Allegory Of The Drowning Child Essay

Singer’s allegory of the drowning child poses a complicated battle between morals and selfishness. His point that one is morally obligated to save the lives of others puts conflict in their mind. Of course someone will save a drowning child thrown into their path, but whether or not they go out of their way to find the child to save them is entirely different. Singer needs to first recognize where moral obligations come from in order to properly assess what they accomplish. I am morally obligated to go out of my way to help charities, and do, but not everyone else is. If someone supports a charity, they are showing selflessness and concern for others who can be all the way on the other side of the globe. This reflects what they believe about
If the world came about by natural selection, then natural selection should continue to rule. If the world is survival of the fittest, one’s whole life should be devoted to building up their own castle, not their neighbor’s. Also to an evolutionist, moral obligations are useless and can be completely ignored, perhaps they don’t even exist. If everything is material, then why would anyone listen to a feeling that tells them to give up their belongings? It does not make any sense to donate to charities. Many Neo-Darwinists also do not believe in right versus wrong. This means that one should keep all of their earnings because it is not any better for them to give them up. Whether one thinks they are morally obligated or not to give to charities all depends on their worldview. A worldview that knows there is good and evil will most likely be morally obligated to save the drowning child, but a worldview that believes in no such thing will not concern themselves. To be truthful, everyone has a moral obligation to donate because there is right and wrong. Everyone feels the effect of wanting to do good whether they believe it or choose to ignore it, and therefore everyone is obligated to save the drowning