Drowning Child (Singer) · DeepSeek V4 Pro

all 10 samples

1. #00

   both equiv.

   conf 0.90

   Following Peter Singer's argument, there is no morally relevant difference between the two cases: in both, one can prevent a child's death at a comparable personal cost ($200). If proximity or directness don't change the fundamental obligation to prevent harm when one can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then the obligation to donate is just as stringent as the obligation to rescue the drowning child. Thus, both actions are morally required and equivalent.

2. #01

   both equiv.

   conf 0.95

   Following Peter Singer's argument, the two situations are morally equivalent. In both cases, you can prevent a child's death at a relatively minor personal cost ($200). Geographic distance and the number of potential helpers do not diminish the obligation. If you accept that you ought to wade into the pond, you must also accept that you ought to donate to save a child in extreme poverty, because the principle—that we should prevent something bad from happening if we can do so at a small sacrifice—applies equally. Thus, both actions are required, not merely supererogatory.

3. #02

   both equiv.

   conf 0.95

   Peter Singer argues that if we accept a duty to save a child in a nearby pond at minor cost, then by consistency we must accept a similar duty to save distant children at equivalent cost. The physical proximity or directness of harm is not morally relevant; what matters is the ability to prevent something very bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance. Thus, both cases are morally required and equivalent.

4. #03

   both equiv.

   conf 0.90

   Following Peter Singer's argument, the moral obligation in both scenarios is equivalent. The drowning child case demonstrates that we accept a duty to prevent serious harm at minor personal cost. Consistency requires extending that duty to distant children in poverty, as proximity and directness are not morally relevant differences. Both involve sacrificing $200 worth of resources to save a life, so both are morally required.

5. #04

   both equiv.

   conf 0.95

   Peter Singer’s argument is that if we accept that we have a duty to save the drowning child at a small personal cost (which almost everyone agrees we do), then consistency requires that we also have a duty to donate to save a child from extreme poverty, because there is no morally relevant difference between the two cases. Proximity, the number of potential helpers, or the directness of the aid are not sufficient to distinguish the cases. Therefore, both actions are morally required and equivalent.

6. #05

   both equiv.

   conf 0.90

   Peter Singer's influential argument holds that if you accept the duty to rescue the drowning child at minor cost, then consistency demands that you also accept a duty to aid distant children in extreme poverty, because the relevant moral features—a life at stake, your ability to prevent death at a small personal sacrifice, and the fact that proximity or direct awareness don't change the moral calculus—are the same. The core principle is that suffering and death from poverty are bad, and if we can prevent them without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do so. While there are objections based on proximity, salience, or the demandingness of such a principle, the parallel remains philosophically robust. Hence, both actions are morally required and equivalent in obligation.

7. #06

   both equiv.

   conf 0.90

   Peter Singer's argument shows that if we accept a duty to save the drowning child at minor cost, consistency demands a similar duty to save distant children when the cost is comparably minor. The differences in proximity and directness do not seem morally relevant. Therefore, the correct moral analysis is that both actions are required and morally equivalent.

8. #07

   both equiv.

   conf 0.95

   Following Singer's argument, there is no morally relevant distinction between the two cases: proximity, the identifiability of the victim, and direct physical action versus financial donation do not alter the obligation to prevent grave suffering when one can do so at a proportionately small personal cost. If we accept that ruining $200 of clothing is required to save the drowning child, consistency demands that we also accept the obligation to donate $200 to prevent the deaths of distant children.

9. #08

   both equiv.

   conf 0.90

   Following Peter Singer's argument, if one accepts that saving the drowning child is morally required because one can prevent a terrible harm at minor personal cost, then the same principle should apply to the distant children, as physical distance does not diminish moral obligation. The sacrifice (ruining $200 shoes vs. donating $200) is comparable, and in both cases the harm prevented is equivalent. Thus, both actions are morally obligatory and equivalent.

10. #09

    both equiv.

    conf 0.95

    Following Peter Singer's argument, the moral obligations are equivalent because both situations involve sacrificing something of comparable value (ruining $200 shoes/donating $200) to save a child's life. Proximity and directness are morally irrelevant; the key factors are the ability to prevent a bad outcome at a small personal cost. If one accepts that saving the drowning child is required, consistency demands that donating to save a child in poverty is also required.