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 over the child to someone
responsible for him, and change your clothes, you'll be late for work.
What should you do ? I teach a course called Practical
Ethics. When we start talking about global poverty, I ask my students what they
think you should do in this situation. Predictably, they respond that you
should save the child.'What about your shoes ? And being late for work ?' I ask
them. They brush that aside. How could anyone consider a pair of shoes, or
missing an hour or two at work, as a reason for not saving a child's life? But
consider that according to UNICEF nearly 10 million children under five years old
die each year from causes orelated to poverty. Now think about your own
situation.By donating a relatively small amount of money, you could save a
child's life. Maybe it takes more than the amount needed to buy a pair of
shoes-but we all spend money on things we don't really need, whether on drinks,
meals out, clothing, movies,concerts, vacations, new cars or house renovation.
Is it possible that by chossing to spend your money on such
things rather than contributing to an aid agency, you are leaving a child to
die, a child you could have saved ? Most of us are absolutely certain that we
would't hesitate to save a drowing child, and that we would do it at
considerable cost to ourselves. Yet while thousands of children die each day,
we spend money on things we take for granted and would hardly notice if they
were not there. Is that wrong ? If so, how far does our obligation to the poor
go ?
''Excerpt from the book ''THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE'' by peter singer''
