When Peter Singer raises the drowning child hypothesis, he argues on the duty to give when one can do it at a relatively little cost to ourselves (1997). Yet Singer seems to ignore the fundamental difference between a drowning child and the real situation, as well as some practical problems. My purpose here is to argue the example has shown no obligation to human.
To clarify the point, we should first lay out how is the drowning child different from the reality. In Singer’s hypothesis, there is only a single child suffers while in the real world, a large amount of other is waiting for humanitarian assistance. We simply cannot help all people. Of course, it does not make a logical argument to Singer as he points out the number of people is …show more content…
An accumulation of wealth from the worldwide population allows people to generate the large sum of money as mentioned in the previous paragraph. When one regain their capacity, they have a duty to help others (Singer, 1997). However, I would argue that the statement has underestimated an important point in the helping process - It is hard to count out the total amount of costs one need to give until the end of our helping. What if we drown ourselves accidentally after we saved the child? If he/she run away, then we need to sacrifice more costs. One might consider the case as exceptional, but let’s turn it to the real life. Some European Nations have offered their help to the refugee who come from Iraq and Syria by allowing them to stay in their countries, but most of them end up participated in crime and robbery. Would you still help them if you know it costs you much higher price? I bet the majority says no, just as The United States implemented an anti-refugee policy this year. Therefore, if one cannot even estimate the costs he need to give before helping, then one should not be morally obligated to offer
To clarify the point, we should first lay out how is the drowning child different from the reality. In Singer’s hypothesis, there is only a single child suffers while in the real world, a large amount of other is waiting for humanitarian assistance. We simply cannot help all people. Of course, it does not make a logical argument to Singer as he points out the number of people is …show more content…
An accumulation of wealth from the worldwide population allows people to generate the large sum of money as mentioned in the previous paragraph. When one regain their capacity, they have a duty to help others (Singer, 1997). However, I would argue that the statement has underestimated an important point in the helping process - It is hard to count out the total amount of costs one need to give until the end of our helping. What if we drown ourselves accidentally after we saved the child? If he/she run away, then we need to sacrifice more costs. One might consider the case as exceptional, but let’s turn it to the real life. Some European Nations have offered their help to the refugee who come from Iraq and Syria by allowing them to stay in their countries, but most of them end up participated in crime and robbery. Would you still help them if you know it costs you much higher price? I bet the majority says no, just as The United States implemented an anti-refugee policy this year. Therefore, if one cannot even estimate the costs he need to give before helping, then one should not be morally obligated to offer