The big idea: A child is starving on the other side of the world. Distribution of wealth asks what, if anything, the well-off owe the world's poor.
Picture the case
- You'll never meet them.
- The price of saving their life is less than you'd spend on a coffee.
- Do you have to give it? Not 'would it be nice' — do you actually OWE it?
The heart of it is one question: is helping the distant poor charity or duty? Get that right and everything about global poverty and inequality looks different.
Hold onto this: The whole debate turns on ONE word: charity or duty. Most people treat giving as charity — a nice extra. The argument ahead says it might be a duty you can't skip.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
The philosopher Peter Singer built the most famous case for duty in his essay 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'.
The drowning child: You pass a shallow pond and see a small child drowning. You could wade in and save them — but it would ruin your expensive shoes. Obviously you save the child; the shoes don't matter next to a life.
Singer's point
The principle
If you can prevent something very bad at little cost to yourself, you MUST.
The match
A donation that saves a distant child's life is the same shape — small cost, huge good.
The conclusion
So if the pond case is a duty, so is giving. Distance and 'they're a stranger' don't change the maths.
Small cost, huge good: you MUST
Checkpoint — Singer: In one line: if we can prevent great suffering at little cost, we must — and a donation is just the drowning-child pond at a distance. Hold that — the objections all attack a link in this chain.
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
Singer's logic is hard to beat head-on, so critics question whether distance and demandingness really make no difference.
The pond and the donation ARE the same
- A life is a life, near or far
- You still could save it at small cost
- 'They're a stranger' isn't a moral excuse
They're NOT quite the same
- The pond is certain; a donation might be wasted
- The demand never stops — it could swallow your whole life
- Maybe we owe MORE to those close to us
Go further — higher-level insight: The strongest reply isn't 'the child doesn't matter' — no one says that. It's that Singer's argument proves TOO much.
How to use it
- Taken strictly, it seems to demand you give until you're nearly as badly off as those you help, which few can accept as a duty.
- The clever move is to grant Singer's core point but argue for a limit — a strong duty to give a lot, not an unlimited one.
- Arguing 'how much?' rather than 'whether' is a top-band move.
Checkpoint — the pushback: In one line: critics rarely deny we should help — they argue the duty has LIMITS, because it could otherwise swallow your whole life, and distance and certainty aren't nothing.