Drowning Child Example

[LovePrevails]

I would love to see stef do a video on his response to Singer's drowning child example

[Matthew Moran]

FDR 3387 "Bald Ape Meat Puppets," first call 

[Tyler H]

I don't think one can equate an immediate life threatening scenario -in which you are the only method of salvation- to all people in need all over the world at different states of need with different available avenues of assistance and different factors that bring about the circumstances.  Spending disposable income isn't even close to letting a child drown because you don't want to get your Doc Martens wet.  Buying something might actually be giving some other child a job so he doesn't starve.  Singer's drowning child sounds like just the sort of thing that gets a philosopher famous because he serves state power.

[dsayers]

I didn't get that he was equating things, but rather taking a proposition to its logical conclusion. It's hyperbole and I find it to be very effective myself, including here.

[Matthew Moran]

It's predictable and boring. He invents a scenario that is specifically designed to horrify your conscience, not to reason from first principles, and then suggest government intervention. The purpose of the scenario is to get you to abandon reason. That's why there are no empirical data about what actually eliminates poverty. Singer himself admitted he doesn't live according to the principle. The guy is the definition of a fraud.

 

Anybody who claims to care about poverty should care a lot about what has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in less than a generation, and it wasn't any of the two solutions listed in the video. It was however mentioned in the podcast I linked.

 

One of the solutions in the video (more power and resources to government) actually has lead to famine and genocide of the poor, so I guess that is just a teeny tiny overlooking of his.

 

What a morally atrocious statist crook who is getting paid from people at gun point to spout this crap...

[Kikker]

It's predictable and boring. He invents a scenario that is specifically designed to horrify your conscience, not to reason from first principles, and then suggest government intervention. The purpose of the scenario is to get you to abandon reason. That's why there are no empirical data about what actually eliminates poverty. Singer himself admitted he doesn't live according to the principle. The guy is the definition of a fraud.

 

Anybody who claims to care about poverty should care a lot about what has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in less than a generation, and it wasn't any of the two solutions listed in the video. It was however mentioned in the podcast I linked.

 

One of the solutions in the video (more power and resources to government) actually has lead to famine and genocide of the poor, so I guess that is just a teeny tiny overlooking of his.

 

What a morally atrocious statist crook who is getting paid from people at gun point to spout this crap...

If you would actually look at the other videos in his video series you would see what he actually proposes (Charity, Poverty and Welfare). Or to put it here, he wants charity to avoid government and instead give directly to people they want to help. He sees economic growth as the main reason poverty is diminishing. He proposes a basic income to replace all current welfare programs to (at least) avoid bad incentives but still enable people to fill their basic needs, or how I interpret it: avoid the poverty trap.

 

So compare that to Stefan (your mention podcast) who wants charity to actively limit government (instead of avoiding it), who also sees economic growth (directly linked to the free market) as the main reason poverty has diminished and probably would consider a basic income better than the current welfare system but would rather see no taxation at all. (I may be refuted to that last bit if someone has some quotes).

 

Furthermore if you recognize that the drowning child example is meant to shock why not explain the inaccuracy of the analogy?

[algernon]

A few different things came to mind -

 

1) The child did not end up in the pond on their own accord, someone threw it in there. By saving that one, you are encouraging 10 more to thrown in.

 

2) You do not have the moral responsibility to save that child, since you were not the one that threw it in.

 

3) If you are morally responsible for saving the one child that will cost you money, then you are morally responsible for saving every child, that means you have no claim to anything, you own nothing.

 

4) If you are morally responsible for saving everyone, then everyone else is morally responsible for saving you, therefore it cancels itself out doesn't it?

 

And lastly, maybe you're preventing an important part of human evolution from happening by saving every drowning child, they will never learn to swim. Perhaps the attrition rate will be high, but in the long term some will swim and eventually there will be no more drownings.

 

"Charity" can be an extremely destructive tool, and when robbery is used to fund it even more so. I'm assuming that was his personal suit, and if so he's a hypocrite, which makes him someone not worth listening to. 

