You also could explain and discuss the drowing child thought experiment, but how well this will work out likely strongly depends on the group you are talking to and how much they like discussing these kinds of question.
Indeed; as a data point, the drowning child argument is one of the things that clarified my thinking about these things, and convinced me not to support EA.
The point of my comment was to agree with Yannick_Muehlhaeuser about the fact that discussing the “drowning child” argument can have different effects on different people. (It’s a classic “one person’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens”, in fact.)
Indeed; as a data point, the drowning child argument is one of the things that clarified my thinking about these things, and convinced me not to support EA.
To not support EA? I am confused. Doesn’t the drowning child experiment lend credence to supporting EA?
To not support EA, yes.
The point of my comment was to agree with Yannick_Muehlhaeuser about the fact that discussing the “drowning child” argument can have different effects on different people. (It’s a classic “one person’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens”, in fact.)
This old comment thread makes for useful reading on this topic.