Science
David Edmonds on Peter Singer's Shallow Pond Thought Experiment
In this episode of Philosophy Bites, David Edmonds discusses Peter Singer's influential shallow pond thought experiment, which challenges our moral obligations to help those in need, particularly...
David Edmonds on Peter Singer's Shallow Pond Thought Experiment
Science •
0:00 / 0:00
Interactive Transcript
spk_0
This is Philosophy Bites with me David Edmonds.
spk_0
And me Nigel Robertson.
spk_0
Philosophy Bites is available at www.philosophybites.com.
spk_0
A thought experiment involving a drowning child is one of the most famous in moral philosophy
spk_0
and arguably the most influential.
spk_0
A book has just been written about it.
spk_0
I should know as I wrote it.
spk_0
Here Nigel questions me about the origins and significance of and the problems with the
spk_0
so-called shallow pond.
spk_0
David Edmonds, welcome to Philosophy Bites.
spk_0
Thank you for inviting me.
spk_0
The topic we're going to talk about today is the shallow pond, the thought experiment
spk_0
of the shallow pond.
spk_0
Could you just outline what that is?
spk_0
You're to imagine that you are on your way to work.
spk_0
You're wearing a nice suit and very expensive shoes.
spk_0
And you walk past a pond where you see a small child struggling.
spk_0
You look around to see where the parents are, where the guardian is.
spk_0
There's nobody there.
spk_0
You're about to wade in to save this child when you suddenly think about your extremely
spk_0
expensive shoes.
spk_0
And you think, shoes or child, that's the shallow pond thought experiment.
spk_0
Does anybody seriously think shoes or child in that situation?
spk_0
Well, that's the point.
spk_0
It's a rhetorical question.
spk_0
Nobody's supposed to think, ah, I should worry about my shoes, which I haven't got
spk_0
time to take off and let the child die.
spk_0
And the point is that the person who comes up with this thought experiment says that
spk_0
we are in a shallow pond thought experiment every day of our lives.
spk_0
Every day, you and I, privileged people in the West with disposable income, are
spk_0
effectively walking past a shallow pond and we could be saving lives.
spk_0
So that person is Peter Singer, the philosopher of Peter Singer, who's been a guest on
spk_0
philosophy bites several times.
spk_0
Why does he think we're walking past children drowning?
spk_0
Because we're not literally.
spk_0
So he comes up with this thought experiment in 1971.
spk_0
It's the time of the War of Liberation in Bangladesh.
spk_0
So East Pakistan, what we now call Bangladesh, is breaking up from West Pakistan.
spk_0
There's a terrible civil war.
spk_0
Millions of people are flooding across the border from Bangladesh to India.
spk_0
And they're emaciated, they're diseased and India can't cope.
spk_0
They haven't got the money to cope.
spk_0
And Peter Singer asks us, us people in the West, to what extent are we responsible
spk_0
for helping out these people on the other side of the globe.
spk_0
And he compares our obligations with the man walking past the drowning child in the shallow pond.
spk_0
There are some fairly obvious disanalogies in the sense that in the thought experiment,
spk_0
there's nobody else around.
spk_0
And obviously in the world, there are quite a few other people around,
spk_0
some of whom are much neer than we are and probably have a better sense of what it would take
spk_0
to help people.
spk_0
Why is it analogous to the pond example?
spk_0
Because it does seem to be different.
spk_0
Well, there are lots of differences that he identifies in that original article,
spk_0
which is called Famine Affluence and Morality.
spk_0
You've spotted a couple of them.
spk_0
He says the person in the shallow pond is right in front of us.
spk_0
The person in India is thousands of miles away.
spk_0
And he says, well, distance itself can't be morally relevant.
spk_0
It might be relevant logistically and might be relevant psychologically,
spk_0
but morally, it can't make any difference if somebody is drowning on the other side of the world,
spk_0
as opposed to drowning in front of us, if we could actually save them.
spk_0
Another disanalogies that we can see the person in front of us,
spk_0
but we can't see the person on the other side of the world.
spk_0
We have an idea of the identity of this person near to us.
spk_0
We don't have any idea of the person's name on the other side of the world.
spk_0
We don't know anything about them.
spk_0
Again, he says, how can that be relevant?
spk_0
Life is a life.
