Will you share your food (serious question)

[vulcanlogician]

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.

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.)

[KevinM1]

I eat the ice cream in front of them, moaning in pleasure as I do.

[DLJ]

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.
...

Nope.  Not getting over it.  Getting into it has led me to my current hypothesis regarding the reason why 'the morality question' has not yet been resolved... and the ideas I've been formulating over the last year as to what morality really is and what it's for.

Obligation (from google):  "an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment."
- which makes 'moral obligation' a tautology, but that's by-the-by.  The point is that it's deontological rather than consequential.  
Obliged (from google):  "require or compel (someone) to undertake a legal or moral duty."
- and there's the rub.

'Required' involves the cognitive systems.  It is not necessarily mandatory (must/shall), it could be 'should' but it is consequentialist.
'Compulsion' involves the limbic system.  'Impulse' would be a better word and that's deontological.

So, I'm making a distinction between an unfeeling or unthinking action and an action based on feelies or thinkies.

Dogs have been known to save drowning children.  Is that from a moral obligation?

I would save the child in the same way that a dog would (well, I wouldn't use my teeth   )

If rationale comes into it, which it does for humans, having new shoes might be one of those consequentialist rationales (although not for me) as would say the fact that I had gone back in time and was in the middle of another thought experiment ("if you could go back in time to kill Hitler" etc.) and had already decided that this child must die!!!  

...
(Dude, learn to swim.)

I've tried.  I can even teach children how to swim.

But for me, vertical swimming is the extent of my ability.

[The Grand Nudger]

So.. A huge natural calamity has struck the whole world.. People are recovering but very slowly.. Price of food and water is through the roof..

I don't have to pay for either of those things.

You work very hard each day to barely get by and stuff but you still manage to eat a meal at the end of the day. You saved part of your two whole week pay little by little to buy a ice cream, and you do.. You walk out the store and notice two people laying down on the side of the streets as if they're dead and they're begging you for food.. Now remember, you don't really need this ice-cream of yours but those starving people do BUT you still worked for it, so these are all factors

What will you do? Like, will you share your food or keep it to yourself? The flip side of sharing is ofc you only get a PART of something whole that YOU worked for and they didn't..

I'm not giving anyone any of my icecream.  I'll throw turnips at their faces for free, though.

[vulcanlogician]

Nope.  Not getting over it.  Getting into it has led me to my current hypothesis regarding the reason why 'the morality question' has not yet been resolved... and the ideas I've been formulating over the last year as to what morality really is and what it's for.

Okay, fine. Point taken. As far as metaethical discussions are concerned, what you say makes sense. And let's also forget what motivates a dog. Motivations are beside the point.

This is the point: child splashing in water. You would feel "compelled" to save him, right? You could do it, right? Nobody is saying you must, but it is possible for you to save him.

Regardless of what you think your obligations are, if there is a certain something motivating you to save that drowning child, why doesn't that same something motivate you to save a starving child?

[shadow]

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

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

Interesting survey, but flawed. I don't often donate to international charities because I don't have any faith that my money is going to end up actually helping someone... often it gets embezzled, robbed, or spent on something that you didn't intend. Stuff like food banks I'll give to because my can of beans is probably going to end up in someone's stomach. Likewise, if a kid is drowning and I pick him out of the water, I know I've saved him. Money given to an international charity could end up anywhere.

I'd rather do it myself: I don't have much faith in NGOs or governments. I want to tangibly apply as much power as possible towards any change I want to make in the world, not just have good intentions. Charities have a role, but they are by no means the only way to effect positive change. I would argue they are rarely the most effective.

[vulcanlogician]

Interesting survey, but flawed. I don't often donate to international charities because I don't have any faith that my money is going to end up actually helping someone... often it gets embezzled, robbed, or spent on something that you didn't intend. Stuff like food banks I'll give to because my can of beans is probably going to end up in someone's stomach. Likewise, if a kid is drowning and I pick him out of the water, I know I've saved him. Money given to an international charity could end up anywhere.

I'd rather do it myself: I don't have much faith in NGOs or governments. I want to tangibly apply as much power as possible towards any change I want to make in the world, not just have good intentions. Charities have a role, but they are by no means the only way to effect positive change. I would argue they are rarely the most effective.

To address concerns about the efficacy of various charities, Singer has set up a panel which scrutinizes the activities of various organizations.

He has compiled a list here: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities

And describes the selection process for those charities here: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/where-...ethodology

[Athene]

So.. A huge natural calamity has struck the whole world.. People are recovering but very slowly.. Price of food and water is through the roof..

You work very hard each day to barely get by and stuff but you still manage to eat a meal at the end of the day. You saved part of your two whole week pay little by little to buy a ice cream, and you do.. You walk out the store and notice two people laying down on the side of the streets as if they're dead and they're begging you for food.. Now remember, you don't really need this ice-cream of yours but those starving people do BUT you still worked for it, so these are all factors

What will you do? Like, will you share your food or keep it to yourself? The flip side of sharing is ofc you only get a PART of something whole that YOU worked for and they didn't..

Weird hypothetical. Doesn't make much sense, but I'll answer though.

Sure, I'd share the ice cream. I wouldn't particularly care that I'd "worked hard to get it' if it were just a treat to me, but life or death for people right in front me.

If I were wrong, and they were just "pretending" to starving, emaciated, and near death, then oh well. That's what I'd deserve for being dumb enough to waste an inordinate amount of money on ice cream during a worldwide food shortage crisis, instead of staples that would go much further like RICE or BEANS.

[Jackalope]

Regardless of what you think your obligations are, if there is a certain something motivating you to save that drowning child, why doesn't that same something motivate you to save a starving child?

Maybe I'm getting hung up on the meaning of "obligation", however, I answered that way because my resources are finite and I cannot feed everyone, so I choose to focus my limited resources to my local community. I also realize that's a pragmatic answer to philosophical question, but that's how I roll.

[vulcanlogician]

Regardless of what you think your obligations are, if there is a certain something motivating you to save that drowning child, why doesn't that same something motivate you to save a starving child?

Maybe I'm getting hung up on the meaning of "obligation", however, I answered that way because my resources are finite and I cannot feed everyone, so I choose to focus my limited resources to my local community.  I also realize that's a pragmatic answer to philosophical question, but that's how I roll.

Yeah. That's kinda how I roll too. But Singer makes a good point with his drowning child example.

Many of us would ruin a $500 suit by jumping into a pond to save a drowning child, but fewer of us would opt to forgo having the suit to feed the hungry worldwide.

As to the word "obligation" ... IDK. Many of us would feel a strong impulse to save a drowning child. One would say one feels obliged in such circumstances. But some think of it in different terms such as "I am under no obligation to save every child I see drowning."

I kinda get where they're coming from. But at the same time, if I saw a drowning child, I would feel personally obligated to save him/her. So would most people who object to the word "obligation" I imagine.