Philosophy Bites – David Edmonds on Peter Singer’s Shallow Pond Thought Experiment

Date: October 5, 2025
Hosts: David Edmonds (A), Nigel Warburton (B)

Episode Overview

This episode delves into Peter Singer’s famous “Shallow Pond” thought experiment—one of the most influential arguments in contemporary moral philosophy—as explained by David Edmonds, who recently authored a book on the subject. Through a probing discussion led by Nigel Warburton, the episode explores the origins, significance, practical implications, and criticisms of Singer’s analogy between passing a drowning child and our responsibilities to distant strangers in need, with a special focus on effective altruism.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Shallow Pond Thought Experiment (00:34–01:41)

• Scenario Outline:
  • A person walks by a pond in expensive clothes and notices a child drowning. The only hesitation is the cost/time of rescuing (e.g., ruining shoes), but saving the child is obviously the right action.
  • Quote: “You’re about to wade in to save this child when you suddenly think about your extremely expensive shoes and you think, shoes or child. That’s the shallow pond thought experiment.” (A, 00:42)
• Purpose:
  • Singer uses this to argue we have similar responsibilities toward saving lives through charitable giving, equating bystanders in affluent nations to the passerby at the pond.

2. Peter Singer’s 1971 Application and Bangladesh Context (01:52–02:35)

• Historical Context:
  • Singer published his influential essay "Famine, Affluence and Morality" in response to the 1971 Bangladesh refugee crisis, analogizing Westerners' responsibilities to that of a bystander at the shallow pond.
  • Quote: “Peter Singer asks us, us people in the west, to what extent are we responsible for helping out these people on the other side of the globe?” (A, 01:52)

3. Differences and Moral Analogies (02:35–04:12)

• Obvious Disanalogies:
  • Distance (we are far from those in need)
  • Visibility (we don’t know individual identities)
  • The presence of others (many could help, not just us)
  • Singer’s Response: Distance and personal knowledge are morally irrelevant; if you can help, you should.
  • Quote: “Distance itself can’t be morally relevant. It might be relevant logistically and might be relevant psychologically, but morally it can’t make any difference…” (A, 03:09)

4. Impartiality and Emotional Pull (04:12–05:13)

• Impartiality:
  • Singer advocates a view where all lives are of equal value, an idea most people find unnatural due to familial or national partiality.
  • Quote: “He does have a totally impartial view about the value of life, which is not how 99.9999% of the population in the world think.” (A, 04:35)

5. Moral Principle and Utilitarianism (05:13–06:46)

• Singer’s Principle:
  • If you can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything morally significant, you should do so. Singer’s original argument does not mention utilitarianism explicitly.
  • Singer’s Personal Self-Critique: Despite doing much more than most (e.g., donating up to half his salary), Singer feels he himself falls short.
  • Quote: “He also thinks that he himself is a deeply flawed character because he thinks that he should be doing much more than he actually does.” (A, 05:24)

6. The Demandingness Objection and Effective Altruism (07:10–09:00)

• Demandingness Objection:
  • If taken to extremes, Singer’s logic demands near-total self-sacrifice (renouncing comfort, luxury, perhaps central heating).
  • Emergence of Effective Altruism:
    • The movement encourages giving a significant portion (e.g., 10%) of income to the most effective global charities.
    • Focus is not just on giving but also on maximizing the effectiveness of donations.
  • Quote: “The Effective Altruism movement encourages people to give 10% of their salary… to charities that are helping those in the developing world who are in abject poverty and in danger of disease and so on.” (A, 07:54)

7. Choosing Charities: Calculating Effectiveness (09:00–10:57)

• Challenge of Identifying Effective Charities:
  • Organizations now rigorously analyze where money does the most good. Even so, real-world results can be unpredictable (e.g., bed nets repurposed).
  • The Green Button Thought Experiment:
    • Staying by a button to save lives (by pressing it every five seconds) is used to illustrate the demanding nature of moral obligations.
    • Effective altruists settle on 10% as a demanding but not overwhelming compromise.
  • Quote: “Our obligations can’t be overriding. They can’t tie us to that green button.” (A, 10:29)

8. Charity Priorities and Broader Value (10:57–12:10)

• Purist View vs. Broader Societal Contributions:
  • Effective altruists prioritize saving lives over supporting the arts or academia, sometimes crudely so.
  • Edmonds’ Critique:
    • Complicated trade-offs—for example, education might lead to cures for disease, so strict utilitarian calculations aren’t always straightforward.
  • Quote: “Their view is that if there’s somebody dying and you’ve got a choice between that and a new lick of paint for the Metropolitan Museum in New York, it’s clear where the money should go.” (A, 11:51)

