Theoretical Ethical Dilemma
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Liam B. Murphy posits the ethical dilemma of the "child in the lake" in two contexts. First, the question involves consideration of the cost (in terms of time and money) to a potential rescuer who comes upon a drowning child. Second, the question involves consideration of how much one person owes ethically to a situation in which two children are drowning and another potential rescuer is present. Obviously, there are different possible responses to these cases, but Murphy boils the issue down to a question of weighing "immediate and distant sources of demands" (Murphy 64a). The overriding consideration, in fact, is not the drowning children necessarily, but instead those who lives are threatened by starvation on the other side of the world. What ethical demands of beneficence are there on the individual who wants to lead an ethical life? What factors weigh in that individual's consideration of how much he will do to save a life in his or her immediate vicinity, and how much he will do to save the life of a person very distant from him? Of the two philosophers Peter Singer and Onora Nell, only Singer directly addresses the question of the "child in the lake," and even then in terms far more simple than set forth by Murphy, but we may make a number of assumptions about the likely responses of Singer and Nell by examining their views on the question of the individual's ethical responsibility for starving people. It will be the fundamental argument of this study that Singer's l
. . .
Singer in the first place takes for granted a point which Nell take much time and space arguing: "I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. . . . Those who disagree need read no further" (Singer 23b).
Nell, on the other hand, approaches the question in the context of an individual's "right not to be killed and a corresponding duty not to kill." However, "even if persons have no rights other than a right not to be killed, this right can justifiably be overridden in certain circumstances" (Nell 30b). Nell spends much time and effort convincing the reader that these special considerations do not apply to the case of the starving person and the person who has the ability to try to save that starving person. Singer, on the other hand, simply begins by assuming that (1) the suffering and death of starving people are undesirable, and (2) those who are able to try to save suffering and dying people are morally obliged to do so:
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. . . . This principle . . . requires us only to prevent what is bad, and not to promote
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Singer Nell, Liam Murphy, Simple Compliance---can, Nell Singer, Public Affairs, potential rescuer, singer nell, child drowning, starving people, help save, singer 23b, Philosophy Public, philosophy public affairs, starving person, save children, save starving, philosophy public, singer 23b nell, child drowning lake, obligated save child, children potential rescuer,
Approximate Word count = 1654
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Theoretical Ethical Dilemma
|