Buying Things = Murder?

Since there are a couple philosophy threads active right now, I have some ideas. Here's a scenario we debated in one of my philosophy classes. Nobody in the class was able to come up with a satisfying answer.

Suppose there is a submarine filled with children deep underwater. The submarine is critically low on air and the children will suffocate to death within the next five minutes. The submarine has a series of tubes connected to it where people on a ship at the surface can send canisters of air through the tubes and save the children. There is a scuba diver who has far more air canisters than he needs, over ten times as much. He is aware that the children are dying from a lack of oxygen but he decides to keep the additional air canisters rather than give them to the children because he likes the feeling of having his extra air and the children suffocate. Is this scuba diver guilty of murder or even in the wrong?

If so, what is the philosophical difference between the scuba diver and us here in developed countries? We have far more money than we need to live a comfortable life and there are millions of children in underdeveloped countries that are starving to the point of death. Americans have the ability to donate money to theses children yet don't do so. Everything we buy for ourselves is money that we could have used to save a starving child.

So what do you think? Are we as guilty as the diver? Do we commit murder everytime we buy something by chosing to have something for fun rather than save someones life? If not, why?

This is quite similar to the theory of responsibility & utilitarianism.
Consequence & desire mixed in a bowl.
hmm.

This could go two ways, but I believe he didn't murder them.
I believe that he had the "chance to save" them. (Thinking optimistically)

This is a very good question to see if we are ethical. Do like.

It was the scuba diver's choice whether or not to donate his oxygen tanks. If he had his reasons to keep them, then more power to him. For example, maybe he had to work X amount of hours hosting Scuba Diving Tours for his work firm to EARN those extra tanks, and he's so proud of them that he wants to keep them for eternity. He could feel that it's mildly the kids' FAULT for allowing themselves to be kidnapped and put in the submarine. If the kids chose to be put in, then one could assume they were suicidal, in which situation NOT helping them would be of their best interest. I, personally, would have kept some oxygen tanks at home, but given at least 1 to EACH kid. I DO know the amount of children trapped, don't I?

As for the real-world connection, I think that we, the citizens of America, have a choice to help third-world countries, but many people find it difficult. Also, a simple slip of the mind could easily force one to simply... forget. It's inconvenient to spend time helping others when you could be helping yourself. That's just the way some, if not most, people think. I know that I'm probably wrong on a thousand different levels, (considering I'm only 13) but I hope this works well enough.

~Ryuzaki573, Unofficial 13-year-old Philosopher

I like this one, it has a good point to argue from each side.

The scuba diver is not directly responsible for their deaths, but he is a factor due to him having an excess of air that he could have given to them.

In our modern society (that is, the United States), we spend money on pointless, unnecessary objects, when that money could be used to aid starving and homeless people not only in our own country, but also overseas. I do, however, see the latter being an issue since we spend so much money overseas to protect any and all countries that ask for help, so we become so stretched financially that trying to help those people in need of food, water, and homes would lead to us having no finances leftover to help those within our own borders.

---

We should definitely care for our neighbors just as much as we do ourselves, but let's not forget: God has given us this world for us to enjoy until we leave for Heaven (or Hell). It is definitely a hard topic for me, but that's the best I could come up with. In a direct situation like the one in the first post, however, I would say that is a consequence of an evil person, not of buying things. If you have more than enough and someone needs your things, you should be ready and willing to share.

---

$ won't feed anybody, at the basic level it's a matter of resources.

---

What a wonderfully simplistic way to frame a problem that is WAY more complicated than "buy an iPod or save a starving child, your choice".

Sending money to Zimbabwe isn't going to help its 94% unemployment rate or change the fact that the corrupt government leaders took over private farms and gave them to friends who were inexperienced and let them die after selling off the farming equipment for quick money or the fact that they have raised taxes and tariffs incredibly high to increase the wealth of the leaders and make any kind of sustainable economic growth impossible.

So no, we're not murdering them.

Amen, the worse part is that this was discussed in a classroom lead by a teacher (a teacher with an extreme bias no doubt). To make this more realistic the oxygen in the submarine was initially seized by a greedy pirate submarine who had no place for the oxygen and released it into the atmosphere, and the pirate submarine threatens the scuba diver if he approaches the distressed sub. But the scuba diver ignores danger, and provides for the children but is shot and wounded and dies after saving their lives, then the pirate sub goes back to the distressed sub and steals the rest of their oxygen again.

Your Philosophy teacher is absurd in his extreme oversimplification.

---

And what a delightfully cynical way to brush off the question. You're just mad because your earlier attempt to criticize Aegis for starting a philosophy thread didn't go the way you planned and now you want to bring down this one.

The choice in the scenario isn't to fix their country's entire infrastructure by giving them money, it's to provide relief to some starving people in the short term. There are charities that try to do this so saying that theres no way to provide relief is not a satisfying answer. Thus the philosophical issue still stands.

From the NEWS yesterday
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-08-14-somalis-famine-terrorists-block-aid-groups_n.htm
See where they are BLOCKING AID and preventing anyone from leaving... How much $ and weapons do you give the terrorists to leave Somalia before you can give them aid??? Wouldn't giving them $ and weapons make the problem worse, wouldn't it encourage more terrorists to take hostages and for more hostages to become terrorists.

It's indeed a very complicated situation and a very sad situation.

---

Okay so use Ethiopia as an example in the thought experiment instead of Somalia.

Plus, I don't think saying "it's complicated" is an excuse for inaction as far as the thought experiment is concerned.

And given that the governments have no problem marching into people's homes and taking their means of living and deliberately structuring the government so that 99% of the country lives in crippling poverty while the leaders live in luxury, what exactly makes you think that all that money is actually going towards feeding hungry people?