spk_0
If you can save a life in India, what difference does it make if you don't know the name of that person,
spk_0
or you don't know what that person looks like?
spk_0
Again, that seems completely compelling to me.
spk_0
It's also, of course, true that lots of other people could help
spk_0
in the refugee situation, whereas in the shallow pond they can't.
spk_0
And you could imagine that walking past a shallow pond and there being
spk_0
10 people around the shallow pond.
spk_0
A nine of them are just doing nothing.
spk_0
That doesn't give you the excuse to do nothing.
spk_0
If there's a person drowning and you can help,
spk_0
you should feel an obligation to help.
spk_0
That's Singer's point.
spk_0
But he's assuming a kind of egalitarian approach where everybody counts equally in the world.
spk_0
And that's not actually that widely held as a view across the world.
spk_0
Many people have a strong affinity for those in their village, their
spk_0
counties, their country.
spk_0
It's much stronger than their affiliation with people,
spk_0
literally on the other side of the world.
spk_0
Yeah, that's absolutely right.
spk_0
He does have a totally impartial view about the value of life,
spk_0
which is not how 99.999% of the population in the world think.
spk_0
We all think our parents are more important than other people's parents,
spk_0
our children are more important than other people's children.
spk_0
If we've got the choice between saving our children and saving somebody else's children,
spk_0
it's clear what we're going to do.
spk_0
Singer thinks that that is totally understandable.
spk_0
We're creatures who have built that way.
spk_0
But there is something irrational about it that the value of life is equal.
spk_0
Where where it is.
spk_0
And to the extent that we can try and overcome those irrational thoughts,
spk_0
we should overcome them.
spk_0
Don't you think there's something almost religious about this message that we're all equal?
spk_0
We have to be concerned with the people who are suffering in other parts of the world just as much as next door to us.
spk_0
It's like Christ's teaching.
spk_0
Well, in that sense, it won't be too alien from lots of people.
spk_0
People are used to hearing religious messages.
spk_0
I don't think he's a religious figure in the sense that he doesn't have disciples
spk_0
and he doesn't seek disciples.
spk_0
He also thinks that he himself is a deeply flawed character
spk_0
because he thinks that he should be doing much more than he actually does.
spk_0
He gives between a third and a half of his salary away.
spk_0
But every time he has a nice bottle of wine,
spk_0
he thinks that that money he spends on this nice bottle of wine could be better spent
spk_0
giving it to a charity that operates in the developing world that might help save a life.
spk_0
It's interesting that although he is a utotarian,
spk_0
in other words, he believes that we should act so as to achieve the best consequences,
spk_0
the most happiness in the world, the least suffering in the world.
spk_0
There's no mention of utotarianism in famine, affluence and morality.
spk_0
It never says you should maximize happiness.
spk_0
The basic principle is if we could prevent something bad from happening
spk_0
without sacrificing anything morally significant,
spk_0
then we should do that.
spk_0
Clearly, preventing somebody from dying in a shallow pond is preventing something bad from happening.
spk_0
Clearly, our shoes or our suit of no more significance.
spk_0
And he thinks that that principle, which is not a utotarian principle,
spk_0
can be extrapolated to our lives generally,
spk_0
and that we could generally be giving a lot more than we do,
spk_0
at no sacrifice to ourselves to do a lot of good in the developing world.
spk_0
And to be fair to Peter Singer, the last time I interviewed him,
spk_0
he just won a million dollars in a bigger enterprise and had just given it all away.
spk_0
Yeah, so he's quite critical of himself,
spk_0
but he's difficult to criticize from the outside because he does more than the rest of us.
spk_0
So by his own lights, he falls short, but by the lights of everybody else, he's a shining beacon.
spk_0
From what you've been saying about him falling short of ideals,
spk_0
if you take this argument as far as it could go,
spk_0
given how many millions of people there are in extreme poverty,
spk_0
given how many millions of people could benefit from really basic medical provisions,
spk_0
and their lives be transformed by that,
spk_0
it seems if you follow that argument all the way,
spk_0
you wouldn't really live as most Westerners live.
spk_0
You live in extreme poverty yourself,
spk_0
and feel very happy that the money that you would have had for yourself
spk_0
is now being used by hundreds of others to lead worthwhile lives
spk_0
that they wouldn't otherwise have lived.
