Ruin an expensive suit to save a drowning child?

[SweetSpot]

If I saw a child drowning any thought of what I was wearing would not even enter my mind for a millisecond, unless it was to weigh up whether or not I would be able to swim better without it on. I would however spend a few minutes pondering if my ass would look fat to onlookers if I stripped off.

 

[L2R]

What if it was your only suit? And you needed the suit for a job interview the next day, and you had no money to get another one? And you needed the job to feed your family.

i would tell the prospective employer what happened.

 

[srfhrd1]

I'll repost my opinion briefly.

I won't argue against the semantic problems of the situation.

I will simply argue against the fundamental problem of why saving children from death is supposedly a Good Thing™.

A child has not suffered as much as an adult. Dying young is a blessing. Saving a child is not an act of kindness toward the child itself, but rather an act of kindness toward whoever loves it.

That said, it is only my mind that argues such. My heart would immediately jump for it and save it. Why, I have no idea.

The fundamental problem was the target of this poll. If you are trying to either establish, or discern, a universal ethical code it would behoove you to make sure that it is universal. By specifying the hypothetical in such a way as to make it a trade off between money and life, i was hoping to touch on the value of life in ethical decisions. If one finds themselves in such a situation, what you do? I'm not, in my posting, trying to prove a point or write a paper, i am merely trying to gain insight from the wonderful people on this website--hopefully deepening my understanding of this as well as yours.

 

[dragonxninjaxpowa]

no, as i can't swim, i'd be dead too.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

i would tell the prospective employer what happened.

Every successful interview begins with an excuse in the form of an explanation as to why the interviewee is wearing sweatpants.

 

[Rated E]

Is comfort and an odd sense of appropriate dress sense a reasonable excuse?

 

[Zoroaster]

I have three points to make on this fascinating thread.
1. There is a subtle but important issued on the monetary value of a life. In the UK this can range from $200 to £50m, but the focus on money in this thread is to me a little odd, and I’m surprised at some answers, “suit or child” would have attained darker relief when we compare like for like, which would dovetail better into the works of Singer and others neo-utilitarianism proponents
2. On the type of action taken in these save-person-from-dying issues, does it really need answering? A month ago I was first on the scene of an horrific motorcycle accident, I ran over to find a young lad, and not wearing a helmet he had been catapulted some 15m down the street. I could have, called Emergencies, then carried on to my walk home. As it was I went into auto-pilot, did ABC checks, he regained consciousness and starting out punching and kicking me. I used a scarfe I was wearing, with great sentimental value, and used this to stem the bleeding from the large head wound, placed my jacket on him and spoke to him until the ambulance arrived...to cut a long story short, I have given him the help he needed, when he needed it. I lost me scarf, had a blood soaked jacket...more than can be said for his apparent friends who stood idly by. So did I save a child in essence, similar but not far off the same, I helped to save a child’s life. The notion that the cost of your suit would interfere with decision making process on saving human life....INDEED I feel there is are few reasons why one wouldn’t attempt to save life provided the risk to you is minimal, that goes for all and any human - stranger, child or acquaintance, girlfriend. In France that in itself is a crime.
3. I ran a thought experiment seminar recently covering deontological vs Utilitarian concepts of morality, for eg – woud you trade your life for the future of humanity etc with wide range of responses, from a Catholic who would not kill one person to save the universe to Utilitarianisms inherent problems that allow for highly immoral acts (though we use this latter mind-set in thousands of decisions in our everyday life.
Suits, funnily enough are easier to replace that a human soul 
Z

 

[Tomer]

This is a stupid thread...a better question to pose would be, would you save a drowning child if it meant you would have to lose your dick in the process??

 

[L2R]

^lol

Is comfort and an odd sense of appropriate dress sense a reasonable excuse?

perhaps in some interviews, but i generally go the good old safe "slow drycleaner" routine.

 

[eon_blue]

no, as i can't swim, i'd be dead too.

There are still people that can't swim?

Seriously, I never understood this...if it were required that you had to do the butterfly in effort to save the child, then I'd understand but moving your arms and legs in a rhythmic fashion isn't that hard.

Is it just the general fear of drowning? Maybe this should be a different thread.

 

[NW-baltiland]

Slightly off topic, but one of the most intriguing things my boyfriend has done for me was at my sisters 18th. Basically we were drunk and on concrete, when he decided to lift me up and twirl me around. Well... as I said.. we were pretty hammered, and he misplaced his step while he had me in the air, which caused us to go crashing into the concrete.

