Would You Save A Boy From Drowning?

Would you save a boy who is drowning in front of your eyes? And thinking about this question, do you base your answer on the character you strive to become, on the behavior you want to see in the world, a cost and benefit analysis, your own self-interest, or would you just follow what feels right? Let’s try to answer these questions with the theory of four famous thinkers: Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, and Mill.
SUPPORT us to help understand human beings better!
/ sprouts 🐦:
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
sproutsschools.com/battle-of-...
VISIT our website 🌐:
www.sproutsschools.com
CONTRIBUTE by upvoting your favorite topic or suggesting new ones☑️ :
sprouts.featureupvote.com/
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Adam Berry, Alex Rodriguez, Andrea Basillio Rava, Angela, ArkiTechy, Artur, azad bel, Badrah, Bernd Gaertner, Cedric.Wang, Christoph Becker, Daniele Diniz, David Markham, Delandric Webb, Digital INnov8ors, Dr. Matthias Müller-Mellin, Duane Bemister, Eva Marie Koblin, Fatenah G Issa, Floris Devreese, Frari63, Gerry Labelle, Harmoniac Design, ICH KANN DEUTSCH UND ES WAR EINFACH!, Izzy, Jannes Kroon, Jeffrey Cassianna, Jim Pilgrim, Joanne Doyle, John Burghardt, Jonathan Schwarz, Jorge Luis Mejia Velazquez, jun omar ebdane, Khadijah Sellers, Leonel, Liam Dalling, Linda Kinkead, Linus Linderoth, Lucia Simone Winston, Marcel, Marcia Ramos, María, martin, Mathis Nu, Mezes.Macko, Michael Paradis, Mindozone, Natalie O’Brien, Nick Valerio, Nicki, Okan Elibol, Oweeda Newton, Peihui, Peter Bishop, Povilas Ambrasas, Raymond Fujioka, Roel Vermeulen, Scott Gregory, scripz, Sebastian Huaytan Meder, Si, Stefan Gros, Stephen Clark, Stuart Bishop, Takashi HIROSE, Thomas Aschan, Victor Paweletz, Yassine Hamza, Yvonne Clapham and all the others. Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Production: Selina Bador
Fact-checking: Ludovico Saint Amour Di Chanaz
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
SOUNDTRACKS
The Haunted Manor - HWIYO
Midnight Mischief - Jonathan Boyle
DIG DEEPER with these top videos, games and resources:
Read about the Trolley ProblemListen to Russ Roberts and Mike Munger talk about Wild Problems and what it means to be a good person.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley...
www.econtalk.org/russ-roberts...
Watch the video of D&D alignment system and moral philosophy
• Moral Philosophy and t...
Read more about Utilitarianism
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ut...
Read more about Deontology
www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduc...
Read more about Virtue Ethics
plato.stanford.edu/entries/et...
Read more about Nietzsche’s views on morality
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ni...
SOURCES
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine,...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effecti...
CLASSROOM ACTIVITY
Visit our website to see recommend activity on this topic!
CHAPTER
00:00 Introduction
01:01 Virtue theorists
02:07 Utilitarians
03:17 Deontologist
04:13 Nietzsche
04:48 Koppel's observation
05:50 What would you do?
06:16 Patrons credits
06:26 Ending
#sproutsschools #moral #philosophy #ethics #kant #nietzsche #mill #utilitarianism

[@FractalShoggoth]

Obviously the solution is to challenge the boy to honorable naval combat.

[@user-zg3gh8xg9v]

Launch the torpedoes !

[@Dark_Slayer3000]

Sea of thieves moment

[@jieji703]

Im a japanese kamikaze

[@ramikocanilla3544]

Who are you Horatio Nelson. 😂

[@user-zn4pw5nk2v]

Survival of the fittest, if he wins he gets saved on your ship and becomes captain and you get to do whatever he says forever, if not, he either joins your crew or walks the plank to the bottom of the ocean, either way you get two ships to fight another naval battle if you win. Arrg, me scurvy maties 🇸🇨 and 🏴 and 🇸🇴 and any other, sink the land lovers! (Joking, I'm just joking, but it would save the kid 80% of the time with the option of saving more, just because they surrendered before the combat began. And probably grow up to become a coast guard due to the stress of the encounter.)

[@shanesettuba5238]

The news paper guys saw the boy and decided to help him by writing for others to read his story. Funny stuff.

[@sprouts]

Haha! He's smart

[@Tevildo]

This is the plot of "Ace in the Hole" (1951), starring Kirk Douglas as the reporter.

[@icedriver2207]

In this day and age people would make a video on their phone all the while yelling for someone else to call emergency services

[@Monkey_D_Luffy56]

Yeah kinda like people today where they pull up a phone to record a situation instead of helping or calling for help

[@mikeb5613]

Journalist logic.

[@Gaspardrow]

I would say: - If it's in your immediate power and no one else can, you must. - If it's in your immediate power and others can too, you should. - If it's hard, doubtful, far and/or dangerous, only if you want and are ready for the consequences. (You have a moral obligation to yourself, your family and society first) We all want to live in a world were people do the right thing, but realistically, not everyone is like that, they are by far the minority.

[@user-lk1fw1lp8b]

Do you ever buy coffee?

[@supayambaek]

Based.

[@EliTheGleason]

What an even handed response

[@sofija642]

@@user-lk1fw1lp8b Why do I feel like comment about Peter Singer's essay is coming

[@user-lk1fw1lp8b]

@@sofija642 you have a good intuition. I have already left a comment about Peter Singer under this video, but not in this thread.

[@yessir2514]

Nietzsche would praise the boy for having master morality and the will to power to improve his life in the first place.

[@stevencooper4422]

Exactly, the video was asking the wrong question when talking about Nietzsche. Context changes frame there.

[@weedmantrudeau5783]

Moreover, this makes saving raftboy the Utilitarian choice, if we assume that his strength of character and the things he will accomplish make him worth more to humanity than two average people saved at random.

[@pierreetienneschneider6731]

What if the boy didn't think his decision through and acted on a whim... F that family life, let's go and make moneymoneymoney in Europe... Sorry guy, things won't be simple for you.... between modern slavery, all kinds of prostitution and exploitation, being a second zone citizen with no papers and no right to work, you name it....

[@keernhaslem1845]

The person who should save the boy is the one whom within was once the boy and by extension would be saving themselves.

[@___Anakin.Skywalker]

@@keernhaslem1845the ones to save the boy is the president of America by telling US Navy to go get the boy at sea

[@grapeshott]

Most teachers in ethics classes would shy away from teaching anything about morality of Nietzsche.

[@PlutoTheGod]

Overall his thinking is incomplete and weak in maturity in my opinion, it’s the way a teenager thinks before they run themselves into a wall. That being said, in a round about way they all believe the same thing as him just for different reasons. Each and every reason is one that benefits the mind and well being of that who wrote its logic. Nietzsche is just much more machiavellian about it

[@LNVACVAC]

​@@PlutoTheGod Still there is no evidence for morality and ethics as cognitive.

