Thought experiment «DROWNING CHILD» (English)
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- You're out and about when you hear a loud screaming as you pass a pond. You see a wildly flailing boy who is only just staying afloat. Do you save him? If you do, would that mean you also have to donate to save starving children in Africa?
What is right? What is real? And who am I, after all? Philosophy asks life's big questions. We present these questions as animated thought experiments, and thereby show how fascinating and entertaining it is to ponder life.
srf.ch/filosofix
--
Tought experiment: Peter Singer
Animation: Nino Christen
Speaker: Blake Worrell
Music: Martin Bezzola
SRF Kultur / SRG SSR
That's a mighty big assumption to say that I would jump into a pond to save a drowning person.
Is it not that we feel that anyone can help those starving children- its not down to us, but in the case of the drwoning child, there is no one else around so only you can help. Perhaps if there were other people around the drowning child that could help, you would be less inclined to jump in and help them yourself.
What if there were lots of people standing around who could help, but they weren't helping? Wouldn't you jump in then?
It is not. Unless there are 0 kids dying of starvation in Africa, you are still the only person who decides whether they live or die.
I agree that we often feel it’s someone else’s responsibility to fix things. In these examples it shows that if an issue isn’t personal (say, a child you can see in front of you or that of someone you know) we treat it as an abstract concept and rid ourselves of the guilt that would be associated with not helping a child(ren) in need.
An excellent restatement of the bystander effect.
I'm studying this in philosophy right now.
The moral dilemma here is that we should view every life as sacred (Singer is a utilitarian). It doesn't matter if that child is thousands of miles away or right in front of you, a life is a life. You know children in the third world are dying, and you have a means to stop that from happening (and there are relief programs that directly support these third world countries!), your $20 you spent on buying lunch could save a child in the third world from dying from dysentery. Singer is concluding that the fact you have this knowledge and still do nothing about it is analogous to a drowning child in front of you at a minor expense to yourself, and if you choose to ignore it, you are morally blameworthy.
What if you saved up for months with every spare penny you had, to buy a suit for an important job interview, because you knew looking sharp would help get you hired. Are you obligated to give away every spare cent you have to kids in Africa? Where does the line get drawn?
IT IS ABOUT "familiar & unfamiliar". Known vs Unknown! "DIRECT Knowledge vs INDIRECT Supposition". The Things WE KNOW vs the "things" 'that may be'.
With the case of donating to charity, you never know who else has donated or how much. You can easily come to the conclusion that many other people have gotten the same flyer or have donated to this charity. Or if you have donated to a charity before, it’s not like you get an account on what specific child’s life you saved or anything (in most cases, I’ll say). You aren’t really aware of your efforts or how much your specific money is needed. The sense of urgency isn’t really there. However, if there is a child drowning in front of you, with no one else around, you get the sense that there is real, tangible danger, and that you are the only person in this situation who can help the child. Same for if a friend in Africa needed money to save their son. You are more personally aware of the situation and your place in it. My thoughts, at least.
The simple answer to this behaviour is that People tends to react more to Seeing and less to what they Hear about it.
We can see the boy drowning with our own eyes so we tend to react and help
We have seen the friend with our own eyes before who called for help now so we tend to react of helping that friend
But if someone says there is a boy drowning somewhere that we cant see, then the possibilities of us reacting to help would be less or maybe not at all. Same way if someone we havent seen calls us and say that one of our friend is in danger and needs some financial help, sure we would be sceptical to send the money. So, its fairly natural and obvious for us to not to give an immediate reaction of helping to a starving child somewhere which we just heard about but havent seen with our own eyes yet.
