Yes I love being a moral mad scientist and the one thing I have to do on a daily basis is poke and prod other people to think about morality in a different way. Until recent, my writings on culture haven’t really approached the tough questions because, well, a lot of it is provocative (as you’ll see). However, I’m taking a leap of faith and hoping that I don’t lose any of you lovely followers because of the uncomfortable nature of some of these topics especially this one, oh yeah, and the fact that I am about to prove that you are all horrible people. Let’s get started shall we:
So, We have this argument where participants imagine they are walking passed a shallow pond. Okay, imagining that? Great! Now so you’re passing by this pond enjoying the brand new shirt that you just bought from [INSERT FAVORITE BRAND OF CLOTHING HERE] and thinking about how amazing you look. Maybe you’ll say hey to that beautiful receptionist who always smiles at you. Your thoughts trail off and you pull out your cell phone to check the time and – HOLY SHIT THERE IS A DROWNING KID DO SOMETHING NO HE’S GOING TO DIE BUT DAMN THAT MEANS YOUR NEW SHIRT WILL BE RUINED AW MAN WHAT DO I DO WHAT DO I DO NOBODY ELSE IS AROUND.
Pictured: an American Deathtrap
So.. The question is.. Do you wade out into the pond to save the kid, even though you’ll get your new clothes dirty and wet and possibly have to go home and change before work? Of course you do. It’s unanimous. But here’s the fun part, well one of the fun parts: Do you have an obligation to save the child? And this is where some people disagree but mostly the consensus is that the most participants in the situation say that you SHOULD save the child.
So, the next part of the scenario is you coming home from work and getting another annoying letter from the RED CROSS. For the price of a new CD, or the price of a cheap shirt, hell – the price of that coffee from starbucks could feed fifteen African school kids for a month. But more often than not you throw the letter away as junk mail, without a further thought about it. WHY? When asked, many people don’t even believe that it should be obligatory to donate to the starving African children. So, the question is this. Why is it repugnant to let the one child drown yet it is perfectly okay to let fifteen foreign children die? You can marinate on the fact that you are a horrible human being, it’s okay.
Pictured: You
-Cheers
Lp
Interesting thoughts. In the one scenario, the child in need of saving is easily within reach, but what else is at work? Perhaps the desire to appear heroic? Perhaps the desire NOT to appear cold-hearted? Maybe it is just a matter of proximity. Being close to the child makes it convenient to save him or her, whereas the suffering in Africa is an abstract notion for most people, having never been there to see it. I don’t know! You got me thinking though.
I think that danger, when experienced or witnessed creates a sense of obligation out of pure immediacy. Whereas danger or suffering as abstract concepts are easy to handle and easy (easier) to shrug off. Would I feel bad if I walked by a drowning child? Yes. Do I daily feel bad about those dying in distant lands? Not daily, no. And I guess that’s your point.
I get the idea. However, if EVERYONE would do ONE thing, feed ONE child, say ONE good word, do ONE good deed, every single day, it would become a habit for every ONE of us, and the world would be the place so many of us dream it could be.
Couple of comments: the immediacy of a kid drowning right in front of you is difficult to ignore. There’s not really any doubt about someone being in danger – there is no wiggle room. The post card in the mail might be about someone real, it might be a scam, you really don’t know, and their is certainly no visceral sense of immediacy. In other words, it is not demonstrable that unless you immediately send some money, a particular child WILL DIE. Or, for us more intellectually agile sidesteppers, even if you do send money immediately, there will be a time lag, so someone’s going to die anyway. Besides, we can’t save everyone. There is wiggle room with the post card.
This is where upbringing and character development come into play. Do we have an obligation to take care of our fellow man? I say yes, and there are myriad philosophical, religious, and social arguments for that position. Can we individually save everyone of our fellow humans? The answer would seem to be no, there are limits to what one person can do. But the inherent obligation would seem to exist, otherwise there wouldn’t be much pressure for societies to form. Sure, we can say societies are formed from personal and selfish necessity, but that really doesn’t hold as the sole cause. Societies form from social and other-centeredness causes as well.
When parents form their children to look beyond their Hollister (or whatever) shirt, and connect the dots in their consciousness and consciences, then as adults they are more likely to respond to that Red Cross post letter. So, while we attempt to be our own immediate pressure to do good, lets be sure we give that gift of responsibility for our fellow humans to our children as well.
I’ll throw a comment in here. You discuss how the child SHOULD be saved. While it is morally right to do so, the word SHOULD implies a choice. There is never a black and white scenario here. If donations of time, help, or money all became obligations, there we ourselves would be in need of help. I might want to help save 15 starving children in another country, but I might not be financially able to do so. If a kid is drowning (not in shallow water) and I can’t swim, I have no obligation to risk my life to save the child’s life. Helping people in this way cannot be construed as a universal law because there are situations in which others cannot help. (I’m assuming you have some philosophy background.) While it is right to help those who need help, we can’t logically help EVERYONE who needs help without hurting ourselves eventually. So here is MY question to you. Am I still a bad person if I help but I don’t help every single time?
Hmmm interesting thought, well personally I don’t believe people are good or bad but I suppose you would like a better answer than that so ill say that it’s more of a question of intent, so if your intent is truly just to show other people that you care about helping (or youre doing so just so that youll feel better) then yes you’re a monster. However if you genuinely care about the welfare of the humans you are helping, and are acting in good faith I guess I’ll call you a good person (: