Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save

In Peter Singer’s work, “The Life You Can Save,” he presents the famous scenario of a child drowning in a shallow pond. This scenario presents readers with the question of whether they would save a child from a life or death situation at a certain cost. After encouraging his readers to develop an answer, he creates an analogy between the presented scenario and the act of donating to a life-saving charity. Singer argues that the two scenarios are ethically similar and that if you would save the child in the pond, then you should be donating to charity without question; however, his argument comes with some faults. The shallow pond case and the charity case are ethically dissimilar due to differences in costs, direct versus indirect contributions,

Conversely, in the case of preventing the death of a child in a third world country by donating to a charity, you are more likely prolonging a life for a short period of time rather than truly saving it. Donating money that will be put towards, for example, a malaria net, may prevent someone from passing away due to one illness but it will not give them an education and it will not save them from famine or distress. The donation will only save people in great poverty from one of their many struggles. In the biography “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” Tracy Kidder discusses Paul Farmer’s establishment of the nonprofit, Partners in Health, that obtains donations to its charitable cause from large companies and organizations. These companies and organizations are well-established foundations that can give an amount of money great enough to potentially make a difference and save lives through health care. Nonetheless, even with these great amounts of money, one of Farmer’s patients, John, gets all the medical help possible yet dies anyway. This saddening story exemplifies the point that when donating you cannot guarantee that a life will be saved. The best medical care possible could not save John, so even the best help we can give through charity may not save the people in need. There are many struggles in third-world countries

Farmer’s amazing outlook exemplifies this highly ethical characteristic of being a hero. In the biography, “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” It is made clear that he believes that it is still imperative that we always do what we can to at least attempt to save, or improve, lives. “In his mind, he was fighting all poverty all the time, an endeavor full of difficulties and inevitable failures.” (Singer, 210) Paul Farmer’s devotion to people in need is extremely admirable and is an ethical trait that he exhibits in all aspects of his life, but we can’t all be as saint like as Paul Farmer. As a Harvard doctor, Paul Farmer is, in a way, more capable of saving lives with the use of medical care than most people are. A simple and small contribution such as $200, or the equivalent to the cost of a pair of shoes, is much less effective than a direct contribution of highly expensive medical supplies and supplements. Singer’s analogy does not succeed in showing that the shallow pond case and the charity case are ethically similar, because the two scenarios have unequal costs, impacts, and outcomes. Not all charities are truly life-saving, but pulling a child out of a pond and into safety is. Although we should all do what we can to help others and essentially “cure the world,” we cannot judge one’s ethical character poorly if they do not donate