Reading time: 2 minutes
On 29 January, the guest of MCC's Center for Constitutional Politics was David Edmonds, Senior Research Associate at the University of Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and radio producer at the BBC World Service, who delivered a lecture based on his book Death in a Shallow Pond as part of the Center’s research seminar series.
In his presentation, Edmonds examined the origins, impact, and criticisms of Peter Singer’s well-known “drowning child” thought experiment. His central claim was that Singer’s seemingly simple proposition- that there is little moral justification for distinguishing between saving a nearby child from certain death and ignoring the suffering of distant strangers for reasons of personal convenience - fundamentally reshaped debates on charitable giving and global responsibility. Edmonds emphasized that the thought experiment functioned not merely as a philosophical device but also served as a direct inspiration for the emergence of the Effective Altruism movement. At the same time, he highlighted the significant criticisms it has attracted, particularly the concern that it tends to sideline the structural and political causes of suffering.
The discussion following the lecture addressed several related themes. Particular attention was given to the relationship between Christianity and altruism, as well as to reflections on the principle of ordo amoris - that is, whether there exists a morally justifiable hierarchy in determining to whom we owe primary obligations. The conversation also prominently featured the utilitarian roots of Effective Altruism and the limitations that follow from this intellectual lineage. In addition, participants considered the role of philosophical and moral thought experiments in social mobilization, and the ways in which such theoretical tools can simultaneously inspire action while also simplifying complex social realities.
In sum, the seminar revisited the question of whether an apparently simple thought experiment can exert a lasting influence on our moral self-understanding in a world where the scale of preventable suffering is almost beyond comprehension. According to Edmonds’ argument, the “shallow pond” analogy, despite the criticisms levelled against it, continues to challenge us to confront our own responsibilities and to reconsider what it truly means to intervene when we are in a position to help.
