Question

Tom Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy's cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold -- he doesn't want to get his good clothes wet either. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on.

Does Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy?
Does Smith have an ethical obligation to save the boy?
Should he have a legal obligation ["Good Samaritan" laws] as well?

Answer 1

Although there is no legal obligation for Smith to save the boy, he definitely has a moral and ethical obligation to save the boy.

Smith knows swimming which means he is not new to water, so he could have easily saved the boy. He was very much concerned about his health and his dress while he watched a fellow human die.

If he catches cold, it can be cured and if he wets his cloth, he can dry it but if a life is lost, it's lost forever. So it's very surprising that he decided not to save the boy. Had he saved the boy, he would have been happy, the boy would have been happy and the boy's family would have been happy. Now, it's all vice Versa.

Thank you for your question.

Please rate if you like the answer.