If you are interested in philosophy, then SaaniaSparkle has a blog you will probably find interesting. It is surprising a 15 year old would come up with it, but there are some smart young people out there.
Here SaaniaSparkle poses a thought experiment invented by Peter Singer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer). Does a drowning child in front of us make the same moral demands as a starving child on the other side of the world.
As SaaniaSparkle realizes to some extent at least, Singer creates an interesting, but false equivalency. The drowning child in front of us does not make the same demands upon us as a starving child on the other side of the world.
The drowning child puts us in the position of the Good Samaritan. It will cost us to help, but we can do something, and we clearly have a responsibility. We have the capacity to pull the child out of the water and fix the problem.
The starving children all around the world pose a much more complex problem. That is not to say we don’t have a personal obligation to help, but there is no simple fix, and the priorities are not as obvious. If we have a drowning child in front of us, then we would have an obligation to drop everything and pull the child out of the water. The starving child, on the other hand, poses no such sense of immediacy. Instead, we each have to consider our priorities and decide which charitable organization we should to contribute to and how much. In addition, since most starvation is due to corrupt governments, not inadequate natural resources, we have wonder what good our donations will accomplish. There is no point in dumping money into a bottomless pit. In fact, if our donations strengthen a dictator, we may be doing something immoral.
We each have to deal with the problem of our human limitations. We each can only do so much. Hence, when our Lord judges us, He will probably be trying to decide whether we did what we could, not whether we fixed all the worlds problems.
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher who created a thought experiment called The Drowning Child, in 2009.
In this thought experiment, we imagine ourselves walking down the street. Suddenly, we notice a girl drowning in a lake. We have the ability to swim, and we are also close enough to save her life if we take action immediately. However, doing so will ruin our expensive shoes. Do we still have an obligation to save her?
Peter’s answer to this question is yes. We do have a responsibility to save the life of a drowning child and price is no object. If we agree with him on this statement, it leads us to a salient thought-provoking question: If we are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving one who is right in front of us and oneon the other…
View original post 242 more words