[@chrisjfox8715]

​@@PlutoTheGodactually, I think the good in Nietzsche's thinking here is that notion that in the grand scheme of things, one of the most selfless things you can do is to be selfish first. One maintaining their own peace and well-being, both mentally and physically, is the very thing that often puts them in a position to be able to help others. Granted, that doesn't help the boy in the here and now but it can put you in a position to be able to help more people in the long run. Then too, that calls into question where to draw the line... Lend a hand when and where you can but don't sacrifice "too much" of yourself doing it is what it boils down to.

[@PlutoTheGod]

@@LNVACVAC it’s what keeps society afloat. It’s the reason we have laws and structure and the reason religion was formed. You can argue it, but live a life where you only serve yourself and see where it goes. Ultimately everyone is only self serving, but if things are structured in a way where you help yourself by helping others and have some limiting factors your life will go much better. An immoral life leads to you figuring out why those things were set in place in the first place by you crashing and burning many times over attempting to become some ultimate version of yourself.

[@LNVACVAC]

@@PlutoTheGod You are mistaking the existence of morality with it being rational, and you are mistaking analysis and prescriptions of morality with morality proper which is a natural fact not a theory, set of theories neither specialized discourse.

[@VersieKilgannon]

I'd donate to a charity putting forth an effort to rescue the boy. If he's out in the middle of the ocean, there isn't much I can actually do to help him beyond finding the right people already trying to help him and assisting them in the cause in the best way I can because that's the right thing to do

[@sprouts]

Right!

[@gargolgaming8101]

I wouldn't donate to charity because chances are 90% of it is going the guy running the program with his golden toilet and 500 suit on at all times

[@Excepnexcep]

​@@gargolgaming8101500 suits at once? How the hell is he going to use that toilet

[@scorpionzi3428]

@@Excepnexcephis suits are made of golden strings, so….

[@sushrutthakur9927]

This is what I was thinking during the whole video. If I'm in a yacht or something and see him, I'll definitely help him out. But I'm not breaking my savings to buy a boat to save a kid's life. By no means am I even qualified to do that and I also put my own life at risk. So I guess I lean towards cost benefit analysis for decisions.

[@Mr_Munene]

I don’t know which theory my reason for saving the boys leans towards but I’d save the boy because if I was the boy, I’d want to be saved..

[@peterwaldens721]

this is the logic of Immanuel Kant

[@with_the_power_of_weirdnes216]

You could also argue thats Schopenhauer.We do only good because our pity and compassion with other human beings as we can see ourselves in the victims in the scenario

[@insankamil2909]

halo @Mr_Munene, have u considered the virtue theorist?

[@alisonhilll4317]

Send him back home .

[@spencergsmith]

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

[@holysong2099]

Well, Nobody in their right mind is gonna take extraordinary risks to help someone they barely even know. However if it happens to be within their control to avert a thing as harrowing as death, I believe most people would do it.

[@ibraheemshuaib8954]

Unless the person in danger is literally right next to them, it feels much more personal in that situation

[@joseluispcr]

some people would actualy risk their life for strangers. This is not "not being in their right mind"

[@pierreetienneschneider6731]

Yeah, I would do it if this guy is within reach or sight....

[@napoleonbuonaparte8975]

@@joseluispcr Actually it is, if I said you that in this exact moment there's some kid in this x location that is about to drown, would you left what you're doing and go to rescue him? Maybe, but it's different to say something from a theoretical perspective than a practical one.

[@technokicksyourass]

But would you save the boy it if you were likely to die in the attempt? Most people wont.

[@panof2852]

Answer for me is empathy. It’s hard to empathise with two strangers you don’t even know where they are. But it’s easier to empathise with that kid you know that he’s there so I would help the kid.

[@sprouts]

That's true 🤔

[@GarrettMoffitt]

Any decisions speculating on the future is false. One acts to save the child in the best way one can. He might do harm, so let him die is , at best, sociopathic excuse making.

[@GarrettMoffitt]

And helping the two kid is based on speculating what a charity Might do with your money. Tmit is not tangible action one can control.

[@paulheitkemper1559]

What about the empathy of a sadist? or a psychopath?

[@paulheitkemper1559]

@@elinope4745 autistic people would have trouble with either.

[@raymk]

You can mix and match the wisdom of these great thinkers based on the situation. May you become wise in pursuing what is right.

[@sprouts]

Yes, you're right

[@Arrwmkr]

​@@sproutsthat's situation ethics, how do you know that is right? You simply don't as this is the postmodern conundrum.

[@joaopedroandsan2172]

@@Arrwmkr conundrum?

[@Arrwmkr]

@@joaopedroandsan2172 well Postmodernism refuses to accept absolutes therefore truth cannot exist. Ironically Postmodernism because it refutes truth claims is incapable of validation.

[@MisterIncog]

@@Arrwmkr I mean, @raymk wrote "You can..." and they are right, you absolutely can.

[@nhansen197]

For me it's going to boil down to whether or not I have the means to save the boy. If I'm in the presence of someone who needs help and I can, I will do what I can do. Sometimes that's going to mean seeking out others who can do what I can not do. Means and ability are very important. If I try to rescue someone when I do not have the means and ability I could quickly find myself in need of rescuing. Charitable organizations work because it makes it possible for people to pool their resources.

[@sophialaird6388]

Avoiding adding to the number of victims is always a good choice.

[@changeling5984]

I too agree with this. Whilst I *want* to see a world where people help each other based of their moral principles I think you *should* always be aware of the possibility and consequences of your actions (personal harm and harm to others in this case).

[@fjb4932]

Volunteers make charitable organizations work. The Officers, Vice Pres., President, Trustees, Board of Directors, etcetera are much more concerned with the pay / privileges they can use. ☆

[@thelegendaryblackbeastofar39]

Actually, this clip's breakdown of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy sounds like Ayn Rand's NOT Nietzsche's. The way I've interpreted Nietzsche's teachings is: "selfishness" is tossing aside the assumptions thrusted onto you by others. When one becomes a free thinker then empathy and compassion comes naturally. Let me elaborate: Step 1) Be selfish! Think only of what's in your OWN best interest... ultimately the realisation that what brings you contentment IS in your best interest. Step 2) To maximise contentment, you must question all social norms and reject those that stand in your path; e.g. our capitalist society's mantra that more money = more happiness. You must seriously contemplate what TRULY brings you contentment. At times you may feel lost or depressed but you must persist! Step 3) The realization eventually comes that true compassion and charity brings tremendous contentment to yourself as this is the way our brains are simply wired. Note: Sociopaths/Psychopaths (only ~2% of the population) are exceptions to this rule as their brains are simply not wired for empathy. Hence, we have the conclusion: selfishness makes you a better human being full of charity and compassion. Nietzsche, felt that those who refuse to accept this fact are intellectual cowards since deep down we know this to be true. Fearing this truth, they come up with wishy-washy arguments like spirituality, the "intrinsic" (that is god's) value of human life and salvation through god's commandments. Only by being aware of our true nature can one avoid false/shallow charity. Remember how much sympathy Elan Gonzales, the "pleasing to the eye" kid who found himself shipwrecked due to his mom's carelessness, got from Americans. Even though he had (by all accounts) a loving father back in Cuba we couldn't let him go. We were blinded by false charity in the guise of nationalistic-patriotism, "What better charity is there than American Freedom !?!" Yet, a kid from Haiti, also shipwrecked on US shores (and was indeed an orphan) was promptly deported. Nietzsche further elaborated that "love" describes many different feelings and motivations. Often what we refer to as love is actually greed in disguise.

