Will you share your food (serious question)

[DLJ]

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?

If motivations are beside point, why are you asking what motivates me (or one) to save a drowning child and/or save a starving child?

Anyway, I think the calculation goes like this...

Empathy = Affinity x Proximity

[vulcanlogician]

If motivations are beside point, why are you asking what motivates me (or one) to save a drowning child and/or save a starving child?

Anyway, I think the calculation goes like this...

Empathy = Affinity x Proximity

In practice, that's probably the calculation most people go with. I think Singer is saying we ought to abandon this calculation.

LOL. Yes in reading back over my post I said "don't worry about motivations" then asked you to consider your motivations.

I would have made my point better by saying that if you are motivated to save one, you ought to be motivated to save the other, logically speaking.

[downbeatplumb]

Issues like food hunger should not be left to charities but to properly a properly funded branch of the UN.
Nations should pool their resources to help the rest of the interconnected society and not rely on Bill from Sidcup getting his beard shaved off to "raise some cash" for the starving.
Its a band aid solution when we need a proper treatment.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

'Twas ever thus ...

[Jane2d]

Share my ICE CREAM with STRANGERS? I don't think so.

Are they wearing shoes? A good jacket? Something I can pawn for more ice cream?

Sorry but I cannot take this question seriously.

[Edwardo Piet]

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."

My opinion is that there is a moral obligation but I am rarely motivated by morality and care more about the happiness of myself and my friends for entirely selfish amoral reasons. The question would really be "What's in it for me?" or "Will people think I am a good person and therefore be nicer to me if I help this child? Will I be considered a hero?" and "Will people know I let them die if I let them die?" and "Will I worry about people finding out that I let them die and be so wracked by anxiety [most people would mistake this as guilt] that I'd be better off just saving the child to save myself that anxiety?". Stuff like that.

Objectively speaking, it would be morally correct to save the child unless there was some evidence that they would suffer a pain worse than drowning after you saved them if you saved them. I don't know why that would happen though. 99.99999999% of the time it's morally correct to save the child. That doesn't mean you'll do it. Or that you want to do it. Just that you should.

[DLJ]

...
I am rarely motivated by morality and care more about the happiness of myself and my friends for entirely selfish amoral reasons. The question would really be "What's in it for me?" or "Will people think I am a good person and therefore be nicer to me if I help this child? Will I be considered a hero?" and "Will people know I let them die if I let them die?" and "Will I worry about people finding out that I let them die and be so wracked by anxiety [most people would mistake this as guilt] that I'd be better off just saving the child to save myself that anxiety?". Stuff like that.
...

Thank you for that reply, Ms Rand.

Do you never consider "What's in it for us?"

Personally, I prefer to associate with, live with, work for, work with, vote for, (and if it came to it, fight with and fight for) those with an 'us' attitude.

[Cod]

I share my food, that's all.

[Edwardo Piet]

...
I am rarely motivated by morality and care more about the happiness of myself and my friends for entirely selfish amoral reasons. The question would really be "What's in it for me?" or "Will people think I am a good person and therefore be nicer to me if I help this child? Will I be considered a hero?" and "Will people know I let them die if I let them die?" and "Will I worry about people finding out that I let them die and be so wracked by anxiety [most people would mistake this as guilt] that I'd be better off just saving the child to save myself that anxiety?". Stuff like that.
...

Thank you for that reply, Ms Rand.

Do you never consider "What's in it for us?"

Personally, I prefer to associate with, live with, work for, work with, vote for, (and if it came to it, fight with and fight for) those with an 'us' attitude.

Your 'us' is really just your extension of your 'you' though.

And nah, Rand's moral philosophy made no sense. I'm a psychological egoist but I'm not a rational or ethical egoist.

[DLJ]

Thank you for that reply, Ms Rand.

Do you never consider "What's in it for us?"

Personally, I prefer to associate with, live with, work for, work with, vote for, (and if it came to it, fight with and fight for) those with an 'us' attitude.

Your 'us' is really just your extension of your 'you' though.
...

Agreed, through projection.

Just that some people are more advanced at self-abnegation than others.

...
I'm a psychological egoist but I'm not a rational or ethical egoist.

And how do you (does one) prevent your 'is' from becoming 'ought'?