/lit/ - Literature

>>10785818
>

>>10325086
For those interested, I have solved it. He is a deceptive man indeed, and the problem bothered me like it bothered all of you. He presents it as though the students are hypocritical, when they are in fact not because the two scenarios differ. This is obvious when you break them down.

Scenario One:

You see a child in distress and if you were to save it would cost you nothing.

Scenario Two:

You do not actually see a child in distress, and if you save it, it will cost you financially.

He conflates the two scenarios as identical and tries to pressure you by pitting your own moral code against itself. He either wins and you capitulate and hand over money, or he gains moral superiority by forcing you to admit that you don't care about the second child. But it is not the same situation, so you are not hypocritical for saying your obligation to save the first child does not extend to the second.