[@pongop]

Great points!

[@exotic1405]

Not a philosopher, but I always thought if people were self-aware about their actions, the world could be just a tiny bit better

[@napoleonbuonaparte8975]

@@exotic1405 Ignorance is a bless tho. If people were self aware of their actions they may be unable to decide about anything.

[@exotic1405]

@@napoleonbuonaparte8975 better sitting in a chair contemplating than stabbing someone to death

[@napoleonbuonaparte8975]

@@exotic1405 That's a selfish excuse tho. The person being stabbed will forever hate you for not helping. I don't criticize you tho, I would've do the same in that kind of situation.

[@wolfsmaul-ger8318]

if i had the means to save him, i feel like to me its a "just feels right" thing but i would also like to see helpful behaviour around the world generally, i feel like being a good example to the right people can change their lives and imrpove how they treat others

[@aliquida7132]

Well yeah, it is a combination. 1) How much effort will it take? Am I poor and it would take my life's savings to buy a boat? Are the waters treacherous and I'm not skilled with a boat, therefore risking my life? Or do I have a boat at a dock just waiting, and plenty of free time to go help the kid? I honestly don't know where the "line" would be drawn for "too much effort"... but I certainly would feel guilty if it was close to the line and I decided not to bother. 2) It "just feels right". My gut tells me that it is what I need to do. No thought, no logic, no rationalization, it is just an instinctive urge to help someone in danger. 3) I believe that if everyone put more effort into helping others, the world would be a significantly better place. Therefore it is up to me to do my part to make that "better place" a reality. Not only by doing the "right thing" but by being an example to others. As a side note, even though I want to do the right thing in situations like this, I also am like a "deer in headlights" when something is happening. So if a traumatic situation happens by surprise it isn't until afterwards that I curse at myself for "not doing something". If there is less of a frantic time pressure to act, I am far more likely to put myself forwards and do something.

[@rphb5870]

That is often the problem, people feel rather then thinks. What I observe is thousands upon thousands of such "boys" in Sicily, Lesbos and other southern isles ruining what was once prosperous communities. And they have all come because they want to invade our countries in order to get free handout, because they are too dumb and lazy to do something with themselves. The hint is right there in the beginning of the story. The kid had a family that supported him, and offered him a sustainable future, but he abandoned it in order to chase a dream and brought himself in mortal peril because of it.

[@KootFloris]

I agree with you. Lots of this 'philosophy' (video) is BS. We cannot know what would become of the boy, nor of (almost) anyone we save. Fearing he might later steal from us, is pure anxiety, not a 'moral' thought at all. Even Nietsche's, 'what's in our own best interest?, is pure imaginings. We can't know our future. Once a man saved a drowning boy, who later invented the medicine that saved his son. So all that is left is our own moral feeling and what is safe to do? Don't become one who drowned himself to possibly save another.

[@matteo09120]

imrpoved*

[@wolfsmaul-ger8318]

@@matteo09120 improve*

[@GeorgeCowsert]

One thing I have noticed about increasingly modern philosophers is the rejection of self-fulfillment for self-fulfillment's sake. The true answer is "save the boy if you want and are confident you can. If you succeed, you have helped someone, and debating about what that reveals about your nature is pointless."

[@HaramGuys]

When I was younger, I just simply couldn't understand that people do not think about abstract/theoretical ideas, and wanting to explore into fields such as mathematics/science/linguistics/sociology etc (any fields that attempts to generalize individual cases into an abstract concept) was the normal way of thinking. A person like me who actually thinks about the nature of anything, including morality, would be someone who you would classify as doing pointless things. But as I have studied psychology and evolutionary biology and came to a theoretical understanding of different personality traits and their role in society, I have come to an understanding of those who are not curious of theoretical ideas and became a lot more open minded person. those "pointless" pursuits are what made me a better person today

[@ilzamerson5242]

What seems to be more reasonable and practical action is to give the location of the boy to the competent authorities so they can muster the meanings to help the situation. By doing so, one is attending to both racional and ethical conduct with no interest in promoting himself or sacrificing his wellbeing. This is a good example of social attitude and also individual consciousness.

[@pigcatapult]

Yeah, the thought experiment doesn’t give much thought to whether singlehanded heroics are the most effective way to save the kid.

[@lkjkhfggd]

You're thinking too concretely on the scenario itself instead of the underlying philosophy question. The point is the philosophy question, not the scenario. Either save the boy or don't. You have two options here, pick one. If you need, alter the scenario till you only have those two options. You see the boy out at sea with binoculars and you know a storm is coming tonight and he 100% won't survive it without your help. You live on an abandoned island and so there's nobody else you can pass the responsibility onto. it's either you attempt to save him, or you don't and he dies.

[@pigcatapult]

@@lkjkhfggd well obviously you save him

[@lkjkhfggd]

@@pigcatapult If it was obvious, this wouldn't be a very interesting KZbin video. I don't think observing the misfortune then makes you responsible for fixing it, even if you're the only person that can do it. Attempting to save the boy risks your own life. You have potentially everything to lose here.

[@gregbasore2108]

@@pigcatapult The experiment also ignores that the boy's plight being in a news paper, would mean that the appropriate authorities would already know his location and would likely have done something by the time we've read about it. The better approach would have been "You're on the shore and see the boy with binoculars or a telescope, but a huge storm is just beginning to hit. Do you risk your life by taking your boat out into the sea to save the boy, or stay on shore where it's safe?"

[@candynike897]

I relate to the fourth thinker but mine is a lot more tamed. I wouldn't want to stress myself because the risk would be much going out to sea to search for him, but I would use my binoculars to look out for him every few hours then raise an alarm if I see him.

[@sprouts]

Reasonable!

[@samual_not_samuel]

Kind of suspicious that the paper had a picture of the boy lost at sea.

[@stephenthompson3309]

I was gonna say, "Did the journalist just sail past and go 'Oh hey! Look at that lost boy. Hey kid! Pose for a picture!' and then sail home?? 🤣🤣" But then I watched that part again and realized they made it a separate side-by-side, so the raft picture could have been taken from a helicopter, and the boy's picture could have been sent in by his concerned parents.... Sorry if that ruins the joke... 😅Kudos to the Sprouts artists for thinking that caveat through, though!

[@sprouts]

Oops 😂

[@braincuriosities]

The journalist was flying his drone on the beach that day and wanted to see how far the drone would go and that's how he took the picture!

[@hellothere639]

This says a lot about the media

[@cosmelino2612]

I don't think you understand the mission

[@davidvollmer959]

My question would be. How did the news paper reporter know, or the person who told the reporter know the fate of the boy without being with the boy to witness the wind dying or food running out. What moral code would allow the witness to leave the boy at sea?

