If you don't know how to swim and your pasing by and you're seeing a baby drowning, do you have an abstract obligation to save that baby?
2007-12-03 19:02:22 · 8 answers · asked by Thinker 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
By the way there is no chance of saving the baby.
2007-12-03 19:10:55 · update #1
There is no ways around it like getting someone else, finding something to pull the baby in, etc. You're two choices: jump in or not to jump in.
2007-12-03 19:12:14 · update #2
It's an abstract question on mortality! THE BABY DOES NOT HAVE PARENTS!
2007-12-03 19:13:11 · update #3
If there is no chance of saving the baby then it is already dead, if it is not dead there is a chance and therefore the "right" thing for me to do is attempt to increase those odds by any means necessary even if that means risking my own life, but hey that's just what I believe.
[edit]
I was thinking about this question and I thought I would show my reasoning
If the baby is still alive and I know by in action(not jump in) the baby will die I know the results of inaction. If I do take action(jump in) the results may or may not change, this is better odds then inaction for the which the results are known.
But to say there is no way to save the baby is to say that it is already dead as such, if I knew that to be the case, I would not jump in.
2007-12-03 20:22:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we do have an obligation to apply the Golden Rule. The solution is not clear cut in this situation, but there is an obligation to try and apply the rule. Not walk away nor throw your own life away.
But there is no moral obligation unless there is a higher moral authority than ourselves standing behind the GR, a moral authority to whom we owe obedience. That can only be God. Without God, all we have left is feelings (of guilt, conscience, sympathy, etc.) and what obligation could we possibly owe to a feeling?
2007-12-04 06:32:38 · answer #2 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, an abstract obligation. Not leaping in to swim, harming self, but doing something, e.g. looking for a raft or life preserver to help you venture on the water.
"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov.
"Expecting Adam," Martha Beck.
2007-12-04 03:18:18 · answer #3 · answered by j153e 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and where the hell are this hypothetical baby's parents? If its parents are that neglectful it's probably better off drowning anyway.
This isn't to say I wouldn't attempt a rescue, but I can swim, so that's not a problem. I am saying that I have no obligation to do so.
2007-12-04 03:11:45 · answer #4 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would feel I had an obligation to do whatever I can to help. This may not necessarily be jumping into the water, but maybe getting someone who would be more capable of dealing with the situation. I certainly wouldn't be able to just do nothing about it.
2007-12-04 03:08:38 · answer #5 · answered by Kaitlin B 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
of couse not...what would suicide solve...nothing...i would write a song about the dead baby and walk around the world painting my dead baby graffitti because I could not save her...or I might go get some swimming lessons
2007-12-04 04:02:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i would jump in. and im dead sirious about it.
ok another example.
if you see someone getting robbed by someone thats armed.
are you going to help that person?
i sures the hell would try to help.
and anyways, if the baby doesnt have any parents ho the hell did the baby get there in the first place?...
the question of morality here is. would you sacrafice your life for another even though it cant be saved.
i would try first and see later..
2007-12-04 03:25:40 · answer #7 · answered by peter54354 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think instinctivly you would try save it
2007-12-04 03:15:53 · answer #8 · answered by julz 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