spk_0
But that's incredibly demanding.
spk_0
You've got to give up the opera.
spk_0
You've got to give up international travel.
spk_0
You've got to give up your car.
spk_0
Perhaps you can't have central heating at the winter.
spk_0
So this is the demandingness objection.
spk_0
The shallow pond thought experiment eventually inspired this movement,
spk_0
called the Effective Outro It's a Movement.
spk_0
It took four decades, but now it's a worldwide movement,
spk_0
and the Effective Outro It's a Movement encourages people to give
spk_0
10% of their salary away for the kind of causes we've been talking about,
spk_0
charities that are helping those in the developing world
spk_0
who are in abject poverty and in danger of disease and so on.
spk_0
The Effective Outro It's picked up on something
spk_0
that the shallow pond doesn't identify,
spk_0
which is it matters not just if you give money away,
spk_0
but who you give it to.
spk_0
Imagine there were two charities,
spk_0
charity A, charity B.
spk_0
charity A can save a life for every 5,000 pounds.
spk_0
charity B can save a life,
spk_0
but it needs 500,000 pounds.
spk_0
Suppose you've got one person who's got 495,000 pounds.
spk_0
They are not doing as much good by giving it to charity B,
spk_0
as somebody else is by giving 5,000 pounds,
spk_0
only 5,000 pounds to charity A.
spk_0
So how are we supposed to know which charities are like the A charity
spk_0
and which are like the B?
spk_0
So the whole bunch of organisations have sprung up now,
spk_0
which analyse these.
spk_0
And it's very difficult to work out because you can imagine
spk_0
giving money to a malaria charity that buys bed nets for people,
spk_0
one of these popular charities amongst these organisations
spk_0
because they're very cheap and they're very effective.
spk_0
But even so, when you give money to these charities,
spk_0
there might be some people who have bed nets,
spk_0
but actually we're never going to get malaria in any case.
spk_0
Or there might be other people,
spk_0
you give their bed nets to and they use it for fishing,
spk_0
or you might give other people bed nets,
spk_0
and there's the whole in it and so on.
spk_0
So you have to include all these things in your calculation,
spk_0
you look at all the figures and you work out,
spk_0
that you can save a life with X amount of money.
spk_0
But to get back to your demanding-ness question earlier.
spk_0
So for singer who is a utilitarian,
spk_0
this is a real problem.
spk_0
You have to give away everything down to the moment
spk_0
that your life is the same as somebody's life on the other side of the world.
spk_0
You'd have to end up,
spk_0
if not in extreme poverty,
spk_0
you have to give up all the luxuries in life.
spk_0
But that does seem to be asking a lot from people.
spk_0
There's this interesting thought experiment which I like.
spk_0
This comes from a philosopher called Théon Pummer,
spk_0
who's been on philosophy guide.
spk_0
You imagine that there is a green button.
spk_0
If you don't press it every five seconds,
spk_0
somebody will die.
spk_0
And the question is, what are your obligations?
spk_0
Now, if you're Peter Singer,
spk_0
you think your obligations just to stay by that green button
spk_0
or your life, press, press, press, press, press, press, press,
spk_0
that is your entire life.
spk_0
But looks at as that life as a whole,
spk_0
there just seems to be asking too much
spk_0
to somebody tied to the green button for their entire life.
spk_0
And when you look at a life as a whole,
spk_0
the effective outtress say,
spk_0
well, obviously we have obligations to other people
spk_0
to distant strangers.
spk_0
But our obligations can't be overriding.
spk_0
They can't tie us to that green button.
spk_0
And that's why they think, well, 10% that's in line
spk_0
with a traditional tie that people used to give
spk_0
in religious traditions.
spk_0
That's a very demanding number,
spk_0
but it's not totally demanding.
spk_0
It's much more than most of us do.
spk_0
But it's not demanding that we stick to that green button
spk_0
for our whole lives.
spk_0
But what does it mean for other kinds of charitable giving?
spk_0
For instance, we're both writers.
spk_0
Probably we feel quite good
spk_0
that some people decide to leave money to help
spk_0
down on their luck writers with grants
spk_0
and so on.
spk_0
There's always a possibility of that sort of safety net.