A question I often ask myself and which kind of overwhelms me. Is der any border where to stop helping? When is helping enough?
first, it is good if you having this trait. Help other people is good but if you helping them and they not improving their state then it is worthless. Why that person we help doesn't show any sign of improvement? i can think two possible answers. Probably wrong, you need to think of it. First, probably your method of helping is not efficient or out of the scope, meaning that, the person you help need food but you give your tuition to be free for that person only. For this part, you need to change the way you see the person. He need food not a free tuition fee. Second, probably the people you helped was not really cared about your help, meaning that, the person only used you to solve their problem as quickly as possible such as use your money to pay their debt to landlord. For this part, that why you need to research about that person by gossiping with others (this is the only benefit of gossiping that i can think of) to see their view on the person that you helping plus you need to establish a spy i meant not literally from spy agency but enough from friends of his. Conclusion, try to be make an open communication with him to see if there is a solution to your problem.Otherwise, just love yourself first because as human, we cannot satisfy all human needs. peace
The real difference between this 2 childs is very simple !
The first is in danger, if you safe is life = is life is safe. he no longer need help for live.
The second is also in danger, but if you safe is life today, tomorow he will die anyway if you don't continue !
So you're saying that if you saw the first child drowning again (in the exact same situation) you would not stop and help? Just under the assumption that they will be in the same precarious circumstance again and will die? There is no way of knowing if the second child will "die anyway". You might be saving a life.
Someone else could have already mentioned this, but...
There are far more negative social consequences to not rescuing a drowning child. What if there were cameras that witnessed the incident.
On top of the negative social consequences, in our society (USA, France, etc, etc), there are very likely circumstances where not helping the child could turn into legal consequences or even murder, for not helping the drowning child. At the VERY least, when the media catches the attention of the situation, you risk those social consequences tenfold. You're likely going to get 10000000 death threats and at least physical harm threats, enough to where you may feel you need to move somewhere to get away from all the negative attention. Now your life is ruined (rightfully? Perhaps, but that is another philosophical debate entirely).
There could be, but likely zero negative consequences to deciding you do not want to send money to a child in Africa through a proxy organization.
Also, the end of story truly is...
One is directly in front of your face to see and the other is not. This is likely the biggest determination in deciding to rescue the drowning child while not helping the child in Africa.
God bless you Mr.Peter Singer .......
I was in church this week in the UK, and there was a second collection for an aunt of a random parishoner who the priest said needed 1600 quid a month for cancer treatment in Nigeria. I gave nothing.
1. Nigeria is the most corrupt country in the world so the chances this is a scam are higher than elsewhere.
2. The priest seemed like a patsy who would believe a scammer.
3. 1600 quid per month is a lot of money. For that money you could save dozens and dozens of poor people in that region of the world.
4. The woman with cancer wasn't the mother of 9 children, just some single African woman who happened to have a relative in the UK capable of asking for charity for her. Seemed like emotional manipulation to me.
5. I am going to give away a fix amount of money to charity, therefore I want it to go where it will do the most good. This did not seem like it.
One is a tangiable thing happening right infront of your very eyes. The other is an organisation asking you for money, with six figure salary bosses running the show. That's the difference.
I think part of it is the personal connection to the scenario
These arguments are so weak. They're three entirely different situations. They're so different you might as well be comparing a starving child to a burning building and a crashing air plane. They're all wildly different situations and cannot be used to justify each other. I have a personal connection to my friend's kid. The drowning child has no one else but me in the given example.
But if you think about it, that is diffusion of responsibility, the idea that if there are more people around, you won't necessarily feel inclined to help out because you think another person will. I personally don't think that is right, and I think everyone should try and do something to help out no matter how many people are around.
Liqui Frames, the "philosophical thoughts", and there is nothing philosophical about thjs, are so weak. there is no need to explain why its weak.
If anyone ask me if i will save someone, i will just ask back his question to him.
It's easier to trust someone you know than a corporation who "says" children will receive money. On that note, why can't these companies, who spend millions of dollars showcasing emotional propaganda to your TV screen, just use those funds?
i know my friend and his son though so ofc id be more inclined to help him. on top of that there are negative social consequences to not helping my friend.
Adrian G you don’t know the drowning kid though
@@trevormoran6158 It could still be said there are far more negative social consequences to not rescuing a drowning child. What if there was cameras that witnessed the incident.
On top of the negative social consequences, in our society (USA, France, etc, etc), there are very likely circumstances where not helping the child could turn into legal consequences or even murder, for not helping the drowning child. At the VERY least, when the media catches the attention of the situation, you risk those social consequences tenfold. You're likely going to get 10000000 death threats and at least physical harm threats, enough to where you may feel you need to move somewhere to get away from all the negative attention. Now your life is ruined (rightfully? Perhaps, but that is another philosophical debate entirely).
