How many people would you give up your net worth for?

[mak15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. We can't make starving children in Africa middle class Americans (as if that's a desirable thing anyways). We can feed them though. I don't understand how that isn't a pressing concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

not saying it isn't a pressing concern. just that it's a lot different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of OP's question is: "What's more important, your net worth or the life of your friend?" If you honestly believe that the implications of that question are significantly different than "What's more important, your net worth or the life of a starving child?", then I don't know what to say. I grant you that the particulars are different, but I don't think that the particulars (ie being returned to a middle class western lifestyle) mean much compared to the heart of the dilemma which is weighing the value of money vs. the value of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, this is my last attempt:

1.) The person about to be murdered is in a much worse spot than a starving child.
2.) The person about to be murdered is 100% guarenteed to be 100% saved. Show me a way to donate money to a starving child that will guarentee the child recieves a healthy and normal life.
3.) I am solely responsible for the person about to be murdered.
4.) The person about to be murdered is about to be murdered so I have to act now. Giving to charity as a 21 year old makes little sense for me since I would much rather just give more later when my situation is more secure.
5.) The starving child will have to leave his home and family to live on his own with the new life the money he is given will buy him, while the potential murder victim will make the much easier and smoother transition back to his normal life.
6.) I know the person in the murder situation and do not know any starving african children.

There's probably a lot more points, but whatever, it's pretty clear the situations are quite different.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. We can't make starving children in Africa middle class Americans (as if that's a desirable thing anyways). We can feed them though. I don't understand how that isn't a pressing concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

not saying it isn't a pressing concern. just that it's a lot different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well clearly it isn't a pressing concern, since none of us seem concerned enough by it to do anything...

[valenzuela]

IMO the poll highest option is too low.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. We can't make starving children in Africa middle class Americans (as if that's a desirable thing anyways). We can feed them though. I don't understand how that isn't a pressing concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

not saying it isn't a pressing concern. just that it's a lot different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of OP's question is: "What's more important, your net worth or the life of your friend?" If you honestly believe that the implications of that question are significantly different than "What's more important, your net worth or the life of a starving child?", then I don't know what to say. I grant you that the particulars are different, but I don't think that the particulars (ie being returned to a middle class western lifestyle) mean much compared to the heart of the dilemma which is weighing the value of money vs. the value of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, this is my last attempt:

1.) The person about to be murdered is in a much worse spot than a starving child.
2.) The person about to be murdered is 100% guarenteed to be 100% saved. Show me a way to donate money to a starving child that will guarentee the child recieves a healthy and normal life.
3.) I am solely responsible for the person about to be murdered.
4.) The person about to be murdered is about to be murdered so I have to act now. Giving to charity as a 21 year old makes little sense for me since I would much rather just give more later when my situation is more secure.
5.) The starving child will have to leave his home and family to live on his own with the new life the money he is given will buy him, while the potential murder victim will make the much easier and smoother transition back to his normal life.
6.) I know the person in the murder situation and do not know any starving african children.

There's probably a lot more points, but whatever, it's pretty clear the situations are quite different.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. As I see it, they're both about to die horribly unjust deaths.
2. A little money (in terms of USD) goes a long way in the third world. I can't prove to you that X amount of money given to Y charity will save precisely Z starving children, but your money will have a beneficial impact. Also, imagine OP's question except after receiving payment the kidnapper flips a coin. Heads he releases your friend, tails he kills him. Before paying the ransom, you are informed of these conditions. You aren't paying anymore?
3. The Western world's shared negligence with regard to world hunger does not make any individual's decision to not help any more ok. Say the kidnapper gives 5 people the option to save your friend. Does the fact that the other 4 people pass make your decision to not pay any less unethical?
4. Thousands of people die everyday. I myself am 20 so I understand where you are coming from, and I don't mind your decision to wait until you are done with school and what not. But be sure to decide how secure is secure. Don't want to be putting off giving because you're 'not quite secure enough' with $30 million in assets.
5. I'm not suggesting that we hand a starving child bricks of cash and tell him to go wild. Our money would of course be used and dispersed at the discretion of whatever charity or NGO works in the area. I can only hope that the use of my money does not involve the removal of a child from his family so that he or she may be placed on a plane to the states.
6. A worrying position. You see a child drowning in a lake. Do you jump in to save them or do you first make sure that it's your cousin?

Again, I acknowledge that there are differences between the OP and giving to charity. For instance, as you say, in the OP you are solely responsible for the fate of your friend. Not the case with giving to charity. But is that an adequate reason to not give to charity, that other people don't either? Of course not.

That's the purpose of hypothetical questions such as OP's imo. We are rarely going to be in the situation OP presents, but we are all currently in a situation with starving children in the world. If we are willing to give our net worth to the kidnapper, then why not to unicef? Then we look for differences between the two situations and determine if those differences are sufficient enough to change our response. The fact that the situations are different in the particular does not mean that we should respond differently.