spk_0
But authors tend to be reasonably comfortable in the UK.
spk_0
They're not like, they're on the breadline necessarily.
spk_0
They're not going to be in a comparable situation
spk_0
to somebody in Sub-Saharan Africa
spk_0
who hasn't eaten for three or four days.
spk_0
So they're very pureist about this.
spk_0
And if the choice is between giving to a scholarship
spk_0
for philosophy students or an art gallery
spk_0
or an educational establishment
spk_0
or giving it to an international charity,
spk_0
they're very clear that the money should go
spk_0
to that international development charity.
spk_0
I think they're very crude about some of these calculations
spk_0
because very important discoveries come out of education,
spk_0
for example.
spk_0
A cure for cancer might come out of one of the top universities.
spk_0
How the hell do you calculate that
spk_0
compared to giving your money to save the children?
spk_0
But their view is that if there's somebody dying
spk_0
and you've got a choice between that
spk_0
and a new liquor paint for the Metropolitan Museum in New York,
spk_0
it's clear where the money should go.
spk_0
There's a different line of argument that is a more empirical one
spk_0
that's based just on how charities distribute money
spk_0
and what happens to that money.
spk_0
It's particularly associated with the Nobel Prize
spk_0
when at Angosteaton.
spk_0
This is the argument that quite often
spk_0
maybe nearly always,
spk_0
when there's an influx of funds into a poor area,
spk_0
it creates sub-economies, patterns of behaviour
spk_0
which are actually detrimental to that area in the long run.
spk_0
So I think this is the best argument
spk_0
against the shallow pond analogy
spk_0
and I take it very seriously.
spk_0
In shallow pond terms,
spk_0
what Angosteaton is suggesting
spk_0
is that by saving somebody in the shallow pond,
spk_0
you're encouraging other people to jump into the shallow pond
spk_0
or you might be encouraging other people
spk_0
to push strangers into the shallow pond.
spk_0
And you can see how that works
spk_0
because if an NGO takes over a big chunk of a developing
spk_0
country's economy,
spk_0
then it breaks the relationship between the citizen
spk_0
and that country's government.
spk_0
They feel no obligation to get things right
spk_0
because the things that really matter
spk_0
are being taken care of by the charity.
spk_0
And so it leads to all sorts of anomalies, distortions,
spk_0
corruption, the government can now use the money that it has
spk_0
to buy arms, to fight wars, and so on and so forth.
spk_0
And there's lots of evidence that Angosteaton is right
spk_0
that some of the countries
spk_0
that get the least amount of aid per capita
spk_0
like India and China have done very well,
spk_0
whereas some of the countries that get the most amount
spk_0
of charity per capita have continued to do very badly,
spk_0
decade after decade after decade.
spk_0
So I do take that criticism very seriously.
spk_0
To take it to its extreme,
spk_0
you have to argue
spk_0
that there are no effective charities out there
spk_0
that you can identify that operate on a smaller scale
spk_0
that won't distort the national economy,
spk_0
that will do a great deal of good
spk_0
without having these very bad negative side effects.
spk_0
You have to argue that those charities
spk_0
either don't exist or can't be identified.
spk_0
And I just think that's too extreme.
spk_0
So I don't think we've accurately
spk_0
characterised just how impersonal a strict utilitarian
spk_0
would have to be.
spk_0
I did actually raise this issue with Peter Singer once
spk_0
in a public debate.
spk_0
Using his thought experiment,
spk_0
if his shoes were valuable enough,
spk_0
he actually should walk past the child,
spk_0
sell his clean, untouched, unsullied shoes,
spk_0
and save two children, not the one in the shallow pond.
spk_0
And that seems callous.
spk_0
It's almost as if his own thought experiment
spk_0
refutes what it's supposed to prove.
spk_0
Singer bites every bullet,
spk_0
and if it was really the case
spk_0
that his shoes were so valuable
spk_0
that he could walk past the pond,
spk_0
ignore the child in the drowning pond,
spk_0
sell his shoes and save two lives,
spk_0
or three lives, or five lives,
spk_0
then Singer thinks that's what you should do.
spk_0
I think this example, your hypothetical example,
spk_0
is an example of how thought experiments mislead us
spk_0
because the setup is so weird.
