Sup Forums can't answer babby's first ethics question

> Sup Forums can't answer babby's first ethics question

Obvious answer is to take all your clothes off and jump in

who cares about ethics

i could save that little shit and not even get wet
stop being a fucking pussy
be a hero like me.

You are not obliged, but it is expected of you.

you could probably get in legal trouble for negligence or some shit if you didn't so I'm gonna say yeah

The leaf is right, something is not right.

is the kid white?
he looks a little brown in OP

Is the child white?

also, it's a trick
people who are drowning don't "appear to be drowning." they just sink.
wading in will only get you all dirty and piss off the kid for ruining his fun

child could be dead by the time your clothes are removed

He would probably thrash about, flinging water onto my face or even striking me, violating the NAP.

The end result being I would nuke him from orbit, so he's better off drowning as a learning experience.

the question is whether it is an 'obligation' to which the answer is no from an objective personal level to yes from a subjective societal level.

>take your clothes off and touch a child
>give them mouth to mouth
Enjoy prison.

You don't have an obligation to do anything.

> what is passive and active drowning
take a high school first aid class or sumthin', ya square.

>You are not obliged to that which is expected of you
I think we're gonna have to come up with a new definition of "obligation," then.

In some states in the USA you are correct, and you could be charged for not trying to help.

Yes: you have an obligation. It is not an obligation to the child. It is an obligation to yourself.

>Expecting ethics to be high on the priorities of a board that regularly calls for genocide.

Just tell them you don't know how to swim (actually don't do this, you'd be an asshole)

CAME HERE FOR THIS

ALSO MAKE SURE HIS PARENTS ARE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED

If there's a law that says I'm obliged to, then I am.

That kid seems pretty brown

So no

is the kid white?

Is the child white?

Mr. Shekelstein can kick my ass. I would save the kiddo.

Eliminating blacks and Jews is the most ethical choice in protecting civilisation and Western morality.

>child is brown
No.

When its white, save it alright.
When ita brown, flush it down.

Well if you told me you were drowning, I would not lend a hand
I've seen your face before my friend, but I don't know if you know who I am
Well I was there and I saw what you did, I saw it with my own two eyes
So you can wipe off that grin, I know where you've been
It's all been a pack of lies
Dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun
And I can feel it coming in the air tonight, oh Lord
Well I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord
I can feel it coming in the air tonight, oh Lord
Well I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord, oh Lord
Well I remember, I remember, don't worry, how could I ever forget
It's the first time, the last time we ever met
But I know the reason why you keep your silence up, oh no you don't fool me
Well the hurt doesn't show, but the pain still grows
It's no stranger to you and me
I can feel it coming in the air tonight, oh Lord
Well been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord
I can feel it in the air tonight, oh Lord, oh Lord
Well I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord
I can feel it coming in the air tonight, oh Lord
And I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord
I can feel it in the air tonight, oh Lord, oh Lord, oh Lord
Well I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord, oh Lord
I can feel it in the air tonight, oh Lord, oh Lord, oh Lord, oh Lord
Well I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, oh Lord, oh Lord, oh Lord

Is the child white?

If the child is visibly drowning, then you can be sure they're still conscious, so you have time before they pass out and a few minutes afterward to resuscitate them.

Plus I can take my clothes off in less than ten seconds, you fatty

I think you need to revise your definition of obligation, the leaf is right.

No, you don't have an obligation to save the child.

However you would probably face some legal heat if someone found out you just watched the child drown, so probably best to intervene out of self interest.

No. The argument singer takes is we should promote the greatest good when it doesn't inconvenience us too much.

The quibble is, what is good, why should we, and what does too much inconvenience entail.


What is good for me is no indicator of what is good for you. Just look at the masochist.

Too much inconvience is similarly value laden


The really problematic part is the should. All consquentialist ethics terminate in good outcomes being preferred. It is a form of EMPIRICAL ethics. Meaning based on observation and desired outcome. Here is a reductio ad absurdum argument against EMPIRICAL ethics. Just because I kick babies to death doesnt mean I should. An is cannot lead to an ought. QED there is no EMPIRICAL justification for ethical propositions.


