But I don’t think that they would say that the moral obligation is as great as the moral obligation in Singer’s “child in a pond” scenario.
Really? At least as a matter of my intuitions I’d say the obligation is no different. You might be able to argue that if you have a car worth twice AMF’s cost per life saved, you’d save more lives letting the kid get turned into goo, and then selling the car and donating the money. But for what my intuitions are worth I would flip the switch. I’d flip it if my car were worth a million times the cost per life saved, and I think I’d (at least) say some harsh things to anyone who so much as hesitates to flip the switch. I don’t think it follows from this that I should donate anything at all to AMF, but that’s another premise and conclusion.
I’d flip it if my car were worth a million times the cost per life saved, and I think I’d (at least) say some harsh things to anyone who so much as hesitates to flip the switch.
The hypothetical here isn’t realistic unless you’re a billionaire. Here is a more realistic one: would you become an indentured servant for life in order to save the child? If your life time earning power is $5m, then becoming an indentured servent for life gets you less than 1⁄40 the way toward paying a million times the cost of saving a child.
Here is a more realistic one: would you become an indentured servant for life in order to save the child?
Or, not merely more realistic, but actually having real instances: would you throw your whole productive life into earning as much money as possible in order to give nearly all of it away to the cause of saving children?
Really? At least as a matter of my intuitions I’d say the obligation is no different. You might be able to argue that if you have a car worth twice AMF’s cost per life saved, you’d save more lives letting the kid get turned into goo, and then selling the car and donating the money. But for what my intuitions are worth I would flip the switch. I’d flip it if my car were worth a million times the cost per life saved, and I think I’d (at least) say some harsh things to anyone who so much as hesitates to flip the switch. I don’t think it follows from this that I should donate anything at all to AMF, but that’s another premise and conclusion.
The hypothetical here isn’t realistic unless you’re a billionaire. Here is a more realistic one: would you become an indentured servant for life in order to save the child? If your life time earning power is $5m, then becoming an indentured servent for life gets you less than 1⁄40 the way toward paying a million times the cost of saving a child.
Or, not merely more realistic, but actually having real instances: would you throw your whole productive life into earning as much money as possible in order to give nearly all of it away to the cause of saving children?
Right, that’s better. In that case, I wouldn’t say one has a moral obligation even to save the local child.