The Drowning Child: What Do We Owe to Strangers?

If you'd ruin expensive shoes to save a drowning child, why do you spend money on luxuries instead of saving dying children overseas?
This is an intellectual salon - a space to meet new people, practice articulating ideas, and engage in genuine debate. No virtue signaling, no performative agreement - just curious people exploring a genuinely difficult question together.
The topic: In 1972, philosopher Peter Singer published a thought experiment about a child drowning in a shallow pond. It sparked a movement (Effective Altruism), billions in charitable donations, and fierce controversy - including a crypto fraud scandal. David Edmonds' recent book Death in a Shallow Pond traces this remarkable story and the debate it continues to generate.
What we'll explore:

• Is Singer's argument compelling or flawed?
• How should we give to charity - with our hearts or our spreadsheets?
• Can individual donations solve structural poverty, or do they let governments off the hook?
• What do we actually owe to strangers? Does distance matter morally?
• When does "doing maximum good" become dangerous?

What to expect:

• 90 minutes online (Google Meet - link shared 24 hours before)
• 6-8 participants max
• Structured discussion format: brief intros, facilitated debate, reflection
• You'll need to do the prep (see below) - this only works if everyone shows up ready to engage

Preparation required (45 mins):
You must explore 2-3 of these themes before the session:
The Core Scenario:

• Read the synopsis below, then pick your areas to research

Research Themes (choose 2-3):

1. The Case FOR - Read Singer's original essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" OR explore GiveWell.org to see how EA measures impact
2. The Demandingness Objection - Search "Against Shallow Ponds Journal of Global Ethics" OR "Victor Ronin Peter Singer Medium"
3. Systemic Change vs. Charity - Search "effective altruism structural change critique" - does charity treat symptoms while ignoring causes?
4. EA Controversies - Search "Sam Bankman-Fried effective altruism" OR "longtermism AI safety critique"
5. Real-World Applications - Think about international aid, tax policy, local vs. global giving

The Thought Experiment:
You're walking past a shallow pond. A child is drowning. You can easily save them, but you'll ruin your expensive shoes and be late for work. What do you do?
Everyone says: obviously save the child.
Singer's controversial conclusion: We face this choice daily. Children die of preventable diseases while we spend money on luxuries. If we'd save the drowning child, we should give most of our income to effective charities until it becomes a real sacrifice.
Scenarios to consider:

• Rescue teams spend £2M saving one earthquake victim. That could have saved 800 lives via malaria prevention. Justified?
• A building burns. Save a child or a £50M Picasso? (EA says: save the painting, sell it, save hundreds of children with the money)
• Your daily £4 coffee = £1,460/year = 1-2 lives saved if donated instead. Obligated to quit?

Who this is for:

• People who enjoy wrestling with hard questions
• Anyone curious about ethics, charity, or social obligations
• Those willing to have their assumptions challenged

Ground rules:

• Come prepared (do the research)
• Engage in good faith
• Challenge ideas, not people
• Attend the full 90 minutes

Introduction:
Before joining, please introduce yourself in the comments below:

• Your first name
• One sentence: why does this topic interest you?

Example: "Marcus - I donate to charity but I'm never sure if I'm doing it 'right' or just making myself feel better."