Thought experiment «DROWNING CHILD» (English) #filosofix

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.

--
Tought experiment: Peter Singer
Animation: Nino Christen
Speaker: Blake Worrell
Music: Martin Bezzola

SRF Kultur / SRG SSR

[franklinturtle]

That's a mighty big assumption to say that I would jump into a pond to save a drowning person.

[joealexander]

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.

[Tryptophania]

A question I often ask myself and which kind of overwhelms me. Is der any border where to stop helping? When is helping enough?

[blakemarb]

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.

[MyelinProductions]

IT IS ABOUT "familiar & unfamiliar". Known vs Unknown! "DIRECT Knowledge vs INDIRECT Supposition". The Things WE KNOW vs the "things" 'that may be'.

[ryushinawa]

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.

[msmercury]

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.

[marycrowley]

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 !

[northbaseuk]

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 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.

[Rakkasanb]

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 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.

[JordanMoffitt]

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?

[adriang]

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.

[yawthewonder]

I think part of it is the personal connection to the scenario

[JohnSmith-odeg]

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

[xliquidflames]

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.

[Munisk]

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.

[pmz]

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.

[loganmitchell]

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

[thomasthehardguy]

How do you make such videos? What software do you use to create this kind of animation?