[@gregbasore2108]

Great question and one with real world consequences. There's a famous photo of a starving African child being stalked by a vulture. When it spread around the world, people rightly called out the photographer for not doing anything to help the boy. He'd been so conditioned to the idea of journalistic objectivity and non-interference, that it hadn't even occurred to intervene. Eventually, the guilt overwhelmed him and he committed suicide.

[@erwannthietart3602]

​@@gregbasore2108which ironically as far as journalism goes, must mean he was already an exception because finding Journalists that does follow proper objectivity nowadays is hard as hell

[@Human-san]

​@@gregbasore2108 He couldn't help him. The boy was starved for so long, he would've died from re-feeding syndrome if they had tried. Also, they were worried about the possibility of catching an infectious disease.

[@DonutsReview]

"You don't make moral choices based on the outcomes you expect. You make them on whether or not you think they're right." -S2 ep10 From

[@jasonblundelldobebussing]

Faced with this situation, none of the 4 would even try to save the boy. They would argue over everything for 5 hours straight.

[@ramspace]

These are four theoretical absolutes. I think life is so much more complicated and each individual at every moment makes a decision based on multiple factors. What i think is important is to have clear thinking and clear feeling. And that freedom of thinking will bring benificial results to many, including oneself. But maybe not to all, all the time to everyone. Of course I'm excluding people with personality disorder.

[@ViolenVaymire]

Balance! I agree, They are to narrow, Kant's point of view is too self destructive, Mill's point of view is to Machiavellian, Aristotle's.. too belligerently righteous, Nietzsche's to selfish. It is only when one strikes a balance with all idea's that one can find the right answer.

[@kaylonhorohiwa1169]

@@ViolenVaymire Kant isn't self destructive at all, on the contrary. The same applies to others.

[@kaylonhorohiwa1169]

You can follow a different moral, bu you can't change sets or use more than one, this creates incoherence. If you can at will decide what's good or bad to do with differente principles, then so can everybody, then every principle is violable, and therefore every moral is violable, therefore there is no moral, and morality loses sense

[@nolotrippen2970]

Someone's in trouble. Who has time to ponder the consequences or who knows the future of the person (good or bad)? One simply sees a need and reacts.

[@Mailed-Knight]

Moral imperative? Deontologist, the third option.

[@geoffreywmason4769]

Your comment proves you are a good man thank you

[@dinozawr3317]

Make a decision quickly and hope for moral luck

[@exotic1405]

"But is it right to save this man?" 5 feet away: "GET ME THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!"

[@Facts.Figures264]

The Nazi's created because of this type of thinking you know

[@gabrielabatista6016]

Honestly, I like to go by my grandma's rule: if you have the means to help, and it won't significantly impact you in a negative way, do so. Helping others at your own cost is a disservice to yourself and setting yourself ablaze to keep others warm was never beneficial to anyone because, at the end of the day, you will be the one in need of help. However, if you have the means to help without causing troubles to yourself, do so; it won't hurt you and it'll be beneficial to someone else, so help them. So I follow this rule, if I can help someone without putting myself in a worse situation, I will; but I won't put myself into danger to benefit someone else (like, jumping in a mudpit to drag them out when I'll probably sink in too; or lending money when I don't have enough to spare for myself, much less others). I like to help, but helping is not worth much if you end up miserable and troubled in the end as a direct consequence of having helped someone.

[@erbihc1781]

Consequencialism : evaluate each successive act you will do upon the reasonnable expected outcomes in order to max the happiness of everybody. The boy is drowning, either you don't save him and he is unhappy, alternatively you save him and he happy.

[@williandarosa5485]

I think all of these theories have a poin. The ideal thing to do l believe, is not to rely on just one of these moral principles to do a action, but instead we should follow 2 mindsets and analyse the situation according to them and choose our own path. Each situation is different, and so will the ideal solution Thinking over all the potential situations that are similar to the story, l find that there are 3 big questions which we most have to worry about: which option needs help more urgently, what are my capacities, and which option will bring the most return? And inside there 3 big questions there is a couple smaller questions that need to be met. Do l have enough resources to help both groups? If so, can l help both at once or do l need to help one at a time? Can l rely on other people's help? Can l solve the problem of the group with most urgency quick enough to help the other? Can the group with less urgency wait long enough for me to finish the other and then bring them help? What is gonna happen with the one l save? Will they just live a average live or will they be raised by someone who will allow them to become an exceptional person? If its the latter, and the someone in question can only help one person, then the option with just one person might give more return than the one with more people. As you can see, l already made a lot of questions, and yet there is more. And situations like this are relative, each one will have a diferrent answer for at least one of those questions, and therefore, will have to be analysed to determine which one is better. With such a complicated process, and with each one of the 4 theories having a point, l think the right way wouldnt be to do a moral policing of ones decision, but rather, just let it at the hands of the individual with the initiative to do a through-out analysys and decide which action is best. As long has it follows 2 things: he should try to help, and do it with the common good in mind.

[@sprouts]

That's a different way of looking at it, wow

[@perasperaplaylists]

Great answer!

[@anindya26]

awesomest answer

[@thrall1342]

Great conclusion indeed. Agrees well with my first thought on answering the question of "Which theory ?" with a clear "Yes !"

[@SkuldSpookster]

In the wise words of Uncle Iroh, "It is important to draw wisdom from many different places. If you take it from only one place it becomes rigid and stale, understanding others, the other elements and the other nations, will help you become whole."

[@Roosauec]

My opinion is based on a mix between Aristotle, Kant, and Neitchsze. By helping the boy, I demonstrate good character, I become an example for others to follow and make the world better, and I strengthen myself by taking on the boy's struggles as my own. So I would like to believe I'd help the boy.

[@darkpaw1522]

Nietzsche, easily. I'm under no obligation to help someone. I may if there is a potential benefit or narcissism at best, but by no means should I fall to peer pressure.

[@BlueFlameFoxX]

God wants us to love on another as we love ourselves. Therefor do the most good you can within the possibilities that you have.

[@SilverionX]

The right answer is to not pick one of these, but to apply them in the right context. Going all out on any of these, especially Nietzsche, is more of a problem than a solution.

[@stevesmith4901]

Agreed, context is everything.

[@yessir2514]

Nietzsche would praise the boy for having master morality and the will to power to stare the abyss of the ocean for a better life.

[@allanc_me763]

Exactly what i thought

[@Tata-ps4gy]

Virtue ethics (Aristotle) works everywhere

[@kaylonhorohiwa1169]

That would simply create incoherence, where your morality would be simply what you want in the moment. If you can, everybody can, and therefore morality loses meaning.

[@RighteousPaladin]

Doing good to others who it is in one's power to do good to (probably) ultimately results in what is beneficial to all and therefore is in one's own self-interest to do.

