The Applicability of Singers Shallow Pond Scenario in Solving World Poverty - Essay Example

THE APPLICABILITY OF SINGER’S SHALLOW POND SCENARIO IN SOLVING WORLD POVERTY The applicability of Singer’s shallow pond scenario in solving world poverty The world is characterized by inequalities among people of different socio-economic backgrounds across different countries. In most cases, people in developed countries are usually at an economic advantage as compared to people from less developed countries. Accordingly, people in less developed countries are often faced with poverty which causes them to lack medical care, shelter, and food1. As such, the people in more developed countries take it upon themselves to help alleviate the poverty experienced by people living in the less developed countries. In line with this thought, different thinkers have come up with theories of explaining why the more developed countries give aid to the less developed countries. This paper addressed the proposal set forward by Singer, who claims that people in relatively richer countries are under a moral obligation to help those in poorer countries. In addition, the papers will also analyze the validity of the criticisms advanced against Singer’s proposals by Wisor. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer is of the opinion that people are obligated to help those in need because the latter are often suffering and have no way of alleviating their suffering by themselves. Generally, Singer argues that if a person can afford to help another person without necessarily causing anything bad to happen, such a person should offer the required help2. As such, people are required to always promote good over bad by weighing whether the positive consequences of offering help would overpower the negative consequences. Singer gives the example of rescuing a drowning child from a shallow pond arguing that although the rescuer would get their clothes dirty in the process, morality would dictate that one rescues the child because the death of the child is worse than getting ones clothes dirty3. In this case, Singer considers the recipient of aid a passive participant, by perceiving the child as incapable of doing anything to get out of the pond and being resigned to either drowning or getting help from outside. Singer claims that people in relatively rich countries and the actual countries have the moral obligation to work towards alleviating the needs of people faced with poverty, particularly those in less developed countries4. As such, Singer considers it the duty of people with considerable riches to make donations to organizations involved in relief aid to poor people. For example, at the time Singer was putting forward these arguments, there was an ongoing crisis in East Bengal and Singer urged people to donate towards the Bengal Relief Fund5. Singer was disturbed by the fact that people had not come out in large numbers to donate food and other basic requirements to the people of Bengal who were suffering from inadequate food, shelter and medical care. In addition, there was no public outcry for governments to intervene and provide assistance to the affected people. According to Singer, a person must be able to maximize the good in society, meaning that people should always strive to make major sacrifices for the good of others. Singer’s ideas on the role of morality in helping the poor have been disputed by many thinkers. Criticism is mainly concerned with the sacrifices that people with relatively more riches are expected to make in their bid to help those faced by poverty. In particular, Wisor writes that singer’s “shallow pond” argument is an oversimplified and abstract version of how real life works. Wisor argues that real life poverty is different and far much complicated than Singer would have readers believe, and thus calls for the abandonment of the shallow pond thinking6. The number of agents involved in offering solutions to a particular need One of the differences that Wisor identifies between poverty in the real world and the argument by Singer is concerned with agency, in terms of the number of agents required to participate in the alleviation of poverty. According to Wisor, although there are two people involved in the shallow pond case, only one is perceived as capable of making a choice7. The agent of change in this case is only the person standing at the edge of the pond and deciding whether or not they should help the drowning child. As such, the child is seen as a passive participant in the effort to help them out of their suffering, meaning that the child is totally helpless and is dependent on the goodwill of the “savior”. It is this rationale that makes Wisor angry because he contends that not all poor people are as helpless as drowning children. Wisor argues that poor people are as much rational thinkers as the people trying to help them out of their poverty considering that they are often forced to make difficult decisions to try and alleviate their own poverty8. Wisor makes a valid argument because it is not always the case that poor people or people in need are totally helpless. Sometimes, such people are well aware of how they can lift themselves out of their situations but require a little boost from an outside source. Take for example, a very bright child in a third world country who, despite not having the money to pay for quality education, still persists and attends the school they can afford. In the end, such a child despite not having attended the best school may get a very high score which will make people recognize them and the child may end up getting a scholarship to study in a better school. In essence, therefore, most of the people in need as not totally helpless people who only rely of outsiders to help them out of their situation. Although Wisor has point in that poor people are also capable of finding solutions to their poverty, it is also true that in some situations people in need are usually totally helpless. Take the example of people caught up in a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake or flooding. For such people, the chance that they can lift themselves out of their situation without the help of outsiders is practically zero. Considering that such people have lost their livelihood, shelter, and have no source of food, they are faced with the probability of dying unless someone comes to their aid. In most cases, the agents responsible for helping such people are non-governmental organizations, the latter which depend on the generosity of people