[ALawPoker]

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.).