Going into a burning building to save a child
 

Hypothetical situation: You are walking down the street and see a child trapped in a burning building. Your father was a fireman and you quickly judge that by trying to rescue him you will have 50/50 chance of saving his life or both of you perishing. What would you do?

If you choose to try and save the child, why not instead focus your efforts on trying to save as many African babies as possible? Assuming that it is actually possible to save their lives by giving X dollars/month, you could save X babies over the next 50 years.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

you cant compare donating money to a specific charity with saving a human that will die immediately directly in front of you w/o intervention.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I can't answer the first question honestly. I do believe it would pending on the moment. I think I _could_ do it though, but you never know until you stand there.

As for the 2nd statement, I agree with the above poster. Closer to home is closer to home, and is also a perfectly understandable human chain of thought (even if not the most objective and logical). I do give some to charity though, but I have no interest in contributing my life to it no. There is also the timescale to consider.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

Too many differences

1. This child is right there in front of you and is real while children you can't see and will never meet are just concepts.

2. Saving this child is based on your ability to do so (Assuming no one else is present). Not sending money though doesn't prevent someone else from sending money. That so many people can send the money leads to apathy and no need to act.

3. General distrust of charities given the vast majority are only quasi-legitimate.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

takes a lot of something to go save a child while your risk of death is 50%

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

First we care about our selves, then our family and close friends, then our acquaintances, then our community (or those who happen to be in our relative proximity), then our extended community or state or country. We care least about strangers in other parts of the world. That's just the way our emotional connection to tragic or dire events works and I can't see this as a bad thing. We are social creatures and we can't live a very functional life if we never do anything altruistic other than sending money at kids on the other side of the world.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I'm not going to save some random child if there is a 50% chance of my demise. Call me selfish but I'd be hard pressed to do this even if the chance was as low as 10%. I value my life wayyyyy more than somebody I don't know and am not particularly attached to.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
you cant compare donating money to a specific charity with saving a human that will die immediately directly in front of you w/o intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying you CAN'T compare them is a stretch. African babies die all the time without intervention. Whether they are in front of you or not is irrelevant, which I believe is part of Lebowski's point. We are more inclined to save some random child simply based on proximity, but if you are willing to risk death for a kid that you share no genes with, why wouldn't you prefer donating to specific charities to help African babies? Far more utility and no risk.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your father was a fireman and you quickly judge that by trying to rescue him you will have 50/50 chance of saving his life or both of you perishing

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this kind of thing is a little more distracting then simply stipulating you know your approximate odds of success. If you are going to do this you ought to be able to do better than 'your father was a fireman'. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]




I'm neither putting myself in grave danger of burning to death or saving African babies. I'm ok with this.

We could do a lot of good for others with little sacrifice. Much more with large sacrifices..

To answer why some people would save the kid and not help Africans: people are inconsistent beings who do what they think will make themselves happy. They often don't consider many alternative actions, and obviously can't consider them all in most cases.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I would like to think that I'd do it. Although it is obv impossible to know.

I am aware that the decision would be irrational, but I still would like to believe that in this, spur of the moment/no time to consider things, situation I would dive in. I will not try and justify the action as correct on any level, but I think that (with the proviso that under the stress of the situation your subconscious takes over and no thought is taken) being the type of person that dives into the burning builing says positive things about your morality.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether they are in front of you or not is irrelevant, which I believe is part of Lebowski's point

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether they are in front of you or not is not irrelevant, which is my point. There is no rational metric for measuring altruism.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that you would act rationaly?

Bravo.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is it illogical? We function much better socially by concentrating our compassion and concern more on those who are closer to us geographically and/or relationship-wise.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

You would be right that if I based my desire to save the child SOLELY on some reasoning chain such as "children dying is bad, therefore stopping them from dying is good, therefore I should risk my life to save this child right now" then you would be engaging in faulty logic.
However if you just think "I don't want this child to die, I'm going to save him" then it's no more illogical than thinking "I want some ice cream, so I'm gonna buy some".

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

this question is much improved if you make your odds of saving the kid from the fire 100%.

I think there is a difference between saving someone right in front of you and saving someone who is distant to you but its so easy to get this argument all mucky its not worth trying to defend.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

Deciding to save the baby isn't going to be an altruistic act. I'm gonna get alot of chicks when i go out the next night after my pictures in the paper with the headline "Hero risks own life to save infant".

