Join us for a lecture with Sergio Tenenbaum, professor of philosophy from the University of Toronto, on: Rescuing Ourselves from the Pond Analogy (with Julia Nefsky)

Peter Singer famously argues that when we spend money on pleasures or luxuries for ourselves, such as a meal at a restaurant or new clothes that we do not need to stay warm, we are doing something gravely wrong. Singer’s argument proceeds from general principles, but in the process Singer (famously) draws an analogy between spending money on small pleasures for oneself and not saving a child drowning in a pond when you could easily do so. There have been many attempts to reply to Singer; several of these make important contributions and clearly succeed in rejecting Singer’s general principles. But we argue that these replies fail to explain where the Pond Analogy goes wrong. Instead, they must presuppose that there is a prior independent explanation. They thus do not effectively respond to the argument that the Pond Analogy itself gives for Singer’s conclusion. More broadly, the Pond Analogy challenges our ability to give a coherent and plausible conception of the way in which the demands of benevolence interact with the agent’s other ends. In the final section of the paper, we argue that a couple of overlooked distinctions are crucial in explaining the relevant differences between Singer’s rescue case and ordinary cases of charity. We then suggest that broader versions of these distinctions might underwrite more generally the differences between the nature of the obligations imposed respectively by perfect and imperfect duties.

Refreshments from Hamilton Whole Foods

This event is supported by the Jerome Balmuth Fund and Marion Hoeflich Endowment.