NationStates Jolt Archive

If you saw a young boy dieing in a gutter would you walk past and ignore him?

Or would you take him to the hospital? Or get him a doctor?

You are likely not the world most altruistic person, but you are not the most anti-social either. So what would you do, walk past and ignore him or do something to help?

Most people would help, Not because we are Gods perfect children, but because we are humans. And humans are social animals. We’re animals who survive by sticking together.

What you wouldn’t do is stand there and theories about it. Demand to know why he’s there, or who’s to blame, or which office of the local authority to complain too.

But what if there was a boy dieing in a gutter and it wasn’t in front of you and you couldn’t see him. When it happens out of site it become a different thing. Something that is possible to ignore. It’s not your responsibility some how the reality is obscured behind layers or rationalizations. It’s not a boy dieing in a gutter anymore, it’s become something else more remote and intangible. Something with out obvious solutions. It’s become a question of politics.

Reality is relative, most of reality is not happening in front of your eyes, most of reality is not real. Most of reality is politics. You probable know that there are young boys in gutters out there dieing. But it’s one of those remote realities, and what’s the reason for it?

We could talk about economics, or geopolitics. But the truth is they are dieing because they are out of site, and they don’t really matter. When the parents have no money, the kids don’t count.

In our reality we value children, so much that we’ve made ourselves paranoid about real and imaginary threats to them. But in global realities, they are not valued. A billion people, 1 of 6 in the world can not even get clean water. So their kids do not get the necessities of life, and 5 million of their kids die each year. Since big numbers don’t really mean much to anyone. Imagine a jumbo jet, fully loaded with kids up to the age of 5 crashing into a mountain. That would make the headlines in your local town.

Now imagine a jumbo jet doing that ever 35 minuets. For every day, of every week, of every month for ever (that’s one 9/11 every 6.8 hours). 300 kids every 35 minuets.

A massacre of the innocent.

Caring about children in the gutter is a relatively new phenomenon in western society. Just 100 years ago, peasant children were treated as slaves in Victorian Britain, and people would simply walk past one dying in the street.

Yes, reality is subjective. So is morality.

It is all about your society. If you are brought up to feel nothing for that child than you will. Besides, many people when they see a crowd rioting will join the crowd. Just like that study of when the scientist told people to give an electric shock to someone and they obey without question. People are down deep evil creatures.

Where's Sally Struthers? How many cents a day to save little Ricardo?

why should this concern be directed only at the children of the world? all people are human and deserve a certain quality of life. sadly, for many, many people in the developing world, and some in the developed countries, extreme poverty, starvation, disease and misery is their way of life.

just because you can't see these people's pain first-hand doesn't make it go away. just because we are able to ignore it doesn't mean we should. this is an issue that needs far more attention in the developed world and one which simply requires a little compassion to understand or to care about


About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. Three-fourths of the deaths are children under the age of five. (United Nations)

Some 800 million people around the globe suffer from hunger and malnutrition. (United Nations)

More than 10 percent of children in developing countries die before the age of five. (CARE)

(source (http://www.convoyofhope.org/poverty.html))



Yes, reality is subjective. So is morality.
of course it is, but thats not to say we can ignore it or pretend it matters less due to that fact :rolleyes:

As selfish as it sounds, most people prefer not to think about things that they can do nothing about, even if it means ignoring others who are suffering.

I *know* there are orphans in third world countries who are starving, being exploited, etc. But what can I DO about it directly ("directly" meaning something I personally do, not some politician or so-called charity)?

There's really nothing I can do to help those people *directly*, so I'd prefer not to think about it. Why lament things over which I have no control?

of course it is, but thats not to say we can ignore it or pretend it matters less due to that fact :rolleyes:

Never said I'd ignore a child in the gutter, I was just refuting the original posters suggestion that humans are inherently good.

Where's Sally Struthers? How many cents a day to save little Ricardo?


Bwahahaha...

She was probably using the money people sent to buy doughnuts.

Never said I'd ignore a child in the gutter, I was just refuting the original posters suggestion that humans are inherently good.
meh, ok, sorry... i'm on a different train here....

wheeee! ;)

Where did the poster say that humans are inherently good?

Well, I would try to help by whatever means available, but the study of conformity (I'm doing psychology) suggests that, in a group situation, no-one (or at least not many people) would help the kid.

If you saw a young boy dieing in a gutter would you walk past and ignore him?
[snip]
Depends. Would he be a total stranger or someone I know? If he were a stranger, I'd probably help him and hate myself later. If he were someone I knew, I probably wouldn't help him and hate myself later.

Where did the poster say that humans are inherently good?

Here:

Most people would help, Not because we are Gods perfect children, but because we are humans.