[@ajit7491]

Don't worry about any theories, If you could save the boy, save him. If you couldn't really have the ability save him, then don't worry about the consequence. Everyone among is a Kantist, Neitzcheist, Aristotlist, Millist. Let us have them their part to do!😊

[@Tiago250250]

It's a good exercise to think. First, with the information you provided, I am not an expert in travel by sea. The ocean is enormous, so considering my knowledge about the ocean, trip by the sea, or how to rescue someone, I would say my choice is, as a human being understanding my limitations, I would prefer to ask for help from someone who can save the boy, such as a firefighter, police officers or the marine. Because when we think that we will do something just because it sounds right or we believe that we only will be a good person if we risk our life, it doesn't make much sense, we will be exposing ourselves to a danger that could cost our life without any answer if we would be able to rescue the kid and preserve our life, so instead of one person to save we will have two people, you and the kid. To answer this problem, I combine the concept of beliefs developed by Albert Ellis and the explanation of Nietzsche, so if I would have the resources and the knowledge, I could help the boy by myself and believing that, I would like to try, though I can understand that I can fail in this rescue. This failure doesn't turn me into a bad person, just one person who wasn't able to save one life, but if I would choose to not save the boy because I didn't know how to travel by ocean or I don't have the resources it is alright, and even if I have, I am not obligate to do. Still, I would like to try, or I could try, and ask for help or call for a rescue task force. Don't make me a person with less value than another one.

[@jcorey333]

Virtue ethics has always resonated with me in a way none of the other moral theories has.

[@Mailed-Knight]

I prefer deontologists.

[@ariondys]

@@Mailed-Knight just give it some time. After not looking for out their own self-interest, it will be the Deontologist that needs help. I think you've missed the point if you have a preference.

[@einienj3281]

Empty virtue signaling is sleazy, but at the same time, some poor soul benefits from it.. I don't think they care if you are helping them with no ulterior motives.. help is help..

[@Mailed-Knight]

@@ariondys Why am I the one that gets that comment, when J Corey said something similar about Virtue ethics?

[@jcorey333]

@@einienj3281 I don't see virtue ethics and virtue signaling as very related at all. I would argue that virtue ethics is significantly more about your internal goodness and not how good you appear.

[@bengonzalez3109]

It's completely unrealistic to think you could find the boy out in the open ocean. Real life has many factors, and trying to simplify morality with such a question ignores too many variables to effectively determine someones morals.

[@luxofortis3713]

Be prepared for the strangest of situations.

[@boingyboop4960]

I think it really depends on whether or not you have a safe way of saving the boy. If you’re only option is to swim out there yourself to try and save him, you probably won’t survive the journey and so it would be pretty much pointless. If you have a decently sized boat that is unlikely to capsize and a decent amount of supplies to get out as far as you need to, plus the supplies required to rescue the boy himself, and your boat has the capacity for the both of you, then it’s probably not a terrible idea. If you don’t have the supplies but you know someone who does, you could ask them to save the boy, or ask to borrow their supplies to rescue the boy. I think it’s about risk vs reward, if the risk of you dying is greater than the chance of successfully rescuing the boy, then it’s probably not a great idea, but if the risk of death or serious injury is relatively small, it might be worth it. There will always be some risk in every situation, so when making a decision, it’s up to you if you think a risk is worth taking.

[@krisbudiyantoh6400]

Thanks for the video 💕 I cannot support you yet, but it open my mind about the idea of helping others

[@sprouts]

I'm so glad! Keep learning:)

[@stevesmith4901]

Should one strive for virtue? Yes absolutely. Who would not want to be the best they can be? Should one consider their self-interest? Sure. It's not possible not to. Should one always try to do the right thing as a moral imperative? Definitely. If you didn't, it would mean morality was never a concern for you to begin with. Should you consider the greater good? Indeed. More good in the world is better than less good in the world. But if all four approaches are equally valid, then how do we decide, you may ask? I feel, our response would come down to our values. Given a situation, you will asses what you value more, and your values will guide your response to the situation. I'll give you an example. My relationship with the boy will make me value the boy differently, and this will affect my response. If the boy is a family member or a close friend, then the factors I will not consider are: Greater good and Virtue. Factors that will matter to me in that given situation would be: self-interest and moral imperative. While on the other hand, let's say, if the boy is an unknown poor black African boy, and I happen to be a white racist piece of shit, then factors I will not consider would be: moral imperative and virtue. However, what I would consider are: greater good and self-interest. So like I said, my values is what will guide my moral choices and actions.

[@bernardobertamini856]

ok... but I think the interesting question is "Which one is the best approach?" (or "is there a preferable approach?") rather than "What approach do people choose and why?" (which is the question you gave an answer to with your comment)

[@stevesmith4901]

@@bernardobertamini856 What I was trying to say was, there is no universal best approach. Your best approach will depend on the situation you find yourself in and on your values. In relation to you, all people and all situations are not equal. In certain situations, one approach would make more sense, and in others, other approaches will make more sense. I'm just thinking out loud here, because from my point of view, all approaches are equally valid.

[@wangshiyao]

This is the right answer. Everything is contextual.

[@greenc1088]

Correct, personally I wouldn't help the boy, because it doesn't affect my own self-interests. And I fully accept to be treated same way if I was in his shoes.

[@runswithbears3517]

I think an important observation is that non-interference has to be neutral. We don't have to interfere in any situation we're not responsible for, as it would lead to nonsensical situations. There are little boys like the one from the story all over the world, and if non-interference wasn't neutral, then one would be morally obligated to help all of them!

[@Billioncompany786]

Morally I would say I would want to save the boy because it's a right thing to do even if he turns out to be evil later on, But because we can't see the future and we can only make decisions based on our past experience and present situation, helping seems a correct answer. But Partically speaking if put into this situation in real life, I wouldn't go to save that kid since 1) I don't know the exact location of that boy. 2) It's too risky and trying to save the kid means my family could lose a person who earns money in our house. 3) The news cover this incident which means they know the location which means it could very be possible that police or army would've helped by that point so it's not my problem anymore.

[@silensviator]

Personally, if I felt strongly about the issue, I would examine my skill set. Ask if there was anything I could do to help without increasing problems for myself or others. I know next to nothing about seafaring so going out and looking for him myself would be a fool's errand. Raising awareness of the problem to someone with the proper skill set however is within my abilities, along with perhaps starting a fundraiser to pay for such a search. Realistically though, I don't think I would care so much because I am too much removed from the problem as a person. I don't know the boy, it is a far-away problem that I have no expertise in actively solving myself, which leads to a kind of apathy. Hoping the boy will be found but leaving it up to fate. I think most people would react like that. Especially since we are inundated with such tragedy in the news every day. We are numb to the plights of most unless we are somehow more directly involved. Sad as that is to admit, I acknowledge I wouldn't be the best person.

