Our group is delving into the topic of “Rich and Poor”. We present the scenario by telling a familiar tale of a rich economist who is caught between saving a child and saving her clothes. While trying to decide, she is visited by an angel (Peter Singer) and devil (Milton Friedman), who tell her their opinions. The exchange between the two is largely based on “The Exchange that Didn’t Happen”.
W15G02
Through a stop-motion video, our project aims to explain Peter Singer’s Drowning Child Argument where if one has a moral obligation to save a drowning child, one has an equal moral obligation to save a starving child. Furthermore, the video will illustrate one common objection to the drowning child argument – knowledge/distance, where the main character – Josiah Schooling, experiences an ethical dilemma of whether to donate towards helping starving children. Segment to be evaluated: 0:00 to 2:15
W05G02
A rap battle based on Cardi B’s ‘Bodak Yellow’ that encompasses a rich man’s journey of self realization through his encounters with a philanthropic lady, drowning child and starving kid.
W03G03
Jack and Rose are on a cruise ship for their honeymoon. It unexpectedly hit an iceberg and started sinking. Jack manages to hop onto the last lifeboat, but there is only one space left. Rose (the love of his life) and a charitable millionaire (who will potentially save the lives of thousands of starving African children) are near the lifeboat. Jack is faced with a dilemma – who should he save? He weighs out his options considering the utilitarian approach. In the end, it was too tough a decision and he decides to jump off to die with Rose.
W01G05
Our group would like to encourage citizens of the world to donate. We have used Peter Singer’s drowning child argument to propose that if one believes that he or she believes that there is a moral responsibility to save a drowning child, by that same logical thread, one should donate to charities to help with problems such as starvation; etc.
W16G05
Our project aims to visually portray Peter Singer’s drowning child argument. By creating a scenario where three friends at a picnic know that there is a drowning person right before their eyes, but simply do not reach out to help him, we liken such an absurd behaviour to people who do not donate to charities to help the starving children. This advertisement video thus makes clear of Peter Singer’s argument that if one has the moral duty to save the drowning person, one certainly has equal moral duty to donate to the starving children.
W10G02
https://youtu.be/LMDXY6uHfMA
Covering on the topic of ‘Rich and Poor’, this video aims to explain concepts against the ‘Drowning child argument’ e.g. distance factor, causal disconnection, ‘why single me out’ and marginal utility through the interactions between a volunteer with utilitarian beliefs and a regular NUS student.
W09G04
This is a retelling of Peter Singer’s argument about charity. Phillis is on a game show where she is given a series of choices which illustrate Singer’s argument from consistency. When Phillis is given a sudden windfall, she struggles in reconciling her attitudes towards saving a baby and refusing to save the poor in Timbuktu.
W07G05
Our team would like to satirize and contrast the difference between Singer and Friedman’s views on the philosophical ideas around life saving with a funny video.
W08G01