I think it's pretty safe to say that most people, depending on the surroundings, would actually do nothing, or maybe stand around and stare. I can't, in all my moral sense, say for sure "Oh hell yeah, I'd help that boy" because chances are I'd actually just call an ambulance to his location, but not actively take him. Why? Cause death scares the crap out of me. No matter what level of concern, I think unless it was a member of my close family, I wouldn't be able to see that happen.

It would display an incredible amount sociopathy to ignore a dying child were he laying in the gutter. I would say that the people on here who say they wouldn't help are lying for some reason.

Of course I would help him! Yes, most people have an inherent urge for evil, but most manage to overcome that, to a degree. To simply leave someone to die like that...

If you saw a young boy dieing....

I'd keep walking, go home and make a post in an internet forum about it - in hopes that I could guilt-trip someone else into helping him.

Why does it have to be a young boy? I think any sentient beings capable of suffering have to be helped...At least calling the ambulance or something. :)
Ignoring is just selfish and inhumane.

as far as the young boy goes, I don't have a choice.

Anyone CPR/Lifeguard certified in most US states (I'm a lifeguard) are required under law to help. While I can rationalize walking away with the fact that no one probably would see me, if it came up that I was there, I would be liable for the kids death

And on a personal note, I couldn't walk away. Just who I am (and probably most of us are) I guess

I would leave him there.

Of course I would help him! Yes, most people have an inherent urge for evil, but most manage to overcome that, to a degree. To simply leave someone to die like that...

Very, very few people have the urge to do evil things for the sake of doing evil things. The urges for evil that you are referencing are urges for self-gratification, which sometimes comes at the expense of others.

As a vast majority of people would receive more self-gratification from helping the child than from walking by, most would help.

Whether you leave him there or not depends on the situation. Are you in a hurry? Are there other people around? Is he attractive looking?

Most people would not help, even if they claim they would. Your attitudes have very little affect on your behavior in situations like that. Most people don;t like that idea because it would make them a hypocrite to behave opposite their expressed attitude but regardless of what anyone says, most people would walk on past.

If you saw a young boy dieing in a gutter would you walk past and ignore him?

Most people would do netiher. They would stand around, form a crowd and watch, each one expecting someone else is going to do something/ has already done something. Some would tape it, hoping for some action when the firemen arrive. Which they of course don't - not in time because noone bothered to call.

Quite a lot of people die due to this fenomenon every year.

Oh please god, deliver me from these horrendous "what ifs." Seconds ago, my brother coined an excellent term for this kind of disgusting supposition, and I think I like it. "Moral Extortion."

Most of what I would do would depend on the circumstances and such. Am I tired or hungry? Why am I outside in the first place? Did I just get off work and I'm screwed having to walk home? Did I have something to do with this kid dying? If so, then yes; it's a no brainer--I'd help his ass. But it's not so cut and dry as "what would you do if you saw a kid dying in the gutter."

As callous as it sounds, I'd have a 50/50 chance of just leaving his ass. A lot of it would depend on the nature of the injury and whether or not I had other important things to deal with at the time. I'm honest with myself: I value my life and my time more than I value most other peoples' lives or their time. If I were dying in a gutter, I certainly wouldn't mind a bit of help, but only a fool counts on it.

And, incidentally, reality is not subjective. I've yet to see someone [someone not on serious drugs mind you] claim that grass is orange and the sky is green.

Morality is not subjective either, as I have maintained in several other threads and will maintain until the day I die. If you want to know why this is, just read the link in my sig. I dont have the time or patience to tread over this already muchly-used [and presumably muchly pissed-in] water.

And, incidentally, reality is not subjective. I've yet to see someone [someone not on serious drugs mind you] claim that grass is orange and the sky is green.

Green ? No. But on a clear day it is violet, not blue. Blame our eyes ;)

Morality is not subjective either

That does not mean the actions taken based on ones specific interpretation of the non-subjective morality are not subjective themselves though.

Green ? No. But on a clear day it is violet, not blue. Blame our eyes ;)

Well, I'll admit that it does turn some pretty crazy colors when the sun goes down :p

That does not mean the actions taken based on ones specific interpretation of the non-subjective morality are not subjective themselves though.

Yep. I regard actions like this as irrational. Just because something's wrong or contradictory doesn't mean people won't do it anyway. We all do irrational things all the time. I'm no exception :eek:

Well, when I said "reality is subjective" I more meant that each tends to interpret things differently. For example, some might look at the boy in the street as a plague upon their city, others might see them as to be pitied etc. Nothing to do with magic mushrooms.

Well, when I said "reality is subjective" I more meant that each tends to interpret things differently. For example, some might look at the boy in the street as a plague upon their city, others might see them as to be pitied etc. Nothing to do with magic mushrooms.