[@qwertyshblong]

i think i’m in the camp of “yes bc that’s the kind of world i want to live in.” i believe that hypocrisy is somewhat immoral and we must hold ourselves to the idealistic standards we set for others in order to manifest change

[@olegoleg258]

personally, I would not save the boy, because I do not particularly care about his life. to me, the question is not much about right and wrong, and more about "what do I want to do?". it is not similar to what Nietzsche says, because he argues that it's morally right to not save the boy and benefit you, thus benefiting society, which in my opinion is generally flawed as things like corporations and politicians often benefit themselves at the cost of society as a whole, both in the short and long term. I would not save the boy because not saving him does not cost me anything, not of material wealth (money) nor emotional (stress, trauma). This is different from if I would see someone in grave danger on the street, where by little action I can help (not putting myself in mortal danger) while knowing that my action has a possibility to change the outcome (giving money to a drug addict is fuelling said addiction), not because it is morally right, but because it makes me feel better in general or about myself, giving me the satisfaction of "I helped this person" as well as their gratitude. this approach may be seen as psychotic, or maybe it is not, I do not know. However in a world where most of the things happening are out of my control, I stop caring about what my actions cause outside of how they make me feel. or maybe it is something else, I do not know, I think I did not spend enough time analysing myself and the world to be able to write a text here with super high precision as I only spent the video's duration analysing the arguments made by the philosophers

[@jdw01f]

I remember being out drinking and I saw a drunk couple arguing. At that point I was thinking should I intervene or not. I decided not to and my main reason behind this was. When people argue sometimes they are angry about something other than what they are actually arguing about they just need to let out their anger. So I feel like if I had intervened they could have both turned on me because they just need to let that anger out but I'm someone that they don't know or care about. I suppose it's all about what direction your thoughts lead you.

[@phucnguyenhong3388]

Props to the journalist who took a picture of the boy in the middle of the sea and write a headlines post instead of saving him.

[@starwolf3020]

This is like the trolley problem, you can argue philosophy, but that's just an exercise, but in a real world " you are what you do when it counts !! For me , I'd save him !!

[@TrueFork]

multi-track drifting!

[@danielhama4558]

I think for many, they might consider that saving the boy may mean many boys like him move into their land (I'm from Africa so I don't mean this badly -just being real.) The end result of this might be overcrowding and suffering by many other Africans and Europeans... and so each individual person's context/perspective differs and it is hard to say that there is a universal right. If someone can save the boy without much encumbrance to themselves (and others) and does not, he/she is a psychopath.

[@RiteOfSolaris]

The way they color things based on their character makes people think before you even start talking, which is a great way to gather attention. And the way they draw characters represents a neutral image, with a meaning, but it doesn't draw attention away from what is being said.

[@RextheRebel]

Everyone does need to learn how to be strong. That way they are actually strong enough to help others in the first place.

[@Bob-qk2zg]

Save the boy and return him to his own family. All other options are foolish. Tell him to stick to tailoring.

[@einienj3281]

I would have tried to save him.. I don't have a boat though..

[@sprouts]

😆

[@einienj3281]

@@sprouts 😁 I have to float over there with my🪵

[@brandonwilde8988]

I’m going to say a few things that nobody has talked about yet Morals are the most important thing in your life, because they dictate every decision you make. What’s the point of doing anything if there isn’t a cause behind it? But at the same time, there isn’t any way to judge whether some morals are more moral than others. Your morals are only what you personally follow. What I personally follow/“believe” in doing is helping the person who has the overall worst existence, who is within your ability to help (it doesn’t matter if you barely help them as long as you help them at all) And by helping, I mean decreasing the amount of displeasure that the person experiences, or increasing the amount of pleasure they experience. The way I see it, pleasure and displeasure cancel each other out. So you can cancel out displeasure with pleasure and vice versa. But, if you have the ability to help someone eternally, then do it, because essentially, any temporary pleasure/displeasure is equal to 0 when compared to eternity. But the same rule applies in this case as well- improve the eternity of the person who would have had the worst eternity. This is why religion is important, because, depending on your religion, actions here can affect you and others for eternity.

[@j.l.spraggins8589]

Excellent observations. I agree. Religion is important, even for the non-religious. It is the backbone of a moral and realistic society. Systems that forbid religions have complicated and disastrous outcomes. IMO.

[@duvisol]

My idea: Besides the complexity of our choice there was not a sense of singularity to the action or impossibility, thus, of the many things it could have been, if it was saving the actual kid, doing it goes for an outcome that was truly optional, as you could indeed have decided otherwise, and that makes the decision outstanding, as there was the power to make it in the first place, and no real push because then it wouldn'thave been a decision in the first place. It is to consider, the kid regardless of it, understanding what lies in having the choice, and also people, could see it as well endevour. However, As how that could be perceived potentially, will always be another point in analysis, given the predictable future and condition of it. In relation to that case, the moralists mentioned make a point of that by checking outcomes to the society and one's life, despite it coming more as motivation, which at the end could be intentions after the action is done. At the end, all of it could really affect slightly the outcome, which is in reality saving a life, after all is hard to know what will come next precisely.

[@DanH-lx1jj]

This was kinda terrible. Hard not to fail when you only give a minute to each moral theory. The biggest errors were the virtue ethics where the rich man saves the boy. The action matters and not the person, was the action Wise, Courageous, Just and Temperate, yes, therefore the action was Virtuous. The rich man has much more means and thus could do more than save one child but saving one child is still virtuous. Also Sprouts' idea of Nietzsche is much closer to Randian Objectivism than Nietzsche. Nietzsche talks about making your own values and to prescribe a particular value system onto anyone else is to be operating in bad faith to what Nietzsche wrote about.

[@user-vu2wn5vi5j]

some folks here talk about the boys' actions being his responsibility but they forget that it's just a kid. He can't be as sagacious as an adult. Nevertheless, he did quite a lot for a simple boy to achieve his goal: actually decided to go to a different country and start a living there somehow, built a whole raft and thought of food supplies (even though they weren't enough). As for me, I would like to save him just because of his determination and will to act and to change his life to the way he wants it to be. The kid just needs some help on his journey to success as all people need sometimes

[@kalliste23]

The Sentinelese don't have these moral dilemmas - they kill anyone they don't know who turns up on their island. Maybe eat them too.

[@drawingfranco7533]

i help people when i think i am capable and it doesn't bother my main chores. i knoe so much scammers that pretend to be a people in needs. But when i think, and i feel like i will help them (in front of me), i will help.

[@quangnguyentrung647]

"There ought to be some good to go with all the evil in the world." Is the saying that stuck with me until I die.

[@sameerhussain2579]

I dont know what the others philosophy of morality looks like, but Nietzche made the most sense, I have been reading about him more so maybe it's just the effect of his writings on me.

[@freesk8]

His views presented here are similar to those of Ayn Rand. I'm a big Rand fan. You might like "Atlas Shrugged." :)

[@abhijeetraut6427]

The boy decided to take this action on his own, I fear that helping him will encourage others to take risky steps because of a false sense of security that someone else will help them.

[@the_olm]

But applied elsewhere, your logic makes no sense. what if a man decided to go swimming and drowned? According to your logic, he decided to take the action on his own, and saving his life will encourage people to submerge themselves in water because they think people will save their life. And plus, I feel like most people know not to do anything risky thinking that someone will save them every time they do it. But sometimes we do need to learn to depend on people to help us in some situations. No one is fully independent.

