Save the drowning child?

[blackllotus]

Here's an interesting moral dilemma posed in the book Cosmopolitanism.

You see a child drowning in a pond but you are wearing a $5000 jacket. Do you save him and ruin your jacket or do you let him drown, sell your jacket, and save 100 kids in some third world country?

No you can't take the jacket off before saving the drowning child

EDIT:

Better dilemma #1

A bridge just got knocked out on a set of tracks. There are 50 people going down the tracks to a certain death. You can pull a switch and divert the train into a tunnel, but if you do, 10 workers in that tunnel will have no escape and will die. Do you do nothing, or do you intentionally kill the 10 in order to save 50?

Better dilemma #2

You see a kid on a gurney in the hallway. Doctors say his emergency surgery will cost $5000. The country you live in can deny immediate medical attention even during emergencies. You can give up the $5000 to save him or watch him die on the gurney in the hallway while waiting for your family member to be tended to (and then send the $5000 to save some 100 Ethiopian kids).

Or you can watch him die, go out and have a few drinks to forget it and have some fun and then spend the rest on a 2-week vacation.

 

[waggy]

ohh tough one.

i would save the child in front of me. he is there and i know i can do something. with the children in other country's you have no gurantee that the money is actually going to help them and not to some warlord or such.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

No you can't take the jacket off before saving the drowning child

Why? Is it a straitjacket? I guess that would make sense more most members here...

 

[playstation3]

let him drown while pointing and laughing. then sell my jacket and pay to have the child cloned from the corpse.

 

[amol]

No you can't take the jacket off before saving the drowning child

That's stupid.

 

[Tiamat]

save the child in front of you. Once your eyes see something, your brain remember it. If you let the child die and save 500 others, you still remember that one child. Not likely with the other 500.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Amol

No you can't take the jacket off before saving the drowning child

That's stupid.

But that defeats the point Assume the ground is muddy or something

 

[AFB]

Simple

You would save the drowning child because:

(a) Despite paying $5000 for a jacket, it most likely has little resale value since those willing to pay 5k for a jacket will not look likely upon used jackets.
(b) If you had 5k for a jacket, there's more where than came from.
(c) If you bought the 5k jacket in the first place, you could care less about starving African children.

But (c) brings up a good point. More than likely the person wearing the jacket would let the little prick drown and keep walking without a care in the world. They all die for the win.

 

[Kadarin]

You save the child in front of you. Like waggy says, that is an immediate situation that you have direct control over, and it will have much greater consequences on you and those who are close to you.

 

[EGGO]

I hate children anyway.

 

[BigJ]

Depends what type of moral reasoning you subscribe to

 

[sniperruff]

its just a damn jacket. these chick mags are insane.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: waggy
ohh tough one.

i would save the child in front of me. he is there and i know i can do something. with the children in other country's you have no gurantee that the money is actually going to help them and not to some warlord or such.

While I understand your logic, it's sort of flawed. Charity is not a mysterious thing like leprechauns. There are plenty of well established organizations where you'll be practically guaranteed your money will go towards helping children. In fact, many of them even publish annual reports telling you how much of each dollar goes towards victims.

 

[funkymatt]

i've jumped in a pool to save my own kid with clothes on. granted i don't think ALL my clothes combined cost me $5k.

Although, someone elses kid... most likely.

 

[Queasy]

Save the drowning child in front of me since any money from the sale of the jacket would probably end up in the hands of some warlord who would kill the 100 kids in the third world country anyway.

Additionally, I'd sell the inspirational story of what a noble person I am who loves bunnies and hates global warming to the highest bidder to pay for the jacket that has been ruined.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: waggy
ohh tough one.

i would save the child in front of me. he is there and i know i can do something. with the children in other country's you have no gurantee that the money is actually going to help them and not to some warlord or such.

While I understand your logic, it's sort of flawed. Charity is not a mysterious thing like leprechauns. There are plenty of well established organizations where you'll be practically guaranteed your money will go towards helping children. In fact, many of them even publish annual reports telling you how much of each dollar goes towards victims.

true. but there is still no gurntee. not ot mention its human nature to help the kid in here and now.

 

[Cattlegod]

save and sell the coat, then go on vacation. survival of the fittest.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Save the child. It is you taking an active role in saving a life.

 

[SoulAssassin]

If the drowning child had a hot mom I would try to seduce her w my mad pimpin jacket and offer to "donate my DNA" so she can have another child with the intelligence to not jump into damn water over their head.

 

[nutxo]

Its a stupid question. If I were headed into the water to save someone Id lose my jacket and shoes really quick.

That being said. Yes I would sacrifice a 5000 dollar coat to save someones life without a second thought.

 

[Darwin333]

How is this even a question? You're actually asking people to vote if they would watch a child drown in front of them?

And to the one person that voted they would watch the kid drown, you are a truly sick person. I could not watch anyone drown without trying to help them, regardless of what my current attire might be, much less a child.

The "moral dilemma" about either BUYING the jacket or saving 100 kids is a different question altogether.

 

[nonameo]

You drown in the process of saving the kid. This way your life insurance payout can be used to save many more than just the 100's that 5k would save.

Not only that, who would honestly want to live after ruining a jacket that 5k was spent on?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
How is this even a question? You're actually asking people to vote if they would watch a child drown in front of them?

And to the one person that voted they would watch the kid drown, you are a truly sick person. I could not watch anyone drown without trying to help them, regardless of what my current attire might be, much less a child.

The "moral dilemma" about either BUYING the jacket or saving 100 kids is a different question altogether.

Then it comes down to " Are they from the US" /sarcasm

 

[IronWing]

If the child works hard and stops wallowing in self pity, always looking for the helping hand then she/he should be able to save him/herself. Ditto for the African kids. You should walk back to the clubhouse and have another drink to congratulate yourself for having made wiser choices in life than that dumb kid and for applying your talents in such a way as to be in possession of a 5k jacket.

 

[ghostman]

Originally posted by: sniperruff
its just a damn jacket. these chick mags are insane.

Read the OP more closely. It's not a chick magazine:

Cosmopolitanism

As for me, well, I can't swim. But I'd probably sell the jacket and buy something better and cheaper than a jacket that gets ruined in water. I doubt I'd donate $5000 to a charity though... that's a load of money.

If I could swim and the OP's choices are the only ones I have, I'd probably save the kid. AFB makes a very good argument.