What do you think?
Rate this book
Death in a Shallow Pond: A Philosopher, a Drowning Child, and Strangers in Need
This audiobook narrated by Zeb Soanes offers a fascinating account of how Peter Singer's controversial "drowning child" thought experiment changed the way people think about charitable giving
Imagine You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.
Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists.
Imagine You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.
Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
Audible Audio
Published September 23, 2025
18 people are currently reading
406 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 14, 2025
I was annoyed by some parts of this book, but I'm glad I read it, and I may end up recommending it to many people down the line.
Chiefly, that's because it contains the best history of EA I've seen in a book, or maybe in any written format. I’m grateful for that. There were many stories I hadn’t heard, and despite my issues with the book, I trust Edmonds as a reporter (I was one of his sources, and found him to be a thorough fact-checker who asked good follow-up questions).
I also enjoyed the biography of Singer, and found the philosophical explanations clear (though I skimmed through some sections that were very familiar to me).
I’m disappointed that something like half the book is given over to objections to the Shallow Pond argument, most of them… shallow. Many chapters take the form “what if giving actually has bad consequence X?” while citing only one (or zero) points of evidence in favor of that somewhat counterintuitive idea, and giving little to no space for counterargument.
Much less time is given to ample evidence that donations and aid campaigns are often very effective. The word “PEPFAR” never comes up, and Edmonds handles both smallpox eradication and the war against polio in a single sentence that contains no numbers. But if we’re going to spend several pages considering that power disparities make giving problematic, how many pages should talk about the millions of parents raising children who would have died if it weren’t for the existence of well-targeted aid and charitable giving? Did Edmonds interview a single aid recipient in the developing world to see how they felt about it? (If he did, I don’t remember it coming up in the book — though it would have been tricky to pull off in any case.)
It would be entirely fair to write a book just about objections to the Shallow Pond argument, or to the EA project — as some people have. But given the book's aim to evaluate the topic comprehensively, I thought it wound up with a skewed analysis. (Though I am very biased.)
If you want to see a better response to this book than anything I’m going to write, look up the “Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics”.
Chiefly, that's because it contains the best history of EA I've seen in a book, or maybe in any written format. I’m grateful for that. There were many stories I hadn’t heard, and despite my issues with the book, I trust Edmonds as a reporter (I was one of his sources, and found him to be a thorough fact-checker who asked good follow-up questions).
I also enjoyed the biography of Singer, and found the philosophical explanations clear (though I skimmed through some sections that were very familiar to me).
I’m disappointed that something like half the book is given over to objections to the Shallow Pond argument, most of them… shallow. Many chapters take the form “what if giving actually has bad consequence X?” while citing only one (or zero) points of evidence in favor of that somewhat counterintuitive idea, and giving little to no space for counterargument.
Much less time is given to ample evidence that donations and aid campaigns are often very effective. The word “PEPFAR” never comes up, and Edmonds handles both smallpox eradication and the war against polio in a single sentence that contains no numbers. But if we’re going to spend several pages considering that power disparities make giving problematic, how many pages should talk about the millions of parents raising children who would have died if it weren’t for the existence of well-targeted aid and charitable giving? Did Edmonds interview a single aid recipient in the developing world to see how they felt about it? (If he did, I don’t remember it coming up in the book — though it would have been tricky to pull off in any case.)
It would be entirely fair to write a book just about objections to the Shallow Pond argument, or to the EA project — as some people have. But given the book's aim to evaluate the topic comprehensively, I thought it wound up with a skewed analysis. (Though I am very biased.)
If you want to see a better response to this book than anything I’m going to write, look up the “Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics”.
October 29, 2025
Really enjoyed the book. As someone who works in the effective altruism space I feel like the book gives a fair treatment of the history and arguments for and against the effective altruist approach to making the world a better place : )
November 18, 2025
This was an intense and thorny read. I started this section of the book (focusing on Effective Altruism and Peter Singer's ethical arguments) with curiosity, but I finished it with deeply mixed feelings and a profound skepticism I hadn't anticipated.
What I Appreciated (The Positive Side):
Challenging Personal Values: The book undeniably succeeded in forcing me to think deeply about my own values and the way I approach wealth and moral duty.