to donate funds and other necessities required by the people in need. In this case, therefore, there is no much difference between a drowning child relying on a stranger to save them, and people affected by calamities that are beyond their control. In line with this argument, therefore, Wisor does not make a very compelling case against the use of the shallow pond case by arguing that change cannot be effected by a single agent. It can be argued that the validity and applicability of the shallow pond scenario is dependent upon the circumstances and the particular need of the person requiring outside help. The case of a lack of context Wisor also seeks to invalidate Singer’s proposal by stating that the shallow pond case is very simplistic since it lacks a context in which the action of saving a person in need is taking place9. Wisor argues that the pond cannot be categorized geographically, racially, ethnically, religiously, or even gender-wise. As such, it is impossible to apply the shallow pond scenario to real life cases because poverty and need are often characterized by the context in which the person experiencing them is placed. The problem with Wisor’s argument is that it does not recognize that poverty and dire need are not reliant on the context in which a person experiences them. In fact, instead of defending the view that Singer’s argument lacks context, Wisor wanders off to start criticizing Singer’s previous work on the role of the wealthy in alleviating famine and thus fails to discredit the shallow pond case10. While it is true what Wisor argues by stating that people in areas prone to drought and starvation are capable of building institutions to deal with such problems, his argument is not relevant to the issue of context. If anything, a shallow pond is a context in itself as it represents a person in need who may try to swim out but without help from outside, their efforts might be in vain. It, therefore, follows that context is irrelevant if a person is suffering and in need of help from another person or any other agent. The oversimplification of real world problems The issue of complexity is also one that Wisor uses to disagree with the shallow pond case proposed by Singer. According to Wisor, Singer oversimplifies the processes involved in activities aimed at giving aid to people in need, especially if it concerned with foreign aid. In Singer’s view, although there are complexities involved in as far as giving foreign aid is concerned, if the negative consequences are minor compared to the positive ones, then the wealthy are obliged to help11. Wisor, on the other hand, argues that some of these complexities might not be as easily overlooked as Singer assumes. Some of these complexities are too technical and philosophical for the ordinary person to ignore, meaning that although they may feel obligated to help, the circumstances do not permit. In this case, Wisor has a valid point in discrediting singer’s assumptions because there are instances when moral obligations are overpowered by other overbearing complexities. For example, considering the history between western countries and the third countries in the context of colonization, the relationship between the two is often complicated. There are countries that are very xenophobic especially to westerners, meaning that even if a westerner wanted to help the people in need in such countries, they would fear for their lives. Taking South Africa at present, for example, there are a lot of shanties in the country full of illiterate and poor people, a situation which would force a person who is better of economically to feel the urge to help with facilitating education and creation of employment. However, with the recent xenophobic attacks, it becomes difficult to offer such help to the people in need. In this case, therefore, it is true that Singer oversimplifies the complexities of real world needs and poverty by arguing that everything can be solved in the same way as pulling a drowning child out of a pond. In addition analyzing the instance in which the positive consequences of offering help would outweigh the negatives is not as easy. Taking the drowning child for example, the passerby may estimate that if they stand or lie by the side of the pond and offer their hand to the child, then the child would easily reach the hand and the former would pull the child to safety. As such, the only negative consequence would be getting the savior’s clothes dirty. However, Singer fails to consider the possibility that the edge of the pond might be slippery or that the child might accidentally pull the savior into the pond and the two of them would both be at risk of drowning. Conclusion In conclusion, both Wisor and Singer make compelling arguments to support their standpoints. The humanitarian in Singer urges people to feel morally obligated to help those in need just as a passerby would help a child drowning in a shallow pond. So long as the person offering help does not suffer any major negative effects, then basic morality dictates that one should always offer help where they can. As such, Singer urges developed countries to be at the forefront in offering foreign aid to people suffering in less developed countries. While Wisor does not disagree with this proposal, he argues that offering aid is not as simple as Singer makes it sound. Problems associated with the passiveness of the recipient of help, the context in which the help takes place, and the oversimplification of world poverty are Wisor’s main concerns. Wisor is somewhat convincing in arguing that poor people are not always completely helpless although there are situations in which people are totally helpless and Wisor does not address these. In addition, Wisor fails in trying to argue that context is an important factor in as far as poverty, need and the alleviation of the two is concerned. The only valid point that Wisor makes is concerned with the fact that it is not as easy to assess the positive and negative consequences of offering help. This is particularly true in terms of foreign aid, considering the technicalities and philosophies involved in the process. Bibliography Bradshaw, K. Ted, “Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in Community Development. RPRC Working Paper 06-05 (2006), 1-22. Peter Singer, “Famine Affluence and Morality”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.3(1972), 229-243. Scott Wisor, “Against Shallow Ponds: An Argument against Singer’s Approach to Global Ethics,” Journal Of Global Ethics, 7.1 (2011), 19-32. Read More