Would You Save A Boy From Drowning?

Would you save a boy who is drowning in front of your eyes? And thinking about this question, do you base your answer on the character you strive to become, on the behavior you want to see in the world, a cost and benefit analysis, your own self-interest, or would you just follow what feels right? Let’s try to answer these questions with the theory of four famous thinkers: Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, and Mill.

SUPPORT us to help understand human beings better!

DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:

SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:

SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:

VISIT our website 🌐:

CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones☑️ :

THANKS to our patrons

COLLABORATORS
Script: Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Production: Selina Bador
Fact-checking: Ludovico Saint Amour Di Chanaz
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda

SOUNDTRACKS
The Haunted Manor - HWIYO
Midnight Mischief - Jonathan Boyle

DIG DEEPER with these top videos, games and resources:

Read about the Trolley ProblemListen to Russ Roberts and Mike Munger talk about Wild Problems and what it means to be a good person.

Watch the video of D&D alignment system and moral philosophy

Read more about Utilitarianism

Read more about Deontology

Read more about Virtue Ethics

Read more about Nietzsche’s views on morality

SOURCES

CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
Visit our website to see recommend activity on this topic!

CHAPTER
00:00 Introduction
01:01 Virtue theorists
02:07 Utilitarians
03:17 Deontologist
04:13 Nietzsche
04:48 Koppel's observation
05:50 What would you do?
06:16 Patrons credits
06:26 Ending

#sproutsschools #moral #philosophy #ethics #kant #nietzsche #mill #utilitarianism

[FractalShoggoth]

Obviously the solution is to challenge the boy to honorable naval combat.

[Gaspardrow]

I would say:
- If it's in your immediate power and no one else can, you must.
- If it's in your immediate power and others can too, you should.
- If it's hard, doubtful, far and/or dangerous, only if you want and are ready for the consequences. (You have a moral obligation to yourself, your family and society first)

We all want to live in a world were people do the right thing, but realistically, not everyone is like that, they are by far the minority.

[shanesettuba]

The news paper guys saw the boy and decided to help him by writing for others to read his story. Funny stuff.

[VersieKilgannon]

I'd donate to a charity putting forth an effort to rescue the boy. If he's out in the middle of the ocean, there isn't much I can actually do to help him beyond finding the right people already trying to help him and assisting them in the cause in the best way I can because that's the right thing to do

[yessir]

Nietzsche would praise the boy for having master morality and the will to power to improve his life in the first place.

[holysong]

Well, Nobody in their right mind is gonna take extraordinary risks to help someone they barely even know. However if it happens to be within their control to avert a thing as harrowing as death, I believe most people would do it.

[grapeshott]

Most teachers in ethics classes would shy away from teaching anything about morality of Nietzsche.

[nhansen]

For me it's going to boil down to whether or not I have the means to save the boy. If I'm in the presence of someone who needs help and I can, I will do what I can do. Sometimes that's going to mean seeking out others who can do what I can not do. Means and ability are very important. If I try to rescue someone when I do not have the means and ability I could quickly find myself in need of rescuing. Charitable organizations work because it makes it possible for people to pool their resources.

[Mr_Munene]

I don’t know which theory my reason for saving the boys leans towards but I’d save the boy because if I was the boy, I’d want to be saved..

[raymk]

You can mix and match the wisdom of these great thinkers based on the situation. May you become wise in pursuing what is right.

[panof]

Answer for me is empathy. It’s hard to empathise with two strangers you don’t even know where they are. But it’s easier to empathise with that kid you know that he’s there so I would help the kid.

[TheTrueEcho]

One thing I have noticed about increasingly modern philosophers is the rejection of self-fulfillment for self-fulfillment's sake.

The true answer is "save the boy if you want and are confident you can. If you succeed, you have helped someone, and debating about what that reveals about your nature is pointless."

