Philosopy Question - Would you jump in?

Question

This question has been posed to a friend of mine doing a philosophy course.

"You're walking down a road on your own wearing your new, expensive leather trousers which you can't remove on your own.

You come across a child in a pond who is drowning.

What do you do?"

Arguments for jumping in and helping and arguments why not to jump in and help would be appreciated

Answer 1

Jump in. A possession pales into insignificance when compared to a life.

Answer 2

Yay! I get to be the 'devil's advocate'! Any question such as this has at least two sides, and those who claim there aren't just aren't looking:

First of all, there's the epistemological question. The child SEEMS to be drowning, but is he really? I've seen children play at such games myself all the time. And let's not forget that children are sometimes not the innocent creatures many like to believe. Perhaps that child saw your new pants and vindictively decided to destroy them by trying to get you to jump in the lake. I've seen children do far worse.

Even if the child IS drowning, what makes you think you can help? Presumably children do not drown for no reason whatsoever. If there's something in that pond (a crocodile, for example) that's MAKING the child drown, then jumping in yourself may just be throwing one life after another. I read a story once about a man drowning in a well, and one person after another came to save him and eight people died in the process (including the original drowning person). That helps nobody.

There's always the universal justice approach. It is a parent's responsibility to care for their children. A parent who does not do so is negligent, sometimes criminally so. So where is the parent in this case? If you rescue the child, are you not enabling that criminal behaviour? Doesn't that make you an accomplice? Who knows what other neglect that poor wretch is suffering... maybe he is even trying to commit suicide because his life is so miserable. You might as well beat the kid after you rescue him!

And last (and possibly least) is the self-interested argument. You have new pants. Those pants have a value. This kid is nothing to you. He won't pay you for your pants. You'll probably never see him again. What if it were a trillion dollars instead of a pair of pants... you might do fantastic things with that money. And what's the difference between a trillion dollars and a couple hundred except a matter of degree? If there's any amount of money that would make you think twice, then perhaps that's a sign that strangers asking you to sacrifice for them is unjustified.

Yay! That's a lot of fairly good arguments to save your pants. But me - I'd jump in anyway. ( :

Answer 3

The leather trousers are not so important because the kid's mum will buy you a new pair. On the other hand it may be a hoax and a mother comes out of the bushes as you have her child on the bank and wants to know what's going on and its a £100 to stop her calling the police. Or the police come by and arrest you for doing their job and charge you with swimming in the pond when the sign clearly said.......

Answer 4

I would never wear either a) a pair of leather trousers, or b) a pair of trousers I couldn't remove on my own.

If I saw a child drowning in a pond, I would dial 999 on my mobile as I ran to the pondside, give the details as quickly as possible, then jump in and pull the child out, leaving the mobile on, then continue to stay in touch with the emergency services as I check the child and do whatever necessary.

Answer 5

Now, most peoples first reaction would be to jump in, however I would advise caution at this point.
A man seen wearing tight leather trousers grappling with a young child in a pond is in all probability going to attract some potentially hazardous attention.
As well as this the child in question could have been placed there by the good lord on the basis that it is the Anti-Christ, a rescue a this point could spark world wide Armageddon....something it is probably best to avoid.

Answer 6

Rather than jumping in and saving the child, wouldn't it be better to quickly teach the child to swim? Otherwise, how do I know the child won't just drown again tomorrow? I can't follow this child around my whole life waiting for it to fall into ponds so I can rescue it.

On top of that, if I jump in with tight leather pants, when the pants dry they will shrink, probably cutting off the circulation completely and killing me before I can find someone to get them off me (assuming that asking strange children to help take my pants off will minimally get me imprisoned for child abuse, if the child can even help in their weakened condition).

All that said, if these pants are so tight that I can't remove them, then they are probably already cutting off the circulation to my brain, in which case I'm probably not thinking clearly. So I would just jump in and save the child because I can't think of anything better to do in the heat of the moment, and then I'll die later from pants shrinkage, and the child will just drown again tomorrow. Tragic.

Answer 7

Jumping In - If you have to analyse to save a drowning child, you must be a robot.

Not to jump in - what has your new expensive leather trousers got to do with a child's life??? or your life for that matter?
My Father jumped into a big drain with his suit to rescue a little boy who fell in. Many years laters he was reminded and "congratulated" of this incident by someone who saw that happening. I said to my Father that he never told me about that and he said I was just a kid then!!! How I love my Father.

Answer 8

Yes you jump in and even if you would worry about a law suit about toucing a child or what ever else some one could think up the Good Samaratin act would save you from any of those problems. You jump in Who care about pants. But if jumping in cost you your life and the childs then I guess that would be bad

Answer 9

Jump in save the child, the pants are already dead. If you don't jump in you have to live with yourself, may go on an eating binge and the trousers won't fit anyway. The only real argument for not jumping in, is you can't swim, if you can't you will have to summon help.

Answer 10

If I could swim I'd jump in. I don't know how to swim! I'd try to do my best to save the child using any creative means I can. But yeah, my jumping in has nothing to do with the trousers. Human life comes first.

Answer 11

The answer, it seems to me, is obviously that you should jump in and help the child.

Let's go to the late WD Ross, 20th century British Moral Philosopher. He would say we might see a prima facia duty to keep our pants clean, and a prima facia duty to help the child. We must weigh the importance of each of these prima facia duties, and that all rational people would say that the prima facia duty to help another person in great distress is a greater prima facia duty than that of keeping your new pants clean. Therefore, your duty at that time is to save the child, it is the right thing to do.

Kant also comes to mind. His categorical imperative, in its various forms tells us to one, only act in a way you would have everyone else act, and two to not use people as mere means, but always as ends. So, we would want other people to jump in and save someone, even if they were wearing fancy pants, and that is what we should do.