And even if it did, you're simply putting out fires without stopping the source of them, which is fairly pointless.

Alright, back to the scuba diver example. Say the scuba diver knew that there was, say, a 60% chance that the air canisters would not in fact reach the dying submarine children. Is he then absolved of guilt and free of responsibility if he chooses to keep the air and not attempt to send it through the tube?

Even taking the complexity and backhistory of the problems in starving countries into account, what is the philosophical moral difference between my evil diver guy and and a self-indulgent American?


Perhaps alleviating suffering is reason enough? One could say this is just an excuse for inaction.

Btw, I'm far from the most charitable person in the world so if it looks like I'm trying to preach a message, I'm not.

But what if the extra 60 minutes of oxygen wasn't enough to save their lives, it only prolonged it for 60 more minutes because nothing was done to alleviate their situation, at what point is the scuba diver responsible for dragging their sub out of the water to rescue them all before he is absolved of being a murderer?

---

Even if he added only 60 minutes, I think he would at least be free from being guilty of their deaths because he did all that was in his power. He wouldn't be labeled a murder for not dragging the sub out of the water because it isn't realistically in his ability to do that.

And if we're still comparing the air to the amount of excess wealth that countries like the US and UK have, I think the scuba diver would have more than 60 minutes worth of air.

You cannot even translate this problem into this simple yet somewhat bizarre scenario. Rather than try to simply the problem, let's just talk about it directly.


Alleviating suffering would be giving them the means to sustain themselves. As unfortunate as it is, we do not have the power to do that without basically overthrowing their government, which opens a whole other can of worms. Even by some miracle this money does go to feeding some hungry people, they are still deprived of basic healthcare, education, shelter, clothing, defense against crimes, and a host of other things.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, and it's complicated. This is why it's still going on, because there is no perfect solution to the problem.

Elaborating on "He did all that was in his power," does this mean that the sub is going to be underwater forever? If so, then how does this relate to the countries of the world? Is the situation implying that it's impossible for these poor countries to become wealthy? It would really help to know if/when the submarine resurfaces, and how it happens. In the real world, the "submarine" would "resurface" with money, the "oxygen" that the "scuba diver" countries have a surplus of. With an actual submarine, giving oxygen to the people inside wouldn't save them forever, it would only prolong the time before their deaths. How do we resurface the submarine and permanently save the children inside if the only option we have is giving them oxygen, a temporary solution? Unless, of course, the question implies that something other than money is needed to fully recover these poor countries... but if money (or oxygen) isn't the answer, what is?

As Pie said, the "scuba diver" countries would have to take over the governments of the "submarine" countries, which would cause even more chaos. This question, if not all philosophy questions, isn't about the correct answer, it's about the best answer.

I think you may be missing the point of a "thought experiment".

The point is to answer a philosophical question, not to promote a cause. Even if there is no realistic way to provide complete relief to the starving children in our reality, the point is just to find why we are not as equally guilty as the diver every time we do not even attempt to save lives.

From what I can tell, it sounds like your answer is that it would be more realistic if there were not in fact any tubes leading to the submarine in the hypothetical scenario.


All the "submarine" needs to represent is people who will die on their own who would have lived if they had been given relief, whether its food/money/vaccinations. The "children" in the submarine better represent actual children rather than countries. Thus the choice is not "buy a sandwhich at wendy's vs. fix a corrupt country" but rather "buy a sandwhich at wendy's vs. save a single child". As for if the "sub" will "resurface", there are tons of countries where the "sub" won't "resurface" as Pie pointed out.

Dunno, but Viper has the right kind of heart. We typically focus on the lone incident, the one where we can make a difference or the smaller tragedies that can be better understood but we ignore the big tragedies in general. Perhaps there is no solution but just making an effort to help is better than nothing. Rather than focus on the mother who's daughter dies and she goes out partying we should pay attention to the global tragedies that are occurring today, it's easy to ignore the situation when it seems out of hand and to dismiss it as a tragedy but the truth is if we cared enough we could make a difference, and perhaps it really is that our materialism is out of hand when the most basic needs of the world are not met.

It's still a poor analogy though.

---

I'm seeing a connection of this and 'Aegis and the Beggar' in that they're both about helping someone in need. It's just that when you actually SEE a homeless person with your own eyes and in person, a certain connection is made when you see the desperation or whatever that can't come through, say, a TV. Most people find it easier, or perhaps more reassuring, when they see what they've donated going straight to the hands of who needs it. Giving a homeless person money means pulling something out of your pocket, which lasts all of ten seconds, if that. Donating to foreign countries means calling a phone number, donating an amount of dollars that you actually have to think about, and all that good stuff. It's much more complicated, and donators don't know the people that they've just donated to. Humans act differently when the circumstances differ, and that's just the way the world works.

I think another factor of this is intimidation. All the time, you hear about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Richard Branson or whoever donating X billion to charities. Humans like to mimic each other. But when a donator can't match up to a super CEO's amount, they don't donate what they can, they drop out altogether. Some people, whether they like it or not, have subconciously twisted a giving game into a sadistic competition they just can't win.

The scuba diver is NOT a criminal, murderer, or a bad person at all just because he chooses not to give what he has, and neither is anybody else in the world who chooses not to donate to third-world countries. He has what he has and the kids have what they have. If he chooses to give what he has to the kids, that's great. But if he doesn't, then there's no reason to call him a murderer. And if there really was a 60% chance the oxygen wouldn't make it, that's another reason for him to withdraw. If the deaths of the "kids" were inevitable, then what REAL reason was there to donate anyway?

~Ryuzaki573, Unofficial 13-year-old Philosopher