When I initially sat down to write this post, I thought that I’d found a way out of the obligations demanded by the Drowning Child thought experiment. As I edited my initial draft, however, I’ve decided that I have instead found something of a middle ground between moral apathy and moral perfection. While my initial idea is not as groundbreaking as it first felt (are they ever?), I still find this moral middle ground more appealing/achievable than perfect morality. Let me know what you think!

Individual Morality

In a recent episode of the Ezra Klein Show, Ezra Klein and Peter Singer discuss one of Singer’s best-known thought experiments – the drowning child. I find this thought experiment both incredibly compelling but also painfully incriminating, for it demands I be a more moral person than I am – and I want to be a moral person.

The Thought Experiment – A Drowning Child

You’re walking by a dirty pond, in your most expensive attire, when you spot a drowning child. A quick evaluation of the situation reveals that you’re the only person around but saving the child will ruin your clothes – are you obligated to save the child? Would you?

Everyone says yes, in fact, most people would consider you a monster if you said no.

Next, imagine that, instead of passing the pool alone, you’re not alone. Instead, there are 100 people, all in their finest attire, and everyone has noticed the drowning child. Same question –  are you obligated to save the child? Would you?

Again, most everyone says yes.

Now for the incriminating part: Children die every day, due to causes that you can prevent, if only you donated some money. Same question: are you obligated to save them?

Perfect Morality

Many people (myself included) conclude that the answer to the last question is yes, there is a moral imperative to help these children. Therefore, a perfectly moral person would donate all of their non-essential income, saving dozens of children over their lifetime.

Most of us, however, fail to follow through on this conclusion. I’m no exception. In fact, as I write this, I am traveling for pleasure, unwilling to make the sacrifice I believe I’m obligated to make. Frustratingly, I find this cognitive dissonance so uncomfortable that I mostly avoid it by ignoring the fact that I could be saving peoples lives. Thus, when I was reminded of this moral dilemma, I found myself wondering if collective morality provided an alternative, less incriminating view.

Collective Morality

The thought experiment above is almost entirely about individual morality. It completely ignores culture, how culture influences individual behavior, and the collective obligation we have to these children. To illustrate, consider the following modification to the thought experiment.

Culturally Accepted Drowning

Imagine, in the thought experiment above, that this happens every single day. Every day, there’s a party where everyone’s dressed up and, every day, dozens of children drown in that pond. Taking it even further, imagine that it has been this way for generations.

Now, if you’re in that crowd, are you obligated to save a child? Are you obligated to save as many children as you can, night after night? Where does your personal obligation end and the collective obligation begin?

In this world, I find it harder to conclude that all of the bystanders are moral monsters. Instead, I see an apathetic culture ignoring a problem that is too big for one person to solve. While the individuals are not absolved of all blame, the culture, not the individual, is responsible.

Cultural Obligation

We find ourselves in this exact situation today. Our culture values comfortable lives and social status over distant, dying children. It’s not that we’re guilty, per se, of a heinous crime. Instead of being the monster who ignores a drowning child, we’re just part of the collective, not fully guilty – but also not completely innocent.

If our culture is responsible for these distant, dying children, what are we, as individuals, to do?

We can recognize that, while our culture influences us, we, in turn, influence our culture. This recognition changes our moral imperative. We’re mostly absolved of the responsibility to save as many children as we can, individually, instead, we have a mandate to influence our culture to save as many children as it can.

Exerting Influence

To make this obligation more concrete: we should all strive to act more morally than the average of our social circles. Through our actions, we can exert influence on our culture, slowly pulling it to be more moral.

Epistemic Uncertainty

I have to admit, I’m very uncertain about the sentiment I’ve expressed above. I don’t think that our cultural obligation fully absolves us as individuals. Therefore, it seems that we still have some obligation to save as many children as possible, individually, unless that somehow conflicts with our ability to influence our culture.

Still, I find the requirement to be more moral than the average of my social circle much more achievable than sacrificing my life to save distant children. As a result, I’m considering this as a standard I can impose on myself and actually achieve.

I’d love to hear what you think – whether in comments or privately. Tell me what you agree with. Tell me where I’m wrong. I can think of a few issues with what I’ve expressed above but still wanted to put these thoughts out there.

P.S. I think that this collective vs individual obligation applies to most, if not all, moral imperatives. It was easiest, however, to use dying children as the objects of this post, as is done in Singer’s article. Consider applying the ideas in this post to other areas such as factory farming, climate change, etc.