Well, I've gotten accustomed to interpreting it more literally. In your contect, I'd replace "reality" with "perceptions," since using "reality" will cause someone like me to come in and start hollering about the Primacy of Existence and so forth. Good thing you stopped me now or I'd go on for hours.

Of course people see things differently, based on their upbringing or culture or what have you. I could go for some of those mushrooms though... orange grass does look pretty sweet.

He killed the younglings!

Heh - sorry, just had to get that in there ;-)

I'd help as much as I could

Well, I'd walk on by, unless I was in a rather nice mood, then I might help. I tend to not like people, children especially.

Oprenia, you fixate on the young but in truth millions of all ages are dying around the globe, not just from lack of basic needs, but from war, persecution, exploitation, and violence. It's so common we desensitize to it if it's not happening under our nose. Frankly more people are worried about how to get those new 24" spinners for their Escalade than people they don't know dying halfway around the world. Good luck changing things.

I don't think that a lack of compassion for a dying child can be supported by group psychology. Individuals are more likely to render assistance if there are no other people to help. It is when an incident like this occurs in a group of people that the diffusion of responsibility occurs. One's first instinct is to help. This is followed by rationalisations for not helping, which is assisted by the presence of peers who are also not helping.

Experience teaches us to just bite the bullet and do it. The momentary inconvenience is far outweighed by the potential guilt of not helping that follows the event.

First, the thought experiment starts more like "Imagine you are a teacher walking to class past a shallow fountain like you do everyday. On this day however you come upon a small child who is drowning, do you help the child or drown him?" This argument was made by Peter Unger in "Living high and letting die" to argue for his morality of lessoning suffering being the primary goal of a moral choice (in particular that since you would save that one kid even though it would inconvience you that you are morally obligated to donate a few dollar [~100$] to good charities [UNISEF] to help all the dying children everywhere.)

I aint criticising bringing up the argument, but god dammit man cite where its from (even if its just to say "My proffesser asked us this in class" or "I read this..") so that people can form thier own opinions after seeing the whole argument..

Secondly, it IS moral extortion in my opinion, although I have not read the whole book yet (left it at a friends house awhile back.... :rolleyes: ) so I do not know how sound the argument is in full. You are saying that something that is happening RIGHT NOW in front of me is equivlent to something which is FAR AWAY and which I HAVE NO EXPERIENCE OF and which for all I know is PART OF A SCAM (unlikely I know, but since we are talking thought expieriments lets put it in here as a logical possibility). In short, its a false analogy and could be dismissed right there.

Third, assuming that I decide to donate the money, what happens to the children I have 'saved'? They die of cholrea or bad food or something else, so more money is needed over time to make sure they live, which is fine because hey, I am saving a life and I can always make more money. But the quality of life is bad compared to our standards, and more handouts are needed to fullfill the demands of a ever increasing number of refugee children, but there will never be enough in our lifetime for all the children to be cared for and educated and be made productive (considering that because of malnuutrition most children in camps like the ones imagined have brain damage...).

So giving out handouts is NOT the solution. Keeping people alive in an area where the population has far exceeded the countries resources is like putting a dirty band aid over a bullet wound, its going to seem to help in the short term but long term itll only make more problems. Instead I propose this: Let them die. Dont give them handouts and let them die, it is the choice that longterm will cause the least suffering because after they die and disease takes its toll on the continate perhaps 50% on the EXTREAM outside of the population will die and there are most of the problems solved already. But what else mioght happen is that a small percentage would die immediatly and the refugee camps (being denied thier free sources of food and medicine) will be abandoned and people might actually go to work again!! They might wander into a city and find a job (they do exist, jobs; even in third world countries). There would be some people dying from hunger and disease, this is true, but people do that worldwide so instead of donating to people faraway who shouldnt be living on handouts instead when you feel alturistic go find a bum and clean him up sand send him to a job interview or go adopt a kid or volunteer at the local hospital. BAM! you just did better than everyone who ever donated money to a largescale charity that shuffles money to the worst areas (dirty band aid..).

Or just be lazy and do nothing, as (if you are) an American it is your choice.

This argument was made by Peter Unger in "Living high and letting die" to argue for his morality of lessoning suffering being the primary goal of a moral choice.

Gross.

Hmmm i doont know if id save a random kid i saw a couple playing with a dead Hedgehog 2-3 weeks ago and just stared damn Absent parents with there poor kids.

I have picked an old lady who fell down once
I saw hello to pretty much anyone i see in the mornings(not in the afternoon(to exhausted for niceties))

My own kids yeah because they carry my genes others maybe.

yeah i probably would but not in america cause i dont want to pay the bill!
Stupid system.