Singer is right to point out the psychological differences in how we respond to the toddler in the pond as opposed to the distant starving child, but wrong if he concludes that we ought to be as generous to one as the other.

There are lots of reasons for not giving money to try to save the life of someone you have never met, in a country you have never visited, and in a culture you do not understand. Here are some:

1. You don't know how much of the money will reach the child.

2. You don't know how much of the money will go to maintain the aid agency.

3. You don't know how much of the money will be taken by corruption in the child's country.

4. The money you and others give may even fuel corruption.

5. The money you give may undermine self-reliance and appropriate development in the child's country. Giving aid may do more harm than good.

6. You cannot save all the children who are dying and you cannot decide whom to choose or how.

7. If the child has negligible prospects for a healthy and happy life, saving their life may only increase their suffering later.

8. In a country where food and water resources are stretched to the limit, saving one child's life may actually cause others' deaths.

9. We all bear some responsibility for world poverty and suffering and millions of us could give money if we thought it right; but only you can save the child in the pond.

Every one of these arguments is contentious, and all could be countered, but they suggest we should think carefully about the consequences of giving aid to try to save lives. Personally they lead me not to do so. I give regular support to a number of charities but not including aid agencies. I used to support "Population Concern" until they changed their name to "Interact Worldwide" and shifted their focus away from contraception and woman's control of fertility.

I am not suggesting that my own moral response is right: I am suggesting that the two cases given are fundamentally different and we are right to respond differently to them.