Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Papa Bear
@pbear988
Singers ‘Drowning Child’ You see a child drowning in a river. You don’t have time to take off your clothes which cost $1,000, are you morally obligated to jump in the river, ruining your clothes, to save the drowning child?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Papa Bear
@pbear988
If you answered ‘yes’, consider this... you are watching TV and an ad comes on claiming that a $1000 donation will save an unwell child’s life. You research the charity and it’s legit, you have the money, are you morally obligated to donate & save the child? If not, why? How are the two examples different?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
DegenDex 🎩🔵
@degendex
As the only person by the riverside at the time you spot the kid struggling, as likely the only person able to save the child, compared to the tv advertisement, it’s a direct petition from fate, an ethical obligation directed squarely at you to act. Just for starters.
4 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Papa Bear
@pbear988
The value of the life saved is equal in both. It’s interesting how the impetus to act is so much more obvious in the first scenario, perhaps because you feel like only you can in that moment. Perhaps feeling that other people will help in the second leads to an inertia we collectively would be better off without
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Papa Bear
@pbear988
Thanks for engaging I thought it was an interesting thought experiment I wanted to give you a nice tip because I appreciated someone replying, but there’s a glitch with allowance so accept my 95 $DEGEN
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Papa Bear
@pbear988
1500 $DEGEN hopefully it works
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
