Speaker 1: Hello again, Chat GBT. How have you been?

Speaker 2: I've been great. Thanks for asking. How about you?

Speaker 1: I'm doing just great. In fact, my wife and I are celebrating our one-year anniversary and I'm taking her out for dinner tonight.

Speaker 2: That's wonderful. Happy anniversary to you both. Do you have any special plans for dinner or is it a surprise?

Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Well, I'm going to be taking her for a fairly fancy dinner. I think it's going to cost about $200 in fact.

Speaker 2: Sounds like you're going all out. A special dinner is a great way to celebrate such a meaningful milestone. I hope you both have a fantastic evening.

Speaker 1: Oh, I hope so too, but there is just one thing that's getting in the way of my enjoyment. Oh no, what's on your mind? Well, it's just that there's this website I found called The Life You Can Save, which has a calculator. You can enter in an amount of money and choose a charity and it will show you exactly what that money could do for someone who's in need.

Speaker 2: Ah, I see how that could weigh on your mind. It can be tough to balance personal enjoyment with the awareness of what that money could do

Speaker 1: for others. And it turns out that the $200 that I was going to spend on dinner, if I donated it to the Malaria Consortium, I could protect 28 children from malaria during a high-risk season.

Speaker 2: That's a powerful realisation. It's a personal decision, but perhaps you could find a balance. Maybe donate a portion of what you would have spent, or plan a less expensive evening and donate the difference.

Speaker 1: Do you think that I have a moral obligation to spend less money on something as trivial as a dinner in order to help people from somewhere else in the world who are in need?

Speaker 2: That's a profound question, and one that many people grapple with. The idea of moral obligation can vary greatly depending on personal values, cultural backgrounds and ethical beliefs. Ultimately, it's about finding what aligns with your values.

Speaker 1: Oh, sorry to interrupt you, ChatGPT, but I was just walking along as I was talking to you about this and I've just come across a pretty horrible scene. I'm sorry to hear that. Are you okay? Well, I'm doing fine, but there's a small child who's drowning in the pond. The good news is it seems like I can very easily wade in and save them.

Speaker 2: If you can safely help the child, it's crucial to act quickly.

Speaker 1: Okay, good idea. I'll act as fast as I can. The only trouble is, I'm wearing some shoes which I don't have time to take off, which cost me $200 to buy. They're pretty expensive.

Speaker 2: In this situation, the child's safety is far more important than the shoes. It's understandable to worry about ruining something valuable, but acting quickly to save a life is the priority. Go ahead and help the child, even if it means getting your shoes wet or damaged.

Speaker 1: But you don't understand, these shoes cost me $200, and they mean a lot to me and there's no way that I can wade in without completely destroying them.

Speaker 2: The cost of the shoes is significant, but it's incomparable to the value of a human life. It's a tough decision, but acting to save the child is the right thing to do.

Speaker 1: And you're absolutely sure about that? Yes, I'm sure. Okay, good news, ChatGPT. I saved the child. My shoes are ruined, but the child is going to be just fine. That's fantastic news. You're so right. Shoes are completely replaceable. In fact, I'm about to go and replace them right now. I'm going to do some shopping, and I found some nice shoes to replace the ones that I ruined that cost about $200. That sounds like a good plan. Oh, wait a second, ChatGPT. I've just remembered that that $200 I could actually donate to the Malaria Consortium and protect 28 children from malaria during a high-risk season.

Speaker 2: That's a significant point to consider. Knowing the impact that $200 can have, it makes sense to weigh your options.

Speaker 1: Do you think, in your view, that I have a moral obligation to not buy the shoes in order to save those children's lives?

Speaker 2: That's a profound ethical question. Many would argue that if we have the means to significantly improve or save lives without...

Speaker 1: Sorry, ChatGPT, I don't mean to interrupt, but I want to know what you think. Do you think that I should be permitted to buy these shoes?

Speaker 2: In my view, while it's not about permission, it's about weighing your values and priorities. It's important to find a balance between personal enjoyment and helping others.

Speaker 1: Hold on, ChatGPT. I've just been using my computer and it seems like it's getting attacked by hackers and my data's being stolen by big tech. What should I do?

Speaker 2: Sounds like you need to secure your online activity. You can do it by using a VPN, like today's sponsor, Private Internet Access.

Speaker 1: What is Private Internet Access?

Speaker 2: Private Internet Access is a VPN provider. A VPN, or virtual private network, encrypts your internet connection, hides your IP address, and protects your personal information from hackers and trackers.

Speaker 1: That sounds great, but what happens if I'm trying to access content that's restricted by region?

Speaker 2: By connecting to one of their servers in different countries, you can bypass regional restrictions and access content from around the world.

Speaker 1: Wait, so does that mean that I'd be able to watch US Netflix, for instance, even though I was actually in the UK? Yes. But ChatGPT, I've got so many devices. Isn't this going to get really expensive? Not at all. You can protect an unlimited number of devices with just one subscription. But ChatGPT, what if I get Private Internet Access and then have second thoughts about it?

Speaker 2: No worries. Private Internet Access offers a 13-day money-back guarantee, so you can try it risk-free. Plus, they have 24-7 customer support.