[@user-oe5ce2kk3j]

This is idiotic

[@DayrusBPB]

Depending on how dire the situation is, if the boy is dying/going to die, I would help/save him. But if he is on the raft and there is still time, I would notify the right help and prepare to help him myself or get others to help him. It's important to not be a liability yourself when saving someone because it would result in 2 victims instead of 1 in need of help.

[@elexyyr]

Very interesting video indeed. All of the theories seem oversimplified abd incomplete to me, though. I think I am actually balancing somewhere between utilitarian and Nietzschean approaches

[@stardust9207]

For me, the one who will go to save the person directly once he hears is someone I would like to call my hero. Would I have the courage to do that heroic work I don't know, I have never done something that brave before.....

[@ariondys]

without even knowing WHY he is going...

[@procyonlotor1906]

What if the story of the boys reckless adventure and ultimate peril educates future boys not to attempt such adventures without better preparing themselves. You make your bed in which you sleep.

[@alpacaofthemountain8760]

It’s still a life, and it’s wrong to use that as an example

[@ronaldonmg]

That's not how it works. People try to cross the mediterranean regardless of the risk, because they deem the situation they come from to be even worse.

[@IronMan-gz8tf]

I will go for the opportunity cost pricipal cuz we can't save every person who is in danger but we can do something which creates more better possibilities for everyone. For example for saving one boy instead we should create a system so no one never finds himself in this situation again. And hope someone with other principles save him. I don't know about others but I do what I prefer.

[@Ctsone2]

I would say no purely from a standpoint of logic and reasoning. Firstly, if this boy’s story is well-known enough to be in the newspaper, then surely it would gain media attention, and likely a government figure or celebrity would step in. I feel that the most responsibility you have as a random person who’s not currently in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, and who likely does not own a boat or the means to save the boy, is to bring more awareness to the boy’s plight, so someone with the means to rescue him can do so.

[@user-jf2wf5iz6j]

There is also the marginal moral (will the action have good or bad consequences, will it make the world a bit better or bit worse) that is described by people like Jesus or Gandhi. Lets suppose you have the necessary means, without putting yourself in jeopardy (which would be bad). - Saving the kid prevent a person from dying. So it is good. - But bringing him to Europe is rewarding a dangerous action, that will cause more boys to do the same (and some to die). So it is bad. - Comforting him, then bringing him back to Africa, will likely prompt others to see his example as a warning, reducing the mortality at sea. So it is good.

[@goldenhoneybee8128]

And it would have saved Europe from the horrific erasure of their peoples and cultures going on today with the millions of non-Europeans who have been brought into the once beautiful lands.

[@sprouts]

I seee 🤔

[@BigHenFor]

Jesus would not see it that way.

[@user-jf2wf5iz6j]

@@BigHenFor Jesus said "Good trees are bringing good fruits and bad trees are bringing bad fruits". Meaning that the good actions are the ones bringing good consequences. You can certainly find the citation and its interpretation with a quick search. He would put strong emphasis on keeping the boy alive, sure. But note I am not suggesting to let him drown.

[@williammiller6940]

Seeings as morality changes from culture group to culture group, and ethics changes from society to society, the only constant is self-interest. If you want a stable foundation for your life you should be self-interested first and formost. The self interested will give you the stability to be able to help others occasionally without causing yourself undue harm. It also protects you against the urge to give too much, which causes harm to your life as well.

[@RockylarsYT]

Always help unless it really isn't an option, see eachother as a brother, but know that even if your brother jumps off a cliff then you should still think for yourself and maybe not do the same.

[@shurale123]

I identify as a super-utilitarian person, and I'd try to save the boy: 1. I will feel as a good person, and this feeling is pleasant + it kinda weakens my self-hate 2. It'll boost my reputation and thus matchmake me with potential new friends 3. This boy may be a nice guy, so we may become friends. I mean, genuine friends, no using him for hype 4. I'll be able to befriend his parents 5. New friends'll be able to help me one day 6. If I save the boy, the consequences of me ignoring the boy won't backfire many years afterwards Conclusion: helping people is a clever thing to do even for cold-hearted utilitarians

[@OdhinnAwake]

The answer to this is actually remarkably simple, and one proven by evolution. As a European, it is my duty and honor to risk my life or resources to save the lives of ONLY other Europeans. Every other race acts according to their own self interest, it is the European and the European alone who is told they must sacrifice what is meant for their people to benefit others who would not return the same.

[@13thravenpurple94]

Greeat video Thank you

[@SPRINGGREEN813]

It should totally depend on CAPABILITY. If you are not capable to save you may ask others who are capable of doing this. The thing about the future is very uncertain cause his future deeds will depend on his continuous present. Self-harm is also an uncertain cause,in this case, we knew he was a poor child he can have two perspectives towards the world either he tries to do a robbery at the house of his saver or may work/help him, this way he could develop a better future. Everyone should do things which they are able to do (capable). In this, every everyone negative aspect is neutralized and the only thing that remains is the life of a living organism. So ,I will save if I am capable of doing it in any direct or indirect way.

[@Pulkitom]

My heart says- we should save the boy. Next is do I have enough courage to risk my life? If yes, I’ll go ahead. If not, I’ll take help of others and as a team will try to save the boy. Without worrying too much about future outcomes. It just feels right thing to do for creating a better world.

[@arupdeb45]

I am always with Nietzsche

[@pedrocasella2315]

One of the "Categorical imperatives" I use for deciding my actions is: If I were a character from a novel or from a movie, would I admire myself for what I am doing?". I do not know in which of those philosophers this idea would be closer to (I just used the term"Categorical imperative" as a metaphor, not that I prefer Kant over the others). Having said that, I believe that, if it did not screw much of my most important business and it was viable to do so, yes, I would at least try to save the boy.

[@wuguxiandi9413]

I would weigh the probablity of my saving the boy vs becoming someone who needs saving due to my actions. Since I am not an able sailor, i would not personally help the boy, but i would assist in doing so within my capacities (finding/notifying someone who can save him).

[@Nikolas_Davis]

If you're wondering whether you should save a kid that's drowning in front of you, you are a bad person. If you're making a cost-benefit analysis for the consideration of others, you are a worse one.

[@theruski8265]

Nietzche the only person with common sense here

[@jumpinjohnnyruss]

Egoism is very common indeed.

[@theruski8265]

@@jumpinjohnnyruss nietzche allows people to question their own morals and what they believe they should do in a given situation based off the video. I wouldnt take it as egoism as nietzches approach is pretty ambiguous.

[@christopherjaya342]

A son of a carpenter from Nazareth once said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." So yeah, I would save the boy, at least attempt to. Because if I'm lost at sea, I want to be saved.

[@BKNeifert]

The simple answer to this, is no, you shouldn't try to save the boy, unless you're in the immediate vicinity and can actually act. Like, for one thing, going out of your way to save the boy is aggrandizement. Another thing, you might not be equipped to save the boy, so you might actually go and put yourself in danger, or put the boy in danger too. And another thing, if everyone that read the paper went out to save the boy, then there'd be utter chaos. And things like this happen too often, to be moved in every circumstance. The simple answer---which I think anyone beside a philosopher could figure out---is to save the boy if it's in your immediate means to do it, and you have the training and capacity to do it. As that's an orderly way to do a good deed, is to do it when you have the power to do it, and not to simply seek out the opportunity. I mean, just listening to this, makes me wonder if philosophers aren't the most ridiculous people who ever lived. Even a fool would know the answer to this.