Singer can fuck off back to ausfailia

lol

Fuck I hate analytic/utilitarian Anglosphere "philosophers" like Singer. This is just a fucking word-game based on the definition of the word "obligation".

You'll also see these geniuses wanking on about the truth-values of the statement "the current King of France is bald" while acting like continential philosophy is some kind of horrible sophistry that is totally different to their "logical", "scientific", "quantifiable" approach to philosophy.

Fugging mad right now. If the kid grows up to be an analytic wordgamer, then let him drown.

Who doesn't keep spare work cloths? I have some of the slobbenist assholes that I work with, plus people spilling coffee and shit is an issue. Anyone that isn't keeping a spare suit (or whatever your job requires) are shit tier employees.

Also, while no obligation, it is morally superior to help

Drowning kids are usually niggers so who cares.

>Not saving the kid for utilitarian purpsoes

It's like you don't want to drown in good karma and pussy.

This!

Not aiding a person in immediate danger is a crime

>child who can't swim swimming unsupervised
darwinism at it's finest

I'd rescue the kid then shoot him for not knowing how to swim

No. That little shit got himself in that situation for a reason. Who am I to act against his life decisions.

This.

xD le nice Phil Collins reference bruh UPVOTED!!

Hard mode: you are going commando that day.

>save the kid
>record it (or after you save it)
>when mr.noseberg asks why you're so late and wet show it to him
>get promoted or at least get a recognition.

Good! You got it right. There is no ethical imperative to help be since we live in a society that deems it to be a de facto imperative we should (if anyone is around at least)

This is retarded. Obviously I would help the stupid kid. And then use the fact that my clothes are dirty and wet, and that I just saved a person to get out of work for the day.

>Singer
>utilitarians in general
I prefer to get my ethics from philosophers whose ethics aren't constantly getting btfo.

well I wouldn't just jump in with my underwear on, I'd have to take them off before getting back in my work clothes anyway

Plus it's okay to flail your junk around in Canada, it would be intolerant to prosecute that or something

Nope.

Even the cucked hellholes with mandatory good sam laws have fines of $1.

You have NO legal obligation to initiate a rescue unless you hvae a special relationship with the person in danger.

No. Do I? Yes. What kind of bullshit is this?

Yes that statement has a possible truth value. It is null.

Sorry that logic and attention to language is too hard for your tiny abbo brain to comprehend. I'm sure heideggers meaningless ramblings will help you feel smart because people regard him and other continentalists as oh so intellectually demanding and deep.

but they could be hitler

>obligation
No.
>should you?
Yes.

No. The baby is my property and I have no obligation to do anything for it.

Literally every ethical theory says you have to save him.

>Quoting Singer
>Ever

You an obligation to save the child, at the very least morally because regardless of the clothes or inconvenience the life of a child is worth far more than the clothes on your back.

>Ethics
Spook.

Nope. Relativism and Anti-realism don't/

Forgot to mention, just tell your boss that you were late because you saved a kid from drowning. If you get fired over it, sue the boss.

Is he black?

Does me not saving him violate the NAP?

No.

I have a right of association.

Fuck off m8.

>e heideggers meaningless ramblings
brainlet detected

sin of omission

Maximum zoozle

Analyticuck can't handle reading a book. Three-syllable words can be very taxing if you don't have a very good brain - Sad! Many such cases.

checked.

Also, what? "obligation" is basically synonymous with "you should". That is what obligation means.

Is the child a nigger?

>Also, what? "obligation" is basically synonymous with "you should". That is what obligation means.
Maybe you should give philosophy of language another try. Or Wittgenstein's Investigations at least.

how is babby formed?
how girl get pragnent?

That isn't what obligation means. I can see why you did poorly in your philosophy of language courses.

In ethical discourse obligations refer to imperatives/necessary actions

The should you take issue with refers to teleology. IE we should help the kid because there are good samaritan laws on the books not because it's gods will.

