Anonymous #4 1w

There’s a child drowning in a pond, do you ruin your $200 shoes to save him?

3

Anonymous OP 1w

are u fr asking if i think a child’s life is worth $200

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Would you?

3

Anonymous #4 1w

you’ll say yes, but then won’t spend $200 to save 50 starving kids in Africa which makes you a hypocrite

1

Anonymous #5 1w

so there are starving kids everywhere and $200 isn’t gonna save those kids because starvation/famine is due to structural failures/ inequality which requires research and development and time to fix and my whole degree is going towards fixing those inequalities and improving those systems so who’s a hypocrite?

1

Anonymous #4 1w

there are charities you could donate $200 to rn to give children in Africa malaria vaccines that they could die without, same with giving kids in Sudan or the Congo meals There is no reasonable moral difference between the kid drowning in front of you and the kids starving to death across the world, so if you think saving a kid is worth $200, why do you have more than $200 to your name?

6

Anonymous #5 1w

i fear the situations are not a one to one. with the drowning kid i’m the only thing between them dying i know $200 directly corresponds to child not dying. you can’t remove starving children from the situation causing their starvation with $200. drowning is an instantaneous problem starvation is an environmental problem i dont have the money to fix an environment

1

Anonymous #4 1w

$39 a month to help a child survive poverty https://www.worldvision.org/sponsor-a-child If we are morally required to save the child drowning, why wouldn’t we be morally required to sell our belongings and send money to charity?

4

Anonymous #5 1w

donating to an organization that questionably distributes funds and manages the money it’s given is not the same as saving a life. you’re being purposefully obtuse to #4 and making a disingenuous argument if you’re apparently some altruistic and beyond needing basic necessities being, then why are you in an app that suggests you’re in a demographic that’s spent tens of thousands of dollars that could go to feed children, hell, why not take the $1k box in your hand and sell that too

4

Anonymous #5 1w

yea so you’re ignoring what i’m saying—the situations are not equal. in one situation child will certainly die and i’m the only person who can prevent it. in the other situation that’s not case plus putting charity in the mix idk for sure what they’re doing with my money saving a child from drowning i know the exact impact my action has

1

Anonymous #3 1w

I’m not making the argument myself, it’s a famous philosopher Peter Singer’s argument, he was the one who termed, “Ordinary people are evil.” I personally don’t believe in morality at all, or at least believe it’s judged too harshly. We are selfish animals; we only do things if they benefit us in some way. We do things to help people because we also feel good. Morality believes in absolute choice and free will when in reality we don’t make any of our own choices.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

if you don’t understand an argument you prolly shouldn’t make it

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Literally have read the paper multiple times, I disagree with the argument but it’s a pretty famous philosophical argument

1