and muddy, and make you late for work.
Singer uses this scenario to challenge readers to consider the moral implications of their choices. He argues that from an ethical standpoint, our obligation to save a life should outweigh our personal inconvenience or material concerns. In this case, the act of saving the child’s life is relatively easy and safe, while the potential consequences (ruined shoes, wet suit, and being late for work) are minimal compared to the value of a human life.
Singer’s argument highlights the principle of utilitarianism, which emphasises maximising overall well-being and reducing suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, choosing to save the child’s life would result in the greatest overall good, outweighing the personal sacrifices involved.
Ultimately, Singer contends that we have a moral duty to help others in dire situations, even if it requires some personal cost or inconvenience. The thought experiment serves as a reminder to prioritise the preservation of human life and well-being of others who are less fortunate over personal comfort, convenience and our insatiable desire to seek pleasure.
Adapted from Peter Singer’s book, “A Life You Can Save”. Available free to download.