[wolfsmaul-ger]

if i had the means to save him, i feel like to me its a "just feels right" thing but i would also like to see helpful behaviour around the world generally, i feel like being a good example to the right people can change their lives and imrpove how they treat others

[ilzamerson]

What seems to be more reasonable and practical action is to give the location of the boy to the competent authorities so they can muster the meanings to help the situation.
By doing so, one is attending to both racional and ethical conduct with no interest in promoting himself or sacrificing his wellbeing. This is a good example of social attitude and also individual consciousness.

[thelegendaryblackbeastofar]

Actually, this clip's breakdown of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy sounds like Ayn Rand's NOT Nietzsche's.

The way I've interpreted Nietzsche's teachings is: "selfishness" is tossing aside the assumptions thrusted onto you by others. When one becomes a free thinker then empathy and compassion comes naturally. Let me elaborate:
Step 1) Be selfish! Think only of what's in your OWN best interest... ultimately the realisation that what brings you contentment IS in your best interest.
Step 2) To maximise contentment, you must question all social norms and reject those that stand in your path; e.g. our capitalist society's mantra that more money = more happiness. You must seriously contemplate what TRULY brings you contentment. At times you may feel lost or depressed but you must persist!
Step 3) The realization eventually comes that true compassion and charity brings tremendous contentment to yourself as this is the way our brains are simply wired. Note: Sociopaths/Psychopaths (only ~2% of the population) are exceptions to this rule as their brains are simply not wired for empathy.

Hence, we have the conclusion: selfishness makes you a better human being full of charity and compassion.

Nietzsche, felt that those who refuse to accept this fact are intellectual cowards since deep down we know this to be true. Fearing this truth, they come up with wishy-washy arguments like spirituality, the "intrinsic" (that is god's) value of human life and salvation through god's commandments.

Only by being aware of our true nature can one avoid false/shallow charity. Remember how much sympathy Elan Gonzales, the "pleasing to the eye" kid who found himself shipwrecked due to his mom's carelessness, got from Americans. Even though he had (by all accounts) a loving father back in Cuba we couldn't let him go. We were blinded by false charity in the guise of nationalistic-patriotism, "What better charity is there than American Freedom !?!"

Yet, a kid from Haiti, also shipwrecked on US shores (and was indeed an orphan) was promptly deported.

Nietzsche further elaborated that "love" describes many different feelings and motivations. Often what we refer to as love is actually greed in disguise.

[davidvollmer]

My question would be. How did the news paper reporter know, or the person who told the reporter know the fate of the boy without being with the boy to witness the wind dying or food running out. What moral code would allow the witness to leave the boy at sea?

[samual_not_samuel]

Kind of suspicious that the paper had a picture of the boy lost at sea.

[gabrielabatista]

Honestly, I like to go by my grandma's rule: if you have the means to help, and it won't significantly impact you in a negative way, do so.
Helping others at your own cost is a disservice to yourself and setting yourself ablaze to keep others warm was never beneficial to anyone because, at the end of the day, you will be the one in need of help. However, if you have the means to help without causing troubles to yourself, do so; it won't hurt you and it'll be beneficial to someone else, so help them.
So I follow this rule, if I can help someone without putting myself in a worse situation, I will; but I won't put myself into danger to benefit someone else (like, jumping in a mudpit to drag them out when I'll probably sink in too; or lending money when I don't have enough to spare for myself, much less others). I like to help, but helping is not worth much if you end up miserable and troubled in the end as a direct consequence of having helped someone.

[ramspace]

These are four theoretical absolutes.
I think life is so much more complicated and each individual at every moment makes a decision based on multiple factors.
What i think is important is to have clear thinking and clear feeling. And that freedom of thinking will bring benificial results to many, including oneself. But maybe not to all, all the time to everyone.
Of course I'm excluding people with personality disorder.

[jasonblundelldobebussing]

Faced with this situation, none of the 4 would even try to save the boy. They would argue over everything for 5 hours straight.