Peter Singer, the atheist, moral philosopher, poses the following thought experiment about the moral obligation to save another human being:

A man wearing a thousand dollar suit sees a child drowning in the ocean and being pulled away by the currents.  He doesn’t have time to take off his suit and save the child.  Is the man morally obligated to jump in the ocean and ruin his suit to save the drowning child?

Now, most of us, I suspect would say “yes.”  But, Singer then asks, if you answered “yes” to that first question, consider this… 

A person is up late watching television, and an ad comes on stating that with a $1000 dollar donation, you can save a child’s life in a poverty stricken village recently ravaged by floods.  The person researches the organization and it appears to be legitimate.  Is this person now morally obligated to give $1000, knowing it will save a child in a poverty stricken village if they have the money to do so?  If not, how or why are the two examples different?  And what does the thought experiment tell us about our responsibilities in the context of the virtue of charity?

Have a wonderful day.