(P1) A wealth person's donating their discretionary income to poverty relief is morally equivalent to ruining one's clothes to save a child drowning in a shallow pond. ... (P2) Ruining one's clothes to save a child drowning in a shallow pond is morally obligatory. ... (C1) Therefore, wealthy people are morally obligated to donate their discretionary income to poverty relief.

Question

Answer

Con: Against (P2), ruining one’s clothes to save a child drowning in a shallow pond is not morally obligatory if there is someone better positioned to save the child.

Answer

Con: Someone who indifferently walks past a drowning child is clearly morally worse (more blameworthy?) than someone who doesn't donate money to a charity. Plausibly, that intuition is due to the fact that these omissions are not morally equivalent

Answer

Con: The moral equivalence claimed in (P1) seems to be affirmed from the viewpoint of a wealthy person who has plenty of clothes to spare. This seems to center the viewpoint of the wealthy inappropriately.

Answer

Con: Against (P1) (moral equivalence), donating to poverty relief is something that anyone can do, but if there's a child drowning in a shallow pond, you might be the only person who notices the child.

Poverty Relief (2022 Central APA)

Pros

Cons

Against (P1) (moral equivalence), donating to poverty relief is something that anyone can do, but if there's a child drowning in a shallow pond, you might be the only person who notices the child.

Someone who indifferently walks past a drowning child is clearly morally worse (more blameworthy?) than someone who doesn't donate money to a charity. Plausibly, that intuition is due to the fact that these omissions are not morally equivalent

Against (P2), ruining one’s clothes to save a child drowning in a shallow pond is not morally obligatory if there is someone better positioned to save the child.

The moral equivalence claimed in (P1) seems to be affirmed from the viewpoint of a wealthy person who has plenty of clothes to spare. This seems to center the viewpoint of the wealthy inappropriately.

Selected claim, supporting its parent

Con claim 1, children below

Against (P1) (moral equivalence), donating to poverty relief is something that anyone can do, but if there's a child drowning in a shallow pond, you might be the only person who notices the child.

Con claim 2, children below

Someone who indifferently walks past a drowning child is clearly morally worse (more blameworthy?) than someone who doesn't donate money to a charity. Plausibly, that intuition is due to the fact that these omissions are not morally equivalent

Con claim 3

Against (P2), ruining one’s clothes to save a child drowning in a shallow pond is not morally obligatory if there is someone better positioned to save the child.

Con claim 4

The moral equivalence claimed in (P1) seems to be affirmed from the viewpoint of a wealthy person who has plenty of clothes to spare. This seems to center the viewpoint of the wealthy inappropriately.