[@davidwho7847]

Saving the boy would be something I would do without having to think about it.

[@sprouts]

Oh 😮

[@HandbrakeBiscuit]

Personally I'm on the side of preserving the food source of the endangered Mediterranean Sea Vultures...

[@Zyxyea]

And while they were arguing about whether or not to save the boy and why,, he died. My personal philosophy is the same as Spider-man's: With great power, comes great responsibility. If you have the power to help someone you are obligated to do so.

[@toronylako]

This video had make me a subscriber.

[@ultimatejager4058]

By the time of listening all these excessively overthought arguments, the kid is already dead

[@Redeemedbylove1987]

Okay fine. We'll take a few more illegal immigrants.

[@soundscape26]

You could save him first and send him back home later if that's your problem.

[@dustypaladin9216]

I think about only parties involved in the situation and decide from the benifit of all of them. The only two parties directly involved in the situation are myself and the boy. The boy would obviously want to be saved and in his perspective it’s obvious that the right thing for me to do is save him. My perspective is that is that while saving him would be the right thing to do from his perspective, it would also put me at risk. If I’m not capable of swimming and don’t have a boat or anything, it would be incorrect to save him since it would most likely cost me my life and fail to save his. If I have a boat, life jacket and I’m a good swimmer then all it would cost me to save him is an hour of my time, which isn’t much of a cost and would grant him years. Therefore the moral decision is dependent on weather or not I can save him without harming myself. If so then I save the boy. Thinking about non directly related parties isn’t a good thing to do since it’s impossible to accurately determine everyone’s reaction. Does the boy have parents or are they already dead, will the boy grow up to cure cancer or become a serial killer. Will people see me saving the boy and shower me with money or would they not even see me or care. I cannot know the answer to these questions so I don’t factor them in to the equation

[@williamsimkulet7832]

Virtue theory contends virtues are character traits that lead to success in life; it is not about "demonstrating" virtue, it's about predisposing you to actions that will make your life go well.

[@Allen_Leigh_Canada]

Whatever you do, don't follow Nietzsche! Jesus is the one we should follow. He said: love others like you love yourself.

[@ampersandellipsis747]

If the value of an average human life is ~10 million dollars - the amount of life already spent, than the boy should be saved if it costs less money than the remainder of his life. However, if he keeps getting lost at sea multiple times, he should be warned that he will not be saved if the sum cost of saving his life throughout his life has exceeded 10 million dollars. I would estimate sending someone to save him would only cost up to a couple hundred dollars, so the nearest government should send a navy ship to save him, which I would pay for with my taxes (I would be willing to pay these taxes because I could also be saved if I was in the same situation). This would also go for medical care throughout life, as people would be provided with a reasonable amount of care paid by taxes (enough to prevent death, but not cosmetic or minor injuries).

[@Lightning_Lance]

I think we should make the world such that doing the right thing is easy, so that even the Nietzche's of the world see it in their own self interest to help others.

[@volouplent]

I think that if I had the opportunity, I would save the boy. It all depends on the details. Regarding this story, I wouldn't be able to help the boy directly, but I'd really like to, and maybe there's a way to try to influence the character's story in some other way. On the other hand, if there is that possibility. There may also be an interesting question of what to do next. Should I help the boy achieve his desires (ambitions) or am I obligated to return him to his family possibly against the boy's wishes. From this point of view, for the sake of facing this issue, I would definitely save the boy.

[@fatimamajeed1758]

Aristotle's idea is less about you thinking what is right within your means and more about following what the world universally believes is right. John Stuart theory is logically assuring but not emotionally. I think a combination of Kant's and Nietzche theory is both emotionally and logically apt for any given situation. It also gives you individual freedom to decide what might be the best you can do without feeling any guilt about it. Afterall the right intent makes you emotionally satisfied and bringing your self-interest before others is a right and you don't have to feel guilty about a choice that benefits you (even if it harms the other individual) if the alternate outcome is going to harm you.

[@Doc_Tar]

The more one can the more one should. It's that simple. The less of a burden or risk it is to that person yet the greater the relative payoff to another, i.e. saving the boy's life is a tremendous good to the boy, his family and community, the more one has to act. If one is incapable of saving the boy or having to put oneself at a greater risk or burden than someone who has the means and ability, the less of an obligation that person has to be the rescuer. If there is someone drowning and there is a life-guard on the beach you aren't obligated to dive into the ocean to save the drowning person. You are obligated to inform the life-guard however. If a billionaire has a flat on the side of the road you are not obligated to stop and change the tire for the person with the means to summon services and who faces little potential of imminent death.

[@showman139]

It would help if there were a bibliography that came with these videos. For example in what book if any did you get Morshe Koppel comparing these moral thinkers? 4:58

[@Launicaliz]

Perfect example of overthinking. Do unto others….that’s the right choice.

[@jesus2523]

Philosophy should be taught like that in high schools. Applied philosophy instead of just theory and not application to real cases. Really good video.

[@zachshore1318]

Depends on my skill set in this particular case. If I have the skills required to safely operate a boat, I would be able to spend some time patrolling the waters. If I have never before sailed, then attempting to find the kid and save them would likely leave me dead before I can even find them. Of course, there are potentially other ways one could help, but recognizing one’s limitations is important.

[@adryfoster3265]

For me, it entirely depends on the situation; am I by the coast or can I visually see the boy in need? Then yes, as long as I have the tools to rescue him or have him rescued, I'd try to help. Am I a bystander in a Coastal town who's just heard of this in the newspaper with no idea if he's nearby or much further out than expected? Possibly, although I wouldn't have much reason to due to my irrelevance to the situation, after all, rescue teams are already looking for him, right? If I knew the kid personally one way or another, again depending on the situation of where I am and what resources I have, I'd definitely contribute in saving him, such as donating to a fund to hire search and rescue teams, or repair the boats needed for finding him. If the kid was not related to me emotionally or genetically, I'd hope that he doesn't drown, but unless I could see him in trouble I wouldn't bother searching for some random kid who went adrift in the same area as me. And lastly, if the person was unlawful or insane, I'd say that the person should still be saved on the grounds that 1. I didn't know he was bad when I saved him so it's not my fault he killed my family, ITS HIS, and 2. no matter what, prison is a fairer punishment than death for any of his crimes or wrongdoings, and if he gets the death sentence anyway, we won't need to sail out to sea to spit on his watery grave.

[@me-myself-i787]

1:53 On the flip side, if you have nothing, you have nothing to lose if you die trying to help the kid. But if you succeed at helping the kid, you will become famous (if the kid is in a newspaper, his rescue would also be in a newspaper). This fame could easily be monetised.

[@SiD19884]

love these doodles.

[@sprouts]

Aww, I am glad :)