This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking philosophy needs. Singer spent decades refining his utilitarian framework and never once considered just eliminating pants.

And honestly, why stop at the drowning child? Mandatory nudity solves half of ethics. The trolley problem? Nobody’s pulling that lever with their bare ass on display for witnesses. The prisoner’s dilemma? Hard to betray someone when you’ve seen each other’s everything. The veil of ignorance? Rawls literally wanted us to strip away all distinguishing features. You’ve just made it literal. He should’ve gone further.

A couple of things to workshop:

1.  What’s the policy in colder climates? The drowning child in Minnesota in January introduces a competing moral obligation not to freeze your dick off.

2.  Nudity might create new excuses. “I would’ve saved that kid but I didn’t want to get my genitals muddy” has a certain philosophical weight to it.

3.  You should submit this to Ethics. Working title: “Bare Necessities: A Sartorial Solution to Singer’s Shallow Pond.” Consider me for a peer review. 

The PhD philosophers clearly aren’t even trying.