What do ya'll think of the following argument that one often sees: Imagine you're walking along wearing $100 shoes near a pond and you notice a child drowning. You can, without risk to yourself, save the child from drowning. But you'll wreck your shoes in the process. Here's the argument: 1) You ought to save the drowning child. If you failed to save the child for the sake of your $100 shoes, you would be doing something extremely morally repugnant. 2) There is no morally relevant difference between the drowning child in front of you and some child dying in the developing world of preventable diseases for which good aid organizations exist. 3) So, you ought to donate significantly more to help folks dying in the developing world of preventable diseases, and failing to do so is as bad as failing to save the drowning child. The tough thing about this argument it it seems to me extremely plausible, but it has the conclusion that we're all doing something really morally wrong. And it doesn't feel right to just dismiss it with a shrug and a thought like "yeah maybe we could all stand to do more to help the less fortunate but such is life".