An Obligation to Strangers

Suppose one day you’re walking alongside a shallow pond when you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. You run to where the child is, but just when you’re about to pull the child out of the water, you remember that you are on your way to an important event and you’re dressed in your most expensive outfit. Do you have an obligation to save the child, despite the risk of ruining your pricey clothing?

To this, nearly everyone would say yes. The material worth of clothing is meaningless when compared to the value of a human life; clothing is replaceable, but a person’s life is not.

Now, let’s add some caveats to this thought experiment. Imagine there are several other people standing around the pond, but they refuse to help the child. Do you still jump in even though other people won’t? Of course. The inaction of others doesn't mean it's okay to let the child drown. Now, imagine the child drowning lived in a different state than you. Again, most would argue that factors like location or nationality do not change the value of one’s life, and thus we are still morally obliged to save the child’s life.

According to philosopher Peter Singer in his book “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” at every moment, we are all choosing to neglect the drowning child and give up on moral duties. By choosing to spend money on material luxuries instead of donating to effective charities that help those in extreme poverty or on the verge of death, we are in effect choosing our expensive clothing over another person’s life. We have already established that the location and nationality of the child, as well as the inaction of others, are all morally irrelevant in our obligation to save someone’s life. If this is the case, then very little separates our hypothetical obligation to the drowning child from our actual obligation to children in abject poverty abroad.

One could argue that saving a life in the real world is not as simple as lifting a child out of a pond. In reality, though, there has never before been a time in history when it has been so easy to save someone’s life. Controlled studies of humanitarian efforts allow experts to identify which charities are the most effective at saving lives. According to William Macaskill of Oxford University in his book “Doing Good Better,” some charities are hundreds or even thousands of times more effective than others, meaning they can save a life for a fraction of the cost. GiveWell, an organization that scrutinizes the efficacy of charitable practices, has selected a handful of charities that are particularly outstanding.

The Against Malaria Foundation, for instance, provides long-lasting insecticide-laced bed nets to children in Sub-Saharan Africa for $2.50 per treatment. With every $3,300 in donations, the Against Malaria Foundation is able to save one life. Another charity, Deworm the World, provides pills that rid children in Kenya and India of parasitic intestinal worms at a cost of only 55 cents per treatment. The World Health Organization finds that 880 million children worldwide suffer from parasitic worms, an often overlooked global health problem. Though usually not life-threatening, parasitic worms are a cause of immense suffering, and have been shown to significantly reduce school attendance.

If your financial situation prohibits you from putting aside money to donate to effective charities, then it is difficult to maintain the argument that you would be obliged to donate. However, if you believe that you do have some wiggle room in your daily expenditures, even small alterations could have a huge impact. Something as simple as switching from Chipotle to halal could save you $5.00, which could in turn provide either two bed nets or 10 deworming pills to those in need, and packing your lunch at home and taking it to school could do even more.

At very little cost to our material well-being, we can have a superhero-like effect on the world by letting an 80-year-old blind man see for the first time through a cataracts operation, or even preventing a mother in Ghana from having the grief and sorrow of losing a child to infectious disease. If you are willing to sacrifice your expensive clothing for the drowning child, then you should be willing to switch from Chipotle to halal or forgo another pair of shoes and donate money to where it will mean a lot more. If you really agree with this, back it up with action—the world will thank you.