@Tamanna21 12 August 2020

The life you can save

Imagine that you are walking by a lake. Suddenly you notice a child drowning. You know how to swim and if you act immediately, the life of the child will be saved. But you are wearing a pair of expensive shoes. If you want to save the life, you'll have to ruin those shoes.

**So now do** **you still have the obligation to save the child?** According to Peter Singer (writer of the experiment & a famed utilitarian thinker) the answer is **yes**. You have the responsibility to save the life of a dying child. Price will not make much sense.

If you agree it leads to a question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there any fundamental differences between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world? Actually there is no fundamental differences between a child dying of drowning or dying of starving far away from you.

The cost of the ruined shoes is analogous to the cost of a donation. In a word, you can donate the price of shoes to the starving child (needy ones). If you would wanted to save the nearby ones you have to save the ones living in distance. That's the moral of Singer's experiment.

Actually we do many unnecessary things, spends more than our needs, buy many things just for nothing. But we can donate that money to the needy ones. It will be a better use of our money. Special thanks to **@Ashma** for this great support and cordial help to everyone. https://read.cash/@Ashma If you want to be sponsored, please join the following community: **https://read.cash/c/get-sponsored-2a0b** You can not only get sponsorship here but also can earn points by doing some simple tasks. Thanks again **@Ashma** for creating this amazing community. https://read.cash/@Ashma