The Inspirational Power of the Arguments: Singer's "Shallow Pond" argument is irrefutable, clearly demonstrating that we have the power to prevent bad things from happening, and that is truly inspiring.
Intellectual Clarity: The way the text tackles complex ethical problems—such as the distinction between emotion and rationality in giving—was extremely helpful for understanding the mechanics of our decision-making.
What Led to My Doubts (The Negative Side):
Skepticism Towards Charities: After reading about "The Art of the Feel" and how organizations rely on psychological biases and images of "identifiable victims" (like the story of Aylan Kurdi) instead of systematic effectiveness, I grew more dubious about the true motivations of charitable organizations.
Fear of Exploitation: The discussion about how organizations can be "cutthroat and competitive" and how some aspects of Effective Altruism are labeled as "alien" or "cult-like" due to its language and positions, raised significant concerns about transparency and accountability.
Shocking Ethical Debate: I cannot overlook the controversy surrounding Peter Singer's views on the moral status of animal life compared to that of a newborn human or his controversial opinions regarding bestiality. These parts were shocking and left me with a sense that strict rationalist thinking (utilitarianism) can lead to profoundly anti-human conclusions.
Conclusion: This book is not a comfortable read; it is a severe intellectual exercise. If you are looking for a book to completely disrupt the way you think about charity and ethics, this will certainly achieve that. However, it will also leave you with bigger questions about the world we live in, and, specifically, about the philanthropy sector itself.
What I Appreciated (The Positive Side):
Challenging Personal Values: The book undeniably succeeded in forcing me to think deeply about my own values and the way I approach wealth and moral duty.
The Inspirational Power of the Arguments: Singer's "Shallow Pond" argument is irrefutable, clearly demonstrating that we have the power to prevent bad things from happening, and that is truly inspiring.
Intellectual Clarity: The way the text tackles complex ethical problems—such as the distinction between emotion and rationality in giving—was extremely helpful for understanding the mechanics of our decision-making.
What Led to My Doubts (The Negative Side):
Skepticism Towards Charities: After reading about "The Art of the Feel" and how organizations rely on psychological biases and images of "identifiable victims" (like the story of Aylan Kurdi) instead of systematic effectiveness, I grew more dubious about the true motivations of charitable organizations.
Fear of Exploitation: The discussion about how organizations can be "cutthroat and competitive" and how some aspects of Effective Altruism are labeled as "alien" or "cult-like" due to its language and positions, raised significant concerns about transparency and accountability.
Shocking Ethical Debate: I cannot overlook the controversy surrounding Peter Singer's views on the moral status of animal life compared to that of a newborn human or his controversial opinions regarding bestiality. These parts were shocking and left me with a sense that strict rationalist thinking (utilitarianism) can lead to profoundly anti-human conclusions.
Conclusion: This book is not a comfortable read; it is a severe intellectual exercise. If you are looking for a book to completely disrupt the way you think about charity and ethics, this will certainly achieve that. However, it will also leave you with bigger questions about the world we live in, and, specifically, about the philanthropy sector itself.
October 6, 2025
I'd abandoned Edmonds' bio of Derek Parfit as it seemed scattered with digression, diluted by trivia, and hobbled by pedestrian prose. But the thinker intrigued, as had EA since (like Parfit) I'd learned of William MacAskill's career in the New Yorker. And I've been following Peter Singer for decades, too.
So Death in a Shallow Pond logically pairs with Edmond's previous subject. And shares the strengths (any popularization of philosophy with real-life impacts potentially improving ordinary people and especially those far from any Oxbridge long table or seminar niche is welcome) and weaknesses (same as in paragraph one). I wish he'd incorporated a nuanced critique of how NGOs and foreign aid and philanthropic campaigns may weaken the resolve of African and Latin American governments and institutions to take responsibility for their own actions: see the testimony of early Peace Corps writers Moritz Thomsen, Peter Mattheisson, and Paul Theroux. Instead, Edmonds doesn't even mention it.
Similarly, he skips about Singer, with the initial investigation roaming afar into culture and politics from his formative years, which maybe is needed for a younger generation, but feels too much potted history of postwar Western concerns. Then, after examining objections to EA, he jumps back in a coda to look at Singer's controversial positions, which seems after the fact and disjointed. However, at least Death in a Shallow Pond despite uneven coverage does apply academic pursuit to practical matters, in an era when most professors prefer to pose as social justice warriors while safely tenured in sinecures.
