Will you share your food (serious question)

[brewer]

I'd walk up to them, bend over close and say "I'll give you some food if you can tell me how to stop these stupid threads".

[vorlon13]

Just gave a destitute couple a $5 McDonalds gift card a week or 2 ago. Looks like I'm committed.

Depends on flavor of ice cream too. (Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia fuck no, anything else yes)

[DLJ]

The question is similar to Peter Singer's drowning child argument.

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/

Interesting. But poorly worded.

I fell at the first hurdle. I chose the option stating that there is no moral obligation to rescue the child.

Response: Are you serious?

Then there was no, "yes, fuck off" option.

Similarly, there is no moral obligation to give them the ice cream. And it would entirely depend upon my mood as to whether I would do so.

One ice cream is not going to save them.

[Ravenshire]

Serious question for you Pool. What the fuck do you think has changed about the moral landscape of atheism in the short time since you found gawd? It's not like we were all waiting around for you to join the other side so we could allow our morals to degrade.

To answer your question, anyone with any empathy at all would share their fucking ice cream. Since I do have empathy...

[Joods]

I have three kids to feed. In this day and age, I've seen panhandlers stand all day outside and at the end of the day, get in a very nice vehicle and drive off. Anyone can dress in raggedy clothes and beg for shit. I have trust issues. So, while a part of me would feel bad for those people, part of me has doubts and at the end of the day, self preservation wins out.

[SaStrike]

My mother always told me it's not good to eat ice cream on an empty stomach. So no.

[vulcanlogician]

Interesting.  But poorly worded.

I fell at the first hurdle.  I chose the option stating that there is no moral obligation to rescue the child.

It's very precise in its wording, but it's trying to weed out moral nihilists from the git go. A lot of ethics thought experiments fall flat if there is no moral obligation driving one choice over another. To just see the ideas put plainly (no interactive elements) go here:

https://openborders.info/drowning-child/

or watch this:

[chimp3]

I only share my food with people I find sexually attractive.

A very Chimpish thing to say for a Hammy!

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, if I might get some pussy in exchange that's totally worth giving my food away.

[DLJ]

Interesting.  But poorly worded.

I fell at the first hurdle.  I chose the option stating that there is no moral obligation to rescue the child.

It's very precise in its wording, but it's trying to weed out moral nihilists from the git go. A lot of ethics thought experiments fall flat if there is no moral obligation driving one choice over another. To just see the ideas put plainly (no interactive elements) go here:

https://openborders.info/drowning-child/

or watch this:

Granted. But I'm not a moral nihilist (by their definition - " a moral nihilist - i.e., if you think there's no such thing as right and wrong") and I still don't agree that there is a moral obligation ... as worded, it implies a universal rather than a personal/situational right/wrong.

Had the question been: "Would you rescue the child?" without any of the 'obligation' baggage, my answer would have been "yes".

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."