[Kikker]

A few different things came to mind -

 

1) The child did not end up in the pond on their own accord, someone threw it in there. By saving that one, you are encouraging 10 more to thrown in.

You're inventing factors, it was never mentioned how the child ended up there nor does it matter.

 

2)a You do not have the moral responsibility to save that child, since you were not the one that threw it in.

No but the morally right thing to do would be to save the child.

 

3) 2)b If you are morally responsible for saving the one child that will cost you money, then you are morally responsible for saving every child, that means you have no claim to anything, you own nothing.

You seem to misunderstand moral responsibility, you have a moral responsibility for the things you have done. So when you decide to save the child or not, you're morally responsible for the action you took. Nonetheless, you don't have to be morally responsible for the situation at hand in order to decide what the right thing is to do.

 

4)  2)c If you are morally responsible for saving everyone, then everyone else is morally responsible for saving you, therefore it cancels itself out doesn't it?

Don't make one point and then make two other points with the same argument as a premise because it's bad debate tactics, bad argumentation and you're in reality just making one point while wasting everyone's time.

 

And lastly, 3) maybe you're preventing an important part of human evolution from happening by saving every drowning child, they will never learn to swim. Perhaps the attrition rate will be high, but in the long term some will swim and eventually there will be no more drownings.

I hope you're not serious because this argument is simply wrong, on multiple levels. First of all the acquiring of skills isn't evolution unless you seriously expect a young child to swim out of instinct in which case most of the people on earth wouldn't have survived such a predicament. The attrition rate wouldn't simply be high but near 100%.

Secondly even if you meant skills you argument still doesn't work because all live saving actions could be preventing a humans from adapting new skills. For example: we shouldn't save people from burning buildings because then we are essentially preventing people from learning the skills necessary to escape a burning building.

 

 

"Charity" can be an extremely destructive tool, and when robbery is used to fund it even more so. I'm assuming that was his personal suit, and if so he's a hypocrite, which makes him someone not worth listening to. 

He questions what charity works and questions whether government would work, literally, in the video. You let your emotions get the better of you. Read my comment above or just watch his other videos to understand his actual stance. 

[David Ottinger]

Statists have tried to use this one on me many times.  And my response is something along the lines of:

 

I missed the part that explains why I'm immoral if I don't save the child.  The so called "thought experiment" just asserts that presumption as a fact.  Don't appeal to my emotions.  Instead, explain to me why I am morally obligated to save that child.

 

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

[EclecticIdealist]

I missed the part that explains why I'm immoral if I don't save the child.

 

Morality consists of obligatory prescriptive and proscriptive directives psychologically imposed upon an individual by the members of society. Ethics consist of prescriptive and proscriptive directives which are self-imposed in accordance with personal sentiment toward various ideals and virtues or against various vices or despicable states. Whether or not one personally finds it ethical or unethical to spare the life of the child, even at personal expense, depends largely upon the ideals one espouses, including empathy for others. I personally consider those who would not seek to save the child when the cost to themselves is minimal to be despicable and deplorable individuals, void of empathy, and dangerous parasites to any society they are allowed to remain in. I would likewise consider those disingenuously seeking to manipulate others using such flawed arguments as the author of the video to likewise be hypocritical parasites upon society. This is not, however, to suggest that the actions being called for are so simple and binary in nature as to categorize anyone reluctant or refusing to give to a charitable organization to "save the children"as being despicable or deplorable sociopaths. The solutions to starving children in third-world countries is far more complex than throwing money at one particular aid organization or another and may further ignore the realities of a greater responsibility to individuals closer to home in one's own immediate sphere of influence.

 

Instead, explain to me why I am morally obligated to save that child.