So Death in a Shallow Pond logically pairs with Edmond's previous subject. And shares the strengths (any popularization of philosophy with real-life impacts potentially improving ordinary people and especially those far from any Oxbridge long table or seminar niche is welcome) and weaknesses (same as in paragraph one). I wish he'd incorporated a nuanced critique of how NGOs and foreign aid and philanthropic campaigns may weaken the resolve of African and Latin American governments and institutions to take responsibility for their own actions: see the testimony of early Peace Corps writers Moritz Thomsen, Peter Mattheisson, and Paul Theroux. Instead, Edmonds doesn't even mention it.
Similarly, he skips about Singer, with the initial investigation roaming afar into culture and politics from his formative years, which maybe is needed for a younger generation, but feels too much potted history of postwar Western concerns. Then, after examining objections to EA, he jumps back in a coda to look at Singer's controversial positions, which seems after the fact and disjointed. However, at least Death in a Shallow Pond despite uneven coverage does apply academic pursuit to practical matters, in an era when most professors prefer to pose as social justice warriors while safely tenured in sinecures.
December 8, 2025
David Edmonds presents a compelling read on the rise, spread, micro-falls, and failures of effective altruism over the years. It’s filled with academic tidbits — philosophy experiments that have been used to talk about abortion and utilitarianism, EA’s evolution from closing gaps in charity across distance, species, and most recently time.
I especially liked the second half of the book, which presents various arguments against EA. These include the fact that maybe altruism is inherently and practically a personal act; the harmful effects of foreign aid; the distinction between charity and reparations, and the importance of history in distinguishing the two; and the paternalism of it all. Specific notes:
- Peter Singer doesn’t approve of longtermism?!
- Philosophy is scaffolded with crazy crazy thought experiments. They’re such unique pieces of text (simple, often magical, immediately evocative, yet rich enough to question conventional thought), I do wonder if LLMs could generate them
- Peter Singer has had a long history of cancellations, for defending the morality of post-birth abortion and bestiality. Princeton gave him a bomb scanner bc of all the death threats!!
I like a lot about this book’s structure. First half about the history of ideas, some about their effects in practice. First half about the opportunities/potential of an idea, second about the unanticipated harms. I want more books like this!
I especially liked the second half of the book, which presents various arguments against EA. These include the fact that maybe altruism is inherently and practically a personal act; the harmful effects of foreign aid; the distinction between charity and reparations, and the importance of history in distinguishing the two; and the paternalism of it all. Specific notes:
- Peter Singer doesn’t approve of longtermism?!
- Philosophy is scaffolded with crazy crazy thought experiments. They’re such unique pieces of text (simple, often magical, immediately evocative, yet rich enough to question conventional thought), I do wonder if LLMs could generate them
- Peter Singer has had a long history of cancellations, for defending the morality of post-birth abortion and bestiality. Princeton gave him a bomb scanner bc of all the death threats!!
I like a lot about this book’s structure. First half about the history of ideas, some about their effects in practice. First half about the opportunities/potential of an idea, second about the unanticipated harms. I want more books like this!
October 8, 2025
The author delves into the thought experiment ("The Drowning Child") posed by philosopher Peter Singer that intends to show that: If we can prevent something bad from occurring without sacrificing anything of equal moral value, we ought, morally to do it. Edmonds then traces the impact Singer's view had on philanthropy. Fascinating in the 1st 1/2 a bit flat in the 2nd.
October 10, 2025
A decent biography of Peter Singer, Will MacAskill, Toby Ord, and the Effective Altruism movement, focused around the Shallow Pond thought experiment from "Famine, Affluence and Morality". The second half presents some mild criticisms towards EA. Nothing new, but it's not bad as a biography of Effective Altruism, and it's pretty easy to read.
November 4, 2025
Pretty quick read. I enjoyed the first half more than the second, but it was well worth the time. I feel like the early EA proponents were naive in much the same way those of us in the early web/social days were naive about how big money would negatively affect more positive optimistic goals and our broader ability to counterbalance.
November 30, 2025
The main takeaway is this. Almost everyone could be doing more to help those in need. Significantly more.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews