(January 11, 2018 at 9:34 pm)DLJ Wrote: Had the question been: "Would you rescue the child?" without any of the 'obligation' baggage, my answer would have been "yes".
I recommend you get over whatever problem you have with the word "obligation."
"my answer would have been 'yes'" suggests that you feel obliged to save the child. This is only your own moral obligation that you impose on yourself. Don't worry about the baggage the word carries. If you feel like you should this is an obligation. This doesn't mean you have to it simply means you consider yourself duty-bound to do so. Contrast with "requirement." Obligation=ought. Requirement=must. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you don't like the word obligation because it sounds like a requirement.
Quote:Incidentally, a variation of this thought experiment was used during a philosophy group meetup I attended in Singapore. The variation being that it was a river and not a shallow pool and there was no doubt that the child was drowning. The speaker stated that you had to be a monster if you didn't dive in to attempt to save the child.
I was quietly adamant that I would not save the child so for nearly an hour I was the 'monster' of the group. Finally someone asked me to defend my position.
"I can't swim", said I. "If I tried, two of us would drown."
Hence why Peter Singer goes to the trouble of pointing out it is a shallow pool. It's an example of easy rescue. Just like sending money to feed impoverished African children.
(Dude, learn to swim.)