 

You are morally obligated to save the child to the same extent that others are morally obligated to save your life or the life of your child should you or they find themselves in a similar situation. If you live in a society which values the members of its society to such an extent that one is expected to sacrifice convenience, and perhaps an expensive suit to save the life of a child, then you are morally obligated by society to do so. It is a prescriptive obligation on your part to do so to the extent that it does not put your own life or well-being in jeopardy.

 

On the other hand, if you live in a society that has become so callous and jaded to the lives of the various members of society that a drowning child's life is barely worth noticing, then you are not morally obligated to do so. If you're looking for an objective standard of morality which is true for all people under all circumstances, you are falling for the manipulative lies of the state or those who have been deceived into believing in such things. Ethical and moral sentiments are no more objective than the preference for a particular flavor of ice cream. There may be an evolutionary basis for such a preference, but a basis for a preference is not the same thing as an objectively true preference. Morality is defined by the prevalence of preference, i.e. a universal preference, or universally preferred (or abhorred) behavior, not a mythical objectively true preference or ideal.

[Kikker]

Statists have tried to use this one on me many times.  And my response is something along the lines of:

 

I missed the part that explains why I'm immoral if I don't save the child.  The so called "thought experiment" just asserts that presumption as a fact.  Don't appeal to my emotions.  Instead, explain to me why I am morally obligated to save that child.

 

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

So you respond by misunderstanding the implications of said experiment?

I mean the video doesn't mention moral obligation but mentions something in the lines of preferable behavior. So the video assumes that you find it preferable that people (including yourself) should rather save the child from drowning even with $500 costs than let the child drown. In other words what is the good action and what is the bad action in this case, or is it devoid of any morality at all?

 

Edit: eclecticidealist has a much elaborate response.

[David Ottinger]

 

I missed the part that explains why I'm immoral if I don't save the child.

 

Morality consists of obligatory prescriptive and proscriptive directives psychologically imposed upon an individual by the members of society. Ethics consist of prescriptive and proscriptive directives which are self-imposed in accordance with personal sentiment toward various ideals and virtues or against various vices or despicable states. Whether or not one personally finds it ethical or unethical to spare the life of the child, even at personal expense, depends largely upon the ideals one espouses, including empathy for others. (1) I personally consider those who would not seek to save the child when the cost to themselves is minimal to be despicable and deplorable individuals, void of empathy, and dangerous parasites to any society they are allowed to remain in. (2) I would likewise consider those disingenuously seeking to manipulate others using such flawed arguments as the author of the video to likewise be hypocritical parasites upon society. This is not, however, to suggest that the actions being called for are so simple and binary in nature as to categorize anyone reluctant or refusing to give to a charitable organization to "save the children"as being despicable or deplorable sociopaths. The solutions to starving children in third-world countries is far more complex than throwing money at one particular aid organization or another and may further ignore the realities of a greater responsibility to individuals closer to home in one's own immediate sphere of influence.

 

Instead, explain to me why I am morally obligated to save that child.

 

(3)You are morally obligated to save the child to the same extent that others are morally obligated to save your life or the life of your child should you or they find themselves in a similar situation. If you live in a society which values the members of its society to such an extent that one is expected to sacrifice convenience, and perhaps an expensive suit to save the life of a child, then you are morally obligated by society to do so. It is a prescriptive obligation on your part to do so to the extent that it does not put your own life or well-being in jeopardy.

 

(4)On the other hand, if you live in a society that has become so callous and jaded to the lives of the various members of society that a drowning child's life is barely worth noticing, then you are not morally obligated to do so. If you're looking for an objective standard of morality which is true for all people under all circumstances, you are falling for the manipulative lies of the state or those who have been deceived into believing in such things. Ethical and moral sentiments are no more objective than the preference for a particular flavor of ice cream. There may be an evolutionary basis for such a preference, but a basis for a preference is not the same thing as an objectively true preference. Morality is defined by the prevalence of preference, i.e. a universally preference, or universally preferred (or abhorred) behavior, not a mythical objectively true preference or ideal.

