If you can save a child from drowning, are you obligated to do so?

Answer 1

What a question! It depends upon your veiw point of morality and spirituality. I am not sure whether you want the religious answer or the philisophical answer, so I will indulge in both.
Spiritually speaking, the soul (in most world religions) is much like the body in the fact that it needs excercise to remain healthy. In contrast, if one does not exercise one will wither away. Exercise in this example is 'good deeds.' Christianity (which is the religion with which I am most familiar) often says that it is important to do unto others what you would want done unto yourself. So, therefore, saving the child is a rational choice and therefore would be the right thing to do. If someone is in obvious danger that could put you into obvious danger, it is still true sice they also beleive that it is better to lay down ones life for another than to stand idly by and do nothing.
Now that we have that out of the way, it is time to get to the more fun portion: philosophy. There are several ways to look at this ideal.
First, let us look at one of the fathers of philosophy: Immanuel Kant. He would put this into a maxim and apply it to the world. for example: If every person in the world lives by the ideal that they need not help someone who is drowning, would it make sense in the grand sceme of things or is there a conflict somewhere? If we all ignored the needs of others in trouble, then they also would ignore ours. This is a contradiction because we a people must realize that eventually we ourselves would come into need and no one would help us. Therefore, we have an imperfect obligation to save the child.
If you look at Aristotle, virtue is the most important ideal since it in itself and for only the sake of itself leads to happiness. Therefore, by saving the child, only for the sake of saving the child, you have commited an act of virtue and have furthered yourself in your own happiness.
If you want to be a utilitarian, you would save the child. You would save the child up to the point that it would cause you as much suffering as the child is receiving. This means, assuming that the child will die if not helped, you have a moral obligation to do anything short of death to prevent the child from drowning. Lets give an example: suppose there is a child drowning in shark infested waters. Even if you are going to lose all four limbs in order to save the childs life, as long as you yourself don't die, you should do it, since the loss of 4 limbs is not as substantial of a loss as the loss of a whole person.
There are many philosophies that could come into play here to save the child, but I won't go throug more, since, well, I am getting bored of this question.
One more thing: Or you could just be an Darwinist and say, too bad kiddie, survival of the fittest!

Answer 2

I don't know if you are obligated to do so legally, but could I live with the fact that if I did not try and no one else did either, that child would die.

Could I sleep at night knowing I could have prevented a sad tragedy?

How would I feel if the parents found out that I did nothing to save the child, and could have saved their child? Could I face them?

For me, the answer is to those questions, that if I am in a position to save a person from drowning and there is no one else that can can, I will do whatever is within my means to save that child's life.

Answer 3

I'd have to ask why would you consider this an "obligation"? If you saw anyone drowning, regardless of age or anything else, wouldn't you attempt to save them? Could you, honestly, just turn and walk away?

Answer 4

If you can save ANYONE from drowning - regardless of whether they are a child or not, I think you are obligated.

Answer 5

Is there a second part in the question? I would think morally, yes, you are absolutely obligated to do so. HOWEVER there are money grubbing people around who would sue you for any damage the child might get. That is why there is that new good samaritan law that protects you against things like that.

Answer 6

You are not obligated, but if you are human you will save a child.

Answer 7

Depends. I knew a guy up in Chicago who tried to save a nine-year old from drowning in a frozen pond. He died too. Left three kids without a father. In life-guard training they teach you that if you are not a strong swimmer, most times when you try to save someone from drowning, their panicked state will usually try to bring you underwater as they try to climb on top of you for air.

Like I said. Depends

Answer 8

I think there are gray areas and moral areas here and when you say obligated are you saying legally or morally so. I think if you believe you are unable and don't I think legally you are ok like if you can't swim and are unable to help, but if you start to help and then stop, you are legally resposnible to keep trying until professional help arrives or your safety is in danger kind of like cpr. But if you could save the child, I believe morally, you are absolutely obligated to save the child

Answer 9

Most people wouldn't consider if it was their obligation. They would just run, swim to save the child.

Answer 10

If you can then you should!!!!!

Why would you let them drown in front of you. That would be horriable. You are not obligated.. but if you have a heart and soul then of course you should.