Skip to main navigationSkip to main content
The University of Southampton
PhilosophyPart of Humanities

Charity Obligations - Singer

Your answers so far lead to a surprising conclusion.

If you think that

(A) It would be morally wrong to refuse to save the drowning child

and

(B) There is no morally relevant difference between refusing to save the drowning child and refusing to give money to help someone dying from preventable causes far away

then it looks like you must think that

(C) It would be morally wrong to refuse to give money to help someone dying from preventable causes far away.

Singer agrees. He thinks it is wrong to spend money on luxuries, like new clothes, when we could use it to help the many people currently in need.

What was the last new piece of clothing you bought? Do you really think you were wrong to do so instead of buying something cheaper secondhand and sending the money to a charity like Oxfam?

 

If not, you might like to change your previous answers.

1. Perhaps you now think it is not wrong to walk past the drowning child

2. Or perhaps you think there is a morally relevant difference between the cases.

3. But perhaps you want to stick to your guns and agree with Singer that it is wrong to spend money on luxuries like new clothes.

Answer 1Answer 2Answer 3
Back to the start of this puzzleBack to the very start

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×