9. Structural Critiques: Angus Deaton and Negative Aid Effects (12:10–14:12)

• Empirical Objections:
  • Angus Deaton argues aid can distort economies, undermine governments, and breed corruption; sometimes well-intentioned help does long-term harm.
  • Quote: “By saving somebody in the shallow pond, you’re encouraging other people to jump into the shallow pond, or you might be encouraging other people to push strangers in…” (A, 12:38)
• Edmonds’ Response:
  • While this is a serious challenge, it’s extreme to say that no effective charity exists—one must distinguish between large-scale aid and more targeted, effective interventions.

10. Counterintuitive Consequences: The Price of a Life (14:12–16:39)

• The Shoe-Selling Example:
  • If your shoes are valuable enough to sell and save more lives elsewhere, should you let the child in front of you drown? Singer’s logic says yes, given certain conditions.
  • Debate on Human Instinct vs. Calculation:
  • Warburton finds this deeply counterintuitive and emotionally unpalatable; Edmonds notes that if we know with certainty more lives would be saved, the moral calculation might shift.
  • Quote: “If we could absolutely be certain of that, then that thought experiment doesn't seem so implausible after all.” (A, 15:43)

11. Data-Driven Morality and Earn to Give (16:39–17:29)

• Spreadsheet Morality:
  • Effective altruists run their lives “by spreadsheet,” calculating where time and money has greatest impact.
  • Earn to Give:
    • Rather than volunteering, some advocate working in lucrative fields to maximize charitable donations.

12. Why Does Effective Altruism Spark Hostility? (17:29–18:51)

• Public Resentment:
  • Seen as clinical, rational, “nerdy,” and partly resented for making others look immoral by comparison.
  • Cultural Disconnect:
  • Association with Silicon Valley and statistical thinking feels alien to many.
  • Edmonds’ Sympathy:
    • While critical of some aspects, Edmonds defends effective altruists as doing genuine good.
  • Quote: “They’re often not particularly well paid and yet they’re giving 10% of their salary away…that reflects rather badly on us and I think we resent that.” (A, 17:58)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the punch of the thought experiment:
  “The person who comes up with this thought experiment says that we are in a shallow pond thought experiment every day of our lives.” (A, 01:20)
• On effective altruism’s purism:
  “If there’s somebody dying and you’ve got a choice between that and a new lick of paint for the Metropolitan Museum in New York, it’s clear where the money should go.” (A, 11:51)
• On the psychological discomfort of Singer’s demands:
  “You’d have to end up, if not in extreme poverty, you have to give up all the luxuries in life. But that does seem to be asking a lot from people.” (A, 09:36)
• On the cultural reception:
  “They seem to be loathed by all sorts of people, partly because...they do, at least in this regard, more good than most of us.” (A, 17:46)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:34 – Defining the Shallow Pond Thought Experiment
• 01:52 – Singer’s Context: Famine, Affluence and Morality (Bangladesh, 1971)
• 03:09 – Morally relevant (or irrelevant) factors: distance and knowledge
• 04:35 – Singer’s radical impartiality; human partiality and emotional bonds
• 06:46 – Singer’s personal giving and effective altruism’s rise
• 09:00 – Calculating charity effectiveness; bed nets, real-world complexity
• 10:29 – The “Green Button” experiment; practical limits of charity
• 11:51 – Purism of effective altruism vs. broader societal investments
• 12:38 – Angus Deaton’s critique: negative unintended consequences of aid
• 14:12 – Counterintuitive conclusions: should you sell your shoes rather than save the child?
• 16:49 – Data-driven, “by spreadsheet” morality; “Earn to Give” controversy
• 17:46 – Why do people dislike effective altruists?

Conclusion

This discussion brings out the depth, enduring influence, and controversy of Singer’s shallow pond thought experiment. Through thoughtful questioning and critical engagement, it showcases the philosophical challenge of turning empathic instincts into universal, actionable ethics while wrestling with the realities of effectiveness, emotional resistance, and unintended consequences. The episode is both a philosophical primer and a contemporary reflection on perhaps the central moral question of our age: How far should our responsibilities to distant strangers go, and what should we actually do about it?