Case File: If you see a stranger drowning you are morally obligated to help.

I. Introduction:
In the realm of ethics, the question of one's moral duty to assist those in peril often arises.
One such scenario that elicits moral deliberation is the obligation to aid a drowning stranger.
The most famous thought experiment that discusses the duties of an individual in such a
scenario is Peter Singer’s “Drowning Child.” He argues that the only cost to the individual is
their ruined clothes, so if one believes that they must save the child, they also have the
moral duty to donate the value of the clothes they are wearing to save a child from dying. As
you see, the underlying premise of this debate revolves around the ethical responsibility of
individuals to intervene when confronted with life-threatening situations.

This case file is meant to introduce some of the concepts that you may encounter in debates
on this topic. You should use these arguments as a foundation to write your own case and
think of or research additional points to make. These are not complete arguments, so
repeating them verbatim will not win you any debates. You have to do some of the thinking
yourself!

II. Pro Arguments: The Duty to Save

The Principle of Humanity:
Proponents argue that a fundamental ethical principle, often termed the "principle of
humanity," necessitates assisting those in need. It posits that individuals have a moral duty
to prevent harm when it is within their means to do so, because failure to do so makes us
less human, empathetic, and objectively worse people. As a result, out of the duty to one’s
own humanity, one ought save the drowning stranger.

Social Contract and Reciprocity:

Advocates posit that living within a society implies a social contract wherein individuals
agree to certain obligations for the greater good. Helping a drowning stranger can be seen as
fulfilling one's part of this contract, fostering reciprocity and societal cohesion. Essentially, if
you expect others to help and benefit you, you have a moral obligation to save others,
because your expectation implies that you owe it to others to extend the same care that you
desire for yourself.

Empathy and Altruism:

It is suggested that humans possess an inherent capacity for empathy and altruism. The act
of saving a drowning stranger is viewed as an expression of these innate qualities,
reinforcing the idea that moral duty extends beyond personal boundaries. This argument
basically establishes that it is morally good for one to save a drowning stranger, therefore
doing so also makes one a good person by exhibiting those traits we value as good in
humanity.

Legal and Cultural Expectations:

In many jurisdictions, there are legal obligations to render assistance in emergency
situations. Beyond the legal aspect, cultural norms often reinforce the idea that helping
those in distress is a virtuous act, strengthening the argument for moral duty. Essentially, this
is the argument based on selfishness. Because not saving the drowning stranger might either
cause you or your family shame, or because not saving them may cause you to be punished,
you should save them for your own self-interest.

III. Con Arguments: Ethical Complexity and Personal Autonomy

Ethical Complexity of Obligations:
Skeptics argue that determining a universal moral obligation in complex situations like
witnessing a stranger drowning oversimplifies ethical considerations. They suggest that
context, risk assessment, and other factors must also be taken into account. Basically,
questions such as “are there other people, who can better solve the issue,” “can I swim or
could I make the situation worse by trying to save them and then needing to be rescued
myself,” and so on complicate the question. That being said, what it means to “help” a
stranger is also not fully clear. However, this argument does have limitations, as there are
very low effort ways of helping, such as calling the authorities, finding someone who can
help or trying to throw a rope in the water which might already fulfill the Pro side burden, so
use this type of argument only if your opponent claims that you must risk yourself or jump in
the water or rescue them at all cost to yourself.

Cultural Relativity of Morality:

Objectors may posit that moral values vary across cultures, and what might be considered a
moral obligation in one cultural context may not hold the same weight in another. This
argument suggests that imposing a universal duty could overlook cultural diversity in ethical
perspectives. This can be a useful response against claims that you must save others because
you may face social ostracisation for not aiding others.

Limits of Obligation and Autonomy:

Some argue that moral obligations are context-dependent, and imposing a duty to aid
strangers in all circumstances may undermine personal autonomy. This emphasizes the
importance of recognizing the limits of moral obligations and respecting individual choice
and autonomy. This argument comes down to the explanation of what obligations mean and
to whom we owe them. Think about it as follows: while it may be laudable to save others,
that doesn’t mean you are obligated. Unless you consented to this (e.g. by being a
firefighter, doctor, policeman, lifeguard, etc.) you have no obligation to do anything at all for
other people. Something being “nice” does not make it obligatory. Many moral frameworks
maintain similar positions, for instance in a communitarian moral framework, you owe the
highest obligation to yourself, then your family, then your immediate community, then your
state, and only at the last position do you owe duties to other people. By arguing that you
must always help the stranger, this implies a moral obligation of the highest degree, which
you can argue against in a great number of ways. Libertarians might, for instance, argue that
you are absolutely free and only obliged to yourself. Anything beyond the duty to the self is a
free choice that may be laudable, but not an obligation that makes inaction immoral.

Legal and Liability Concerns:

Detractors may also highlight the legal and liability aspects of intervening in emergency
situations. Concerns about potential legal consequences or liabilities for unintended
outcomes could dissuade individuals from taking action. Saving someone who doesn’t want
to be rescued can cause you to be sued, endangering them through your “rescue” without
proper training might make you a criminal, and so on.
IV. Conclusion
As you have no doubt noticed, a lot of the intuitive arguments for this topic are on the Pro
side, while Con faces a bit of a more uphill battle with what our gut tells us. There are some
thing that are important for you to consider to both capitalise on the strength of the Pro
case and to try and undermine it from Con:
1) Is inaction a form of action and therefore itself an immoral act?
2) What does helping look like? This debate is very difficult to win from Con if help
refers to any amount of help, such as calling emergency services, because it is such a
small act that could save someone’s life. Con wants to try its best to force Pro to take
a stance that one must—according to their logic—do the maximum that they can to
fulfil the moral obligation according to Pro’s claims, and then explain why those are
laudable, not obligatory!
3) Context can make or break this debate, so explaining what situations are likely and
how they impact the moral obligation of an actor can be central to winning this
debate, so try your best to set up a realistic context for the debate.