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is it illogical? We function much better socially by concentrating our compassion and concern more on those who are closer to us geographically and/or relationship-wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP used a bad example to make his point. Take the extreme risk away and it is easy to see that the fellow who would make some personal effort to save one nearby child is less laudable (though still laudable) than the person who makes an approximately equal effort (perhaps financially) to save dozens of faraway children who he may never meet.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

donating money isn't really a "hands-on" act. In reality, you give the money to some charity which then dispenses to whomewver and however they see fit. It's not possible to tangibly see that you are saving lives.

If you knew you could reach the child, I think most people would try.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
Take the extreme risk away and it is easy to see that the fellow who would make some personal effort to save one nearby child is less laudable (though still laudable) than the person who makes an approximately equal effort (perhaps financially) to save dozens of faraway children who he may never meet.

[/ QUOTE ]
An interesting comparison would be if the person who spends money saving dozens of children far away walked past a child he could have saved from dying (in a burning house or any scenario you can think of, but where the risk is not high unlike the OP) and opted not to save him. Now which of the two people would you think better of?

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I most likely let the baby burn. But society's reaction is the critical difference between the two. I might care more about saving the burning baby, because then I'm a hero, and if he/she has a hot single mom, then I hit the jackpot. As with the starving babies, well, let's just leave it at you're welcome.

But seriously, the difference between the two is a good example of contrived empathy. OMG babies I don't know and are of no consequence to me are dying!!! I need to try to care about this!!! The truth is there's probably no truly objective reason to care about the baby burning in front of you either. But who said our instincts are perfect? It might be good just because it irrationally makes us feel good. These instincts of ours were developed based on a slightly different equation.

Our natural human bias will find reasons to care, and that bias will be encouraged by society's response, since they share the bias. Since society responds much more favorably to "you risked your life and saved the baby from the burning building" than "you donated a dime a day to help African babies" it becomes perfectly rational to care about one more than the other. Social approval is something we humans value pretty highly. But, if I was a robot, I see no reason why I would ever do either. As we progress as a species, we'll break this bias and care less (as we also learn to build fire proof houses or super protective bubbles for our babies to live in when we leave them alone, etc.).

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

Well he is speaking big words, but ya know, then some dramatic happens the weirdest thing can spark. People you'd assume to be the heroes will do nothing and the cold cynical sounding ones will suddenly wake up and do a heroic act. Now I don't believe that is a general principle - but the essence is that talk is cheap, and that actually goes both ways - most of us don't really know how we react in extremely dramatic situations.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I dont think I would with only a 50/50 chance - impossible to know but I'd speculate there'd need to be a 90% chance of us surviving would make it worth the risk to me (but if it was only risking injury it would be much lower).

The reason I dont put the same effort into saving people half a world away is that I dont feel responsible for things I cant see. Another factor is that I dont make ethical decisions based on EV considerations, plus I think humans are irrational anyway so even if I tried to I doubt I'd calculate them "correctly".

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol, funny as that is, I don't think so. My intuition ( do you believe that that's a contrived attribute also?) tells me we couldn't be further apart in idealogies & I think it'd be a very fruitless discussion for both of us.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I run into the building no problemo.

I don't donate cash to charities because I don't trust most of them. I do charity work and go overseas as a volunteer when I can.

Again it's a perception thing, when someone is presented with the here and now most do the "right" thing.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

Id run into the building because I would think that it would increase my chances for getting pussy, whereas donating to kids in africa doesnt help me a whole lot.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

So father's a fireman. Big deal. How would I be able to assess my chances of saving the kid? Unless you're the cheerleader from Heroes, running into a burning building is pretty stupid.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

i think i would at least try to save the kid because children have so much potential whereas i don't see myself contributing anything worthwhile to the world

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

I would go into the building to save the building. I have to admit though, part of the reasoning would be to look like the hero after all is said and done.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would go into the building to save the building.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit, Jim, can't you see it's done for?

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it were relevant it would only be in the sense that it triggers a completely illogical response to this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How is it illogical? We function much better socially by concentrating our compassion and concern more on those who are closer to us geographically and/or relationship-wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP used a bad example to make his point. Take the extreme risk away and it is easy to see that the fellow who would make some personal effort to save one nearby child is less laudable (though still laudable) than the person who makes an approximately equal effort (perhaps financially) to save dozens of faraway children who he may never meet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not do both?

