Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Papa Bear ๐ต๐น๐๐งพ๐ญ
@pbear988
Singers โDrowning Childโ You see a child drowning in a river. You donโt 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 ๐ต๐น๐๐งพ๐ญ
@pbear988
If you answered โyesโ, consider this...ย you are watching TV and an ad comes on claiming that a $1000 donation will save an unwell childโs life. You research the charity and itโs legit, you have the money, are you morally obligated to donate & save the child?ย If not, why? How are the two examples different?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
DegenDex ๐ฉ๐ต
@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, itโs a direct petition from fate, an ethical obligation directed squarely at you to act. Just for starters.
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Papa Bear ๐ต๐น๐๐งพ๐ญ
@pbear988
The value of the life saved is equal in both. Itโs 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