[hyper_reality]

To pick an extreme but well-known thought experiment. You are walking past a pond, and see a child drowning in it. You glance around and there is nobody else nearby. You could easily jump in and save the child. It will certainly die if you do not.

If you choose to do nothing and ignore the drowning child, are you really not morally responsible in any way for the child's death?

[stavros]

If you are morally responsible for the child's death, you are morally responsible for basically every evil in the world right now, since you didn't do everything in your power to prevent all of them.

You may say that that is the case, but if you're responsible for everything, you may as well be responsible for nothing.

[ParetoOptimal]

> If you are morally responsible for the child's death, you are morally responsible for basically every evil in the world right now

No, you are morally responsible for every evil happening right in front of you that you could immediately change with little risk to yourself.

For instance if you can't swim and the child is in the middle of the pond, I'd argue you aren't responsible because the risk is too great to yourself.

In fact due to the danger of drowning people pulling you under, I'd argue unless the child is in water shallow enough for you to stand in it's not your moral responsibility to save them.

Though in the situation, I'd probably feel compelled to save them anyway.

[Flozzin]

I disagree. There are practical limits to what we are responsible for. And there are current obligations and responsibilities we have for ourselves. Just because we know of something does not make us responsible for it. Proximity and risk also play a role.

I am obligated to my family and to myself. To provide for them as an example. But I would also be able to fly across the world and feed a starving child, in theory. But my obligation to my own family, and myself outweighs that. There would also be risks to the journey. Consequences with those actions as well.

[mikkergp]

Is this true? I think most of us would say proximity to a situation (and ability to handle it) changes our moral Imperetive. That’s what makes the Trolley problem so… imperfect? It’s hard to say what it extrapolates to every day life, since it’s a situation that would probably never happen.

If you say that proximity does not imply morality, where are you drawing the line? Would family friends and job duties encompass it? Certainly you can’t say that helping your child implies you are responsible for the whole world.

[com2kid]

> If you are morally responsible for the child's death, you are morally responsible for basically every evil in the world right now, since you didn't do everything in your power to prevent all of them.

That is my personal take on it. We are all living in sin, in reality we are all full of shit and have only a veneer of ethics.

[liminal]

OK, then go with that: You are morally responsible for basically every evil in the world to the degree that you have the ability to change it.

[LtWorf]

1st rule of first aid and rescue: "if you think it isn't completely safe, don't do it. Better 1 dies than 2"

[int_19h]

You're morally responsible, but it's a different degree of moral responsibility compared to throwing said child into the pond.