Philosophy

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?

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?

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.

Trombones
Dolphins
Hot Sauce
Electrophoresis 