I guess I find this interesting because when most people fall, it's a natural reflex for them to put out their arms to protect themselves. However my boyfriend didn't put his arms out to save himself - instead, in the fear of the moment, his most natural reflex was to put his arms around me to minimize the impact, even though it was going to hurt him much more. He copped the weight of both of our bodies on the one elbow. Needless to say he was pretty sore...

Anyhow, I guess when I read this thread it reminded me of that experience, just because I find it interesting that some people will think about the consequences any given action will have on themselves. Whereas others, like my boyfriend, just naturally do whatever it takes, at any cost, and putting themselves, or the value of their suits first would hardly come into the equation. They would seriously not think about something like that until they were out of the water with a breathing, healthy child in their arms being handed over to its parents.

Well put.

I had an experience as a child that was almost identical to the thread question. I was 2 years old and was learning how to swim but didn't have it down at all yet. It was really hot out and I was waiting for my water wings to be put on so I could jump in the pool. Before I put on the water wings I jumped right into the pool and started drowning. All I know is what my mom told me, which was that my dad didn't take 2 seconds and didn't take one article of clothing off. Instead, he dove in with khakis and a blazer without a second thought and saved me. Instinct to a normal person would make them do this and as someone else said, if you answered no, then you are a sociopath. I can't imagine not feeling an obligation to your fellow man to help them, no matter who they are or if you have hatred toward them, it's just wrong.

 

[hpi]

Yeah, it just be a reflex of mine and before I know it id be saving the kid regardless of my dislike for children.

Besides you might get a reward for saving that little Rug rat and you can get a new suit or you know, something more useful then a damn suit.

 

[egor]

absolutely yes. anyone willing to watch someone (let alone a child) die in the name of vanity and materialism doesnt deserve to live themselves...

 

[bickoma]

I honestly can't tell if this is a serious question... does anyone here actually value cash over life? I can't possibly see how that could be the case on this forum.

 

[justinw]

No for a few reasons. First, (providing the water is way over my head) I can't swim very well and it would be even more difficult in a suit, so the end result would probably be two people now out there that need to be saved. If I did try and lived myself but didn't manage to save myself, I'd be risking a lawsuit and maybe some bullshit legal charges. I wouldn't be wearing one of my good suits at a beach. And lastly, since when does water ruin a suit? Sure it'd need to go to the cleaners and get pressed, but it won't be ruined.

 

[QuestionEverything]

People can be way too literal.

 

[L2R]

The problem with so many other scenarios that this question is linked to once you've answered is that this one depends on the action of you, and you alone. The scenarios that are linked to a 'yes' answer for this one are often *not* dependable on the action of one person alone, rather a group (as was stated in deleted posts: a stranger's life saving surgery, wars, etc.). Furthermore, they are situations that you don't find yourself standing face to face with. This changes things, whether it should or not. If you found a starving child on your front doorstep surely you'd bring him/her inside and provide a meal until the proper authorities were able to retrieve the child. Again, when this child is in another country it changes things.

The situation in the question posed causes the person to assume that it is up to them, and them alone, to decide whether the child lives or not. We are told clearly that nobody else is around so without our action the child will surely die from drowning. When you try to relate this to more broad situations you lose that effect.

Then, as has already been touched on, we can change the value of the item ruined in saving a life and see where the line is drawn, if it is at all.

you said it all, mate.

i would love to help out those in third world nations, but i do feel that that ability is beyond my reach. i don't trust sponsorship foundations. many have a political, religious or financial agenda, and i can't tell them apart.

 

[leftovers]

Could one really walk away from a scene like that and leave a child to die without loosing their peace of mind for ever?
How much money would one have to spend on drugs to obliterate the memory. Even if one was wearing the suit on the way to the "big" once in a life time business meeting, could one live a life free of that image haunting, scraping at the soul of one'e existance? If you were the child what would you think of the person in the suit walking away?

Peace of mind is the most valuable thing in life. To think that anyone could walk away, well the person would have to be very ignorant. The person would definately be haunted by his/her own thoughts/memories till death. Maybe this is how ghosts are created? Perhaps a person who does this sort of things goes crazy and ends up seeing the haunting thoughts as vision. . .

 

[UnSquare]

Or I Could Jus' Ax Yo' Inna Week. But I Want It All & I Want It Now...

many have a political,
religious or financial agenda,
and i can't tell them apart.

Do you feel that way 'bout 'Amnesty', Cap'?

An',
um,
Yes,
I would
&
have
destroyed perfectly good suits fo' much less
than savin' a lil' melon from drowning.

Suites, too.

PEACE
UnS

 

[o O]

There would be no hesitation on my part to dive into that lake.