spk_0
So you're asking us to believe that this guy
spk_0
has only thought just now about selling his very expensive shoes.
spk_0
Why isn't he sold his expensive shoes already?
spk_0
If he was really considering saving lives,
spk_0
why is he still wearing these expensive shoes?
spk_0
Another assumption that you have to build into that
spk_0
is that you have to know with certainty
spk_0
that the money that you would raise by selling the shoes
spk_0
would actually save two lives.
spk_0
Now, if you accept all those assumptions,
spk_0
if you accept that he is really going to sell those shoes,
spk_0
which would really be ruined in the pond,
spk_0
and that two people really would be saved
spk_0
on the other side of the world,
spk_0
if we could absolutely be certain of that,
spk_0
then that thought experiment
spk_0
doesn't seem so implausible after all.
spk_0
I disagree completely because I think it's implausible
spk_0
if you've got a humane instinct,
spk_0
which is no matter how expensive your shoes,
spk_0
you're going to save a child.
spk_0
The child's life is not got a price on it,
spk_0
well, he's putting a price on it.
spk_0
It's very good that we have the instincts
spk_0
to save people in front of us.
spk_0
We know if there's somebody drowning in front of us
spk_0
and it's a shallow pond,
spk_0
we know we can step into the shallow pond
spk_0
and save that person.
spk_0
Our intuitions are built for normal cases.
spk_0
If we could be sure that money that we give to charity
spk_0
will save X number of lives in place of the life and front of us,
spk_0
then it seems like it might be your moral empathy,
spk_0
which is lacking,
spk_0
rather than the person who really thinks about doing the most good,
spk_0
who really thinks that there are two lives,
spk_0
as opposed to just one, that could be saved.
spk_0
Is it fair to characterize these people as data-driven?
spk_0
Which is slightly strange when you think about
spk_0
telling people how they should live.
spk_0
Your life should be data-driven.
spk_0
It's absolutely fair to characterize them that way.
spk_0
They're running their lives in effect,
spk_0
maybe not directly, but indirectly, by spreadsheet.
spk_0
There's a whole bunch of figures they're trying to work out,
spk_0
not just in terms of where they put their money,
spk_0
but something we haven't touched on,
spk_0
how they spend their time.
spk_0
So there's a very controversial aspect of the movement,
spk_0
which is called earn to give,
spk_0
which proposes that rather than going work in a second-hand clothing shop for Oxfam,
spk_0
you should actually go and work for a hedge fund,
spk_0
make as much money as you can,
spk_0
and give away almost all that money to charity,
spk_0
and you're doing much more good than the person who works for Oxfam.
spk_0
Again, it's very data-driven approach.
spk_0
Given that the motivation of Peter Singer and also of the effect of altruism movement
spk_0
is a really good motivation.
spk_0
We want to help other people, they're saying.
spk_0
Other people matter.
spk_0
Why do they get so much flat?
spk_0
I'm really intrigued by this question.
spk_0
They seem to be loathed by all sorts of people,
spk_0
partly because of the point you've been pressing about how clinical and rational and nerdy they seem.
spk_0
Partly, I think because they do, at least in this regard,
spk_0
more good than most of us, they're often not particularly well paid,
spk_0
and yet they're giving 10% of their salary away if not more,
spk_0
and that reflects love a bad on us.
spk_0
And I think we resent that.
spk_0
It's partly that they've got links with organizations on the west coast of the US,
spk_0
Silicon Valley companies that people feel hostile towards,
spk_0
and it's a particular way of thinking the way those people who run those techno companies,
spk_0
thinking in a very empirical, statistical way,
spk_0
and that seemed very alien to us.
spk_0
So I think it's a whole combination of reasons,
spk_0
but I'm much more sympathetic to them, the most people.
spk_0
I mean, I don't think necessarily they're better than other humans in other domains.
spk_0
I don't think necessarily they're more faithful to their partners than other people,
spk_0
or I don't think necessarily they're more honest than other people,
spk_0
but I think in this one regard, they're doing good,
spk_0
and I think we should applaud them for that.
spk_0
David Epins, thank you very much.
spk_0
Thanks Nigel, I enjoyed it.
spk_0
For more philosophy bites, go to www.philosophybites.com.
spk_0
You can also find details there of philosophy bites books and how to support us.