 

 

Thank you for your response.  These are some thoughts and observations I had:

 

(1) Up to this point you made a distinction between morality and ethics.  And then you proceed to inform me of your sense of disgust with those who do not share your ethical view, at least in this particular case.  But, this doesn't answer my question.  What is the moral principle here? 

 

(2) That's very interesting.  You notice the lack of argument being made by the video, but you also experience the sense of disgust the video is intended to elicit in attempts to get you to accept statism or a justification for government intervention in order to impose performance of a "charitable" act.  Personally, the circumstances of that drowning child do not get to me because one of my first jobs was lifeguarding.  And, one of the first responses trained into you is to check for any risks to your own safety before performing a rescue.  So, my emotions are already shelved as a result of learning this skill.  

 

Furthermore, in this training, you also learn that people sometimes do not naturally jump in to help.  For example, if you needed to call 911, but you're the only one in the middle of the rescue, you can't stop what you're doing to make a phone call.  Instead, you have to pick a bystander and deliberately delegate the task to that individual, and even tell him/her to wave down the responders.  If you don't delegate, no one will act.

 

So, an important thing to also distinguish in this drowning hypothetical is intent VS actual performance.  If no one called 911, would they be immoral?  If you ask people who failed to do so, "Do you not care to help others?"  They might show contempt/disgust at such a notion, yet people do actually fail to perform.  Interesting effect sometimes called the "Genovese syndrome."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese   

 

According to the moral argument of the video, these people who failed to call 911 are immoral.  And, give your disgust for people who fail to help, I would have to conclude you concur with the moral theory alluded to in the drowning hypothetical. 

 

Now, after reading this, if you don't feel the same way, or at least have some doubt about those feelings of disgust, then we have to understand that feelings alone aren't enough to substantiate one's morals or ethics.  We need something more objective.

 

 

(3) I recognize that morality emerges as a result of human discourse.  However, if I am to be objective with the principles, then I need to adhere to a methodology.  With that said, I cannot conclude that sound moral theories are the product of society -- which in this context I find alludes to decree.  And, when those decrees are centralized and enforced by a single institution, you have government.  But, government is not society.  'Society' is an aggregate of the mind, and thus has no real agency to obligate anyone.  More so, adherence to moral theories (i.e. virtue) cannot be achieve via compulsion as to do so is to rule by might.  And, another word for that is conquest. 

 

 

(4) What you're arguing in favor of here is moral relativism -- which is what statist rely on in order to justify their use of might to achieve ends.  i.e. "The end justifies the means."  And, that's interesting that you bring up UPB when it is a logical proof that provides us with a methodology so we can pursue moral theories objectively.  The theories themselves will never be absolute truths much like in physics where theories are not absolute either.  But, that doesn't make scientific theories any less objective.  So, why should the pursuit of sound moral theories require omniscience before they can be objective?  All we need is a methodology. 

 

 

 

So, what is the moral theory being invoked by this drowning hypothetical?  i.e. What is the principle here?  This is what is needed to explain why or how someone can be classified as immoral.  Otherwise, it is just one big grand appeal to emotional states of mind which when acted upon tend to lead to post hoc reasoning such as:  "I felt disgust at the idea of not helping the drowning child because I would want to be saved if I was in that circumstance, thus because of my disgust and desire to be saved, I hold others responsible for my unfortunate circumstances." 

 

And, mind you, if someone is dealing with unresolved issues of neglect or even abandonment, this feeling to save the child can be amplified even more because of empathy.  i.e. An emotional reverberation if you will.  And I think this drowning hypothetical exploits those feelings of neglect.  That's why the metaphoric victim has to be a child.  Otherwise the emotional sleight of hand wouldn't work.      

[Boss]

You need to factor in the most valuable resource, time. It doesnt take much time to know you can save a drowning kid in a shallow pond. It will take a lot of time to know a legit charity that save lives per dollar amount as he suggest. In fact, he links a charity in his description that says donate and you "could" save a child life. Well In the other scenario you WILL save a child life.