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol, funny as that is, I don't think so. My intuition ( do you believe that that's a contrived attribute also?) tells me we couldn't be further apart in idealogies & I think it'd be a very fruitless discussion for both of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you seem to have the idea that your "idealogy" is morally superior to mine, and then when you're probed beyond "zomg how can you say that??" you are unwilling to elaborate or open your mind to a different perspective. That's scary.

"You're [censored] CRAZY!" "I am?" "Let's just drop it." I agree we hold 2 very different mindsets, but the difference is I'm actually willing explain and defend my position.

IMO, empathy evolved because it had very real and practical benefits to us. How else could a trait evolve? So, giving to people who are of no consequence to you will be a misapplication of the instinct. It's an inefficient result based on instincts that come from a slightly different equation (we couldn't communicate with people on different continents until extremely recently).

If it makes you feel good, fine. Do it. To whatever extent we can observe inefficient instincts, we should expect to desire inefficient results, and obtaining them can certainly be seen as a good thing. But I just find it hard to reduce it to anything that is not ultimately self-interest. I don't think that makes me a bad person, just an honest person who's actually thought about these things and doesn't worry about coming off as palatable to someone who will claim a knee jerk moral high ground.

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

"If you choose to try and save the child, why not instead focus your efforts on trying to save as many African babies as possible? "

because you get to be temporarily famous for saving the child, but not the africans

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]



lol, funny as that is, I don't think so. My intuition ( do you believe that that's a contrived attribute also?) tells me we couldn't be further apart in idealogies & I think it'd be a very fruitless discussion for both of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you seem to have the idea that your "idealogy" is morally superior to mine, and then when you're probed beyond "zomg how can you say that??" you are unwilling to elaborate or open your mind to a different perspective. That's scary.

"You're [censored] CRAZY!" "I am?" "Let's just drop it." I agree we hold 2 very different mindsets, but the difference is I'm actually willing explain and defend my position.

IMO, empathy evolved because it had very real and practical benefits to us. How else could a trait evolve? So, giving to people who are of no consequence to you will be a misapplication of the instinct. It's an inefficient result based on instincts that come from a slightly different equation (we couldn't communicate with people on different continents until extremely recently).

If it makes you feel good, fine. Do it. To whatever extent we can observe inefficient instincts, we should expect to desire inefficient results, and obtaining them can certainly be seen as a good thing. But I just find it hard to reduce it to anything that is not ultimately self-interest. I don't think that makes me a bad person, just an honest person who's actually thought about these things and doesn't worry about coming off as palatable to someone who will claim a knee jerk moral high ground.

[/ QUOTE ]


edit: it's not a knee-jerk moral high ground to know that ingrained empathy is a superior quality. Sorry if you want to argue the point, but I really don't care what your position is because it's some b.s. defensive posture you've "contrived".

Re: Going into a burning building to save a child
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, empathy evolved because it had very real and practical benefits to us. How else could a trait evolve? So, giving to people who are of no consequence to you will be a misapplication of the instinct. It's an inefficient result based on instincts that come from a slightly different equation (we couldn't communicate with people on different continents until extremely recently).

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as the "misapplication" of an instinct. Our biological traits don't represent how we're "supposed" to act or how nature "wants" us to act, but which actions had the concrete effect of propagating the genomes associated with those actions. Furthermore, as a result of this, the traits we've evolved weren't of practical benefit to "us," but rather of practical benefit to our genes.

In my opinion, the most credible hypothesis to describe large-scale incremental changes in organisms is that genes which originally served one purpose happened to serve another purpose as well. For instance, our brain may have started to grow because we needed to learn how to identify dangerous animals such as snakes. The improvements in processing may have then allowed our brain to develop a greater capacity for communication. This communicative ability may have then made the identification of patterns possible - ie seasonal patterns in the growth of different foods. See, we didn't just set out to learn the use of tools, which is what made us the most powerful species on the planet. We set out to see snakes in the grass, and the side effect of that was communication, and the side effect of that was pattern identification, and the side effect of that was tool use.

If we had just followed the "proper" application of our insticts, we would never have evolved - finding new uses for old instincts is part of what made our ancestors so successful. It's also probably responsible for things like art, music, and philosophy. There are no "misapplications" in natural selection - some traits fail to propagate, but that's all there is to it. Only time will tell whether compassion is selected for, but unless you're obsessed with maximizing the impact of your genome it can't be considered on evolutionary grounds.