Turn the robber in to the authorities. Right is right.

Each decision has an impact…

Robber. If the man who robbed the bank will be turned in, the robber will not be able to donate
and help the poor children in the orphanage and at the same time be charged for prison from
doing a crime.

Orphanage. If the man who robbed the bank will be turned in to the authorities, the opportunity
for these orphans to be fed, clothed, and cared will go down the drain.

Bank Account Holders. If the money stolen will be returned, bank account holders will benefit
from it, their hard-earned money will be given back.

Say nothing. The money went to a good cause.

Each decision has an impact…

Robber. If the robber will be free to disseminate the money he got, he will be able to donate it to
the orphanage and help bigger amount of people. In addition, the robber will not be sentenced to
prison.

Orphanage. If the robber is not turned in alongside with the money not given back, the poor
children in the orphanage will benefit from it, the food, clothes, and care that they are deprived
of will be given to them.

Bank Account Holders. If the money stolen will not be retuned, the bank account holders
whose accounts are involved will not be able to retrieve their money back and their hard-earned
money goes down the drain.

If I were to be given a chance to choose on which alternative I will choose, I will choose not to
say anything. Following the utilitarianism, the act of the robber is for the greater common good.
Number of poor children form the orphanage will be benefiting the money, these children are
deprived in so many ways at such a young age. If the money will be able to help them feel loved,
then for me it is enough reasoning to stay quiet and not turn in the robber.
1. Is there a difference between a child drowning in front of you and one dying in a
far-off land?
Yes. From my perspective, there is a difference between a child drowning in front of me
and one dying on a far-off land. First, the immediateness of the action. When it comes to
the child drowning in front of me, I can offer help immediately than the one dying in a
far-off land. Yes, I can offer them help, however, since of the geographical distance it
will take some time for the help to reach them. Second, the directness of the help I will
give. Helping a child from drowning is directly benefiting the welfare of the child while
giving help to those from far-off land is somewhat indirect for, I cannot see the outcome
of the help I will give; on whether it benefited them or not. Lastly, the urge and anxiety
to help. The urge & anxiety I can feel in help a child drowning in front of me is different
from the urge & anxiety I feel from those far away.
2. Is it equally important to save a child dying in a far-off land?
Yes. Saving a child in a far-off land is as equally important to saving a child in front of
me. Every child’s life is precious and important, no child deserves to experience the harsh
truth of life, poverty, starvation, abuse, and forced labor. There are different hardships
one child may face that may require different means of help. No matter how big the
distance is no child must be neglected.