@@Rakkasan11b So would it be right to leave the drowning kid to die if it was in a secluded location where no one could ever know that you were there?
canned foods and money for charities in africa do freuqently fall into the hands of paramilitaries , resulting in more war. normally, the charities know this and take advantage of it, receiving money for their ignorance. this is not always the case, though
If you are sending money to your friend you are not sending it in any way that can be intercepted by anyone else (you don't do that in an envelope through post). I know it's a thought experiment, but these things rub me the wrong way, imprecisions that is.
charity organizations take a rate off the donation which kinda sucks, so when u given them 10 Franks, 10 Franks donot go to the child. I advocate donation and stuff like that but some ppl donot donate to reputable ones and that's where they get their bad rep. another reason for that behavior is the emotional capital and empathetic connection we make with a person, for an unknown person we share non if little for a friend or a fam member, we know their lives,ups downs, their story, we have an empathetic connection. infact it's been shown that if u are to even give a name, a story behind an inanimate object u and I are more likely to create a small empathetic connection to it.
Suppose there are ten people walking on that bridge. Should they all jump in to save the drowning kid? This is so stupid. I thought he was going to bring up racism. The only thing good about this video is that he didn’t.
Act from the heart not the mind. One is instinctive, the other is calculated.
Nice
i’m so mad because the given logic is true however the two things are still not equivalent. but he’s still RIGHT
If you wire money to your friend there is no risk of getting it taken but if you donate your money to a charity there is a good chance it pays for someones paycheck or countless other costs for the charity
😊
Why do people make kids when they can't assume their responsibility when they can't feed themselves. You don't need a Ph.D. to understand that, if you can't feed yourself you can't feed someone else.
Like you stuff
Can someone please explain this to me, what's this?
Morality is subjective.
Apparently this thought expirament never heard of pay pal lol
a good communication skill maybe can easier the life itself ... for instance the first problem that was encountered by this women , she can maybe ( in theoretical ) save the child and go to the office and talk about the problem you encountered so that the lecture can be either postpone or continue ( using same soaked shirt ) ... i think about what type of lecture .. either viva or normal lecture for students ... the information was not clearly stated ... the solution for these problem maybe in future , this women need to spare some shirt in her car ... the second one was about trust issue ... same idea ... she need to analysis the person in charge or organization based on the statistical data ... if its still failed to solve this problem ... well what can i said ... this problem was in fact a social science problems ... i am not an expert in these kind of problem ... hopefully my reviews can settle down the problem ... btw , this kind of illustration is really tempting my mind ... good video
How do you make such videos? What software do you use to create this kind of animation?
save boy cuz there is nobody else to save him and did not send money cuz there will be some other who will send him.. hehehe
There are reliable ways to send money to your friends.
Everyone else can consume, as long as Africa doesn't.
Not really a good thought experiment... most of us are aware of the fact that shady businesses can hide behind a mask of a starving child. It is about knowing you are actually helping rather than being conned. Your friends are less likely to lie... and so despite the chances of them not receiving your money, you still try to help. So it is not about loss of value... it is not about distance or relationship, it is about not being exploited. In your mind, the effort to help should only be made if it is actually needed or most likely needed. I think we should all smile at that.... we help when needed.
the now 50 cent stamp asking you for a dollar to help could have went to feed, plus knowing the person and or live events plays a part, plus would africa feed a starving white child in the USA if they had it, and many are rich there also ..etc
I thank God that I wouldn't help either kid 🤣
I don't know that boy. I don't feel interested in that way.
But with Islamic mentality, I would.
Not that hard to figure out, do whichever that makes you feel good.
Nonsense scenario
It's not morally wrong to let the kid drown.
The "philosophical thoughts" on this channel are so basic, bland, and pseudo moralist. there is no thought process, the concept behind the video is absurd and the message is so, so so weeaak. i'm shocked this has that many views. it is weaak!