This was my original point though. Either it's all just wanking about definition of "obligation" (and avoiding the ethical question), or it's an extremely non-complex normative ethical question (find framework, apply framework, make trivial argument)

Of course you save the child. Dirtying your clothes and being late to work are not equal to life and assuming you know how to swim there is no danger in saving the child.

>not becoming a local hero

You'd have to be a sociopath not to save the child.

they need to do way instain mother who refuse to rescue babby becuse drowning babby cannot frigth back

>if nigger, latino, chinaman, low caste indian or white then no
>only high caste indian

No. Is the answer, the question merely involves you, the child, scene. There is no one else involved nor other consequences other than dirty/lateness. So its not a question of obligation. Its of want and maternal instinct.

You would want to take a bullet for your child.
You wouldnt for a strangers child.

Correct answer.

As long as you had no role in putting the child in the water (shoving, luring, daring, threatening)

AND you are not a life guard or a similar rescuer who has some such contractual obligation to save people who enter the water

you can LITERALLY AND LEGALLY set out a picnic blanket, and clap and cheer while someone dies in front of you.

Enjoy /pol.

Someone has the recent video of a chinese mother letting her child drown to death because she's too busy checking her phone the whole time?

Why did you save him? It is better to learn from adversity so you may stand in front of it and weather its terrible storm. Now he will rely on the kindness of others, rather than the skill he has gained from this experience.

>Influence lost: Kreia.

>"Hey kid before i rescue you are your parents employed?"
>"gargles screams and splashes"
>"ill take that as a no, nothin personell kid"

No, I mean that "you should" is just another way of phrasing "this is an imperative" or "this is a necessary action". It doesn't matter how many layers of field-internal jargon you're on, sooner or later it just comes down to this stupid noise.

>walking to work

Are you poor?

U L T R A
L
T
R
A


R A R E
A
R
E

context you fucker context. Can you imagine a possible world where you shouldnt save the kid. If so its not an imperative. Saving the kid is CONTINGENT to a social contract.

I think the NAP will help me in this circumstance...

Fuck, now I wan't to play KOTOR again
Damn you burger

His gargling is violating the NAP.

I must save him from himself.

Literally China in 2016 after that Peng Yu court case with the woman on the bus. Their social contract still functions.

>drowning in a shallow pond
Clearly a niglet. Carry on.

sory for your lots

>I think we're gonna have to come up with a new definition of "obligation," then.
Liberal politics in a nutshell, tbqh.

>grab child by the arm nlatantly violating the NAP
>his dad sees this and executes a coordinated drone strike on me and my family

I'm just going to go about my day desu

It's not wanking. Even people who've never gotten into philosophy would agree those two concepts didn't mean the same thing. You just have to give them enough examples.

Disregard this guy though

No, would be a violation of the NAP without prior consent.

No. Obligation implies that you must save the kid to be considered a good person in society. Should implies that saving the kid would be generous and a good idea, but isn't absolutely necessary to remain a good person.

Answers usually depend on whether you interpret the kid drowning as his fault. When someone makes a life threatening mistake, do you have to risk your resources to save the person? Is fixing that person's mistake valuable enough to risk your family's financial stability?

"Should" could also include pragmatic benefits, while "obligation" usually doesn't. If you save the kid, you could get benefits from the parents and possible news recognition. Both of these can increase your financial opportunities. If you live in a first world country, your chances of getting fired are low. Getting a more punctual employee isn't worth getting sued, nor is it worth the bad reputation your establishment would get for firing a drowning kid.

I don't work for Jews, so my boss wouldn't care if I was a little late.

I actually went through a similar situation just recently. Only it was a bit different.

Instead of a child it was a grown woman. And instead of a lake a man was yelling at her for cheating. In their house. She sounded afraid and he sounded kind of violent.

I walked by, smiling, knowing that by not acting I was making the world a better place.

What on earth do you mean by that.

An imperative would hold true transcendentally meaning it supersedes social contracts. Doing something because its part of a social contract is just acting according to practical reason.

Singer and other ethicists try to construct true/transcendental systems and fail (because there is no such thing an a true ethical predicate following the failure of the synthetic a priori and the naturalistic fallacy)

if its a non-white im just going to ignore it. If its a white ill go save it