In this case, the decision to save the drowning child is not as easy as it may seem. I am finding it difficult to put myself in this situation because if I don't save the child, the child could die, and if I get to swim to the lake, my expensive shoes will be ruined. However, I agree that I should save the child, and the consequential theory that fits this scenario is the utilitarian ethical theory.
By concentrating on consequences, utilitarian ethical theory decides what is right and what is wrong. According to utilitarianism, the most rational option is the one that will result in the most significant benefit for the greatest number of people. In this scenario, the only risk that I take to help the child is ruining my expensive shoes and getting myself wet. I find it within my power to prevent the child from death, and this does not require me to sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I agree that we should help those who need our help, but with the limitation of avoiding causing more harm to ourselves or the person being assisted. It's good to imagine the pain it would be if this was my blood child and an adult fails to rescue her. The pain of losing a child cannot be compared to saving one's expensive shoes. It should go without saying that anybody who sees a drowning child in a lake and can easily save the child at minimal cost to themselves then must save the child. It would be morally reprehensible if I don’t do so. It would be of general importance to jump into the lake and rescue the child; I will not only have achieved my moral obligation but would also have saved a life.