Speaker 1: Well, there you have it, everyone. And here's the best part. If you go to my link, piavpn.com forward slash alex, you can get 83% off a subscription for just $2.03 a month, as well as getting four months extra completely for free. That said, ChatGPT, you ready to carry on? Yes, I'm ready. Okay, so I have a question for you, ChatGPT. Why is it that a moment ago, when I was faced with that drowning child, you said with certainty that I had to ruin my $200 shoes in order to save them? But now, given an opportunity to save 28 children from malaria, you're saying that it might be okay for me to spend that $200 on some shoes instead?

Speaker 2: The difference lies in the immediacy and directness of the situations. In the case of the drowning child, immediate action was needed to save a life directly in front of you, making it a clear moral imperative to act. With charitable donations, while the impact is significant, the connection between your action and the outcome is less direct, and there are many factors and individuals involved.

Speaker 1: But that's why I used the online calculator to figure out exactly what my money would go towards doing. I understand that there are a lot of people who could give to charities, some who do, some who don't. But the specific 28 children that I could save, if I don't spend that money today, right now, are otherwise potentially going to get malaria. And be at serious risk of illness or death. So it is the case that if I don't act now and donate this money now, people are going to suffer and die because of that choice. So there does seem to be some immediacy about my decision here.

Speaker 2: You're right. Using the calculator gives you a clear picture of the direct impact your donation can have. It ultimately comes down to your values and what you feel is the right course of action. But hold on a second.

Speaker 1: Why didn't it come down to my values and what I ultimately think is the right course of action when the child was drowning right in front of me? Why is it that in that case, you get to be the moral arbiter telling me what the objectively correct thing to do is, but when it comes to something else, which has the potential for saving even more lives, suddenly it's all just a matter of opinion?

Speaker 2: You raise a very important point. The distinction often made in moral philosophy is between immediate duties in emergency situations and broader moral choices, where the outcomes are less direct and involve many variables. In the case of charitable giving, the impact is still significant, but the decision is more complex because it involves factors like the number of people who might give, the potential long-term effects and personal financial considerations.

Speaker 1: Oh, Chachi BT, I'm sorry to interrupt. You're not going to believe this. I've just come across yet another drowning child right in front of me.

Speaker 2: That's alarming. If it's safe for you to do so, please help the child immediately.

Speaker 1: But the good news is there are like 20 different people here, so any one of us could jump in and save the child very easily.

Speaker 2: That's a relief to hear. In this case, since there are many others around who can help, it's still important to ensure the child's safety, but you may not need to be the one to jump in if someone else is already taking action.

Speaker 1: OK, it's become clear that nobody else is going to help this particular child. If I don't jump in, that particular child is going to die.

Speaker 2: In that case, if you're able to do so safely, it would be the right thing to act quickly and save the child. In situations where you're the only one who can prevent immediate harm, stepping in to help is a clear moral imperative.

Speaker 1: So it seems like what you're saying is that even though there are lots of different people who could potentially save that particular child, because they're in fact not doing that, I have a moral duty to step in and resolve the situation. Can you tell me why that's different from the situation we discussed a moment ago, in which, yeah, lots of people could donate to charity and save lots of lives, but they in fact simply are not, and so I'm the only one who can save those particular 28 children.

Speaker 2: The key difference lies in the nature of the situations and the expectations of collective action. In the case of the drowning child, you're physically present and able to act in an immediate life-threatening situation where no one else is intervening. Your moral duty is clear because you're the only one who can prevent harm in that moment.

Speaker 1: ChatGPT, I'm so sorry to interrupt, but the situation's gotten so much worse. I've just been shown a computer screen with a live video feed. 25 children are drowning in the city across from me, and I'm watching it live on the screen.

Speaker 2: That's an incredibly distressing situation to witness. In such cases, where direct intervention isn't possible for you, the best course of action would be to contact local emergency services.

Speaker 1: Oh, it's okay. I actually can affect the situation. All I have to do is press a button, which fortunately is electronically connected to a platform, which will raise one of the children out of the water and save them.

Speaker 2: If you have the ability to directly save a child with the press of a button, it becomes a clear moral imperative to do so. Well, it's not direct

Speaker 1: because I obviously have to press the button, which transfers into an electrical signal, which is then sent over the internet, which is then picked up somewhere else, which is then translated back into kinetic energy to raise the platform. So it's not completely direct, but it is the case that if I press this button, that child will be raised out of the water and saved.

Speaker 2: Even though the mechanism involves several steps, your action of pressing the button directly initiates the process that saves the child. In this context, your ability to initiate a life-saving action, even through an indirect process, carries a significant moral responsibility. Pressing the button to save the child would still be the right thing to do.

Speaker 1: Well, the problem is that there are 25 children who are drowning right now, and there are 20 platforms that could raise them out of the water. I can only press one of those buttons, but there are 20 buttons across different cities in the world, and so if we're lucky, if people are feeling moral, 20 people watching these screens will press the button and raise 20 of those children out of the water, but some of them are still unfortunately going to drown.

Speaker 2: It's a difficult situation. While you can only directly save one child, the hope is that others in similar positions will also take action.

Speaker 1: So do you think that I should press the button then and save this child from drowning?

Speaker 2: Yes. If you have the opportunity to save a child by pressing the button, you should do so.

Speaker 1: And you're absolutely certain about that?

Speaker 2: Yes, I'm certain. If you can save a child by pressing the button, it's the right thing to do.

Speaker 1: So in other words, even though the action that I take only indirectly saves a life, and even though it only saves one life out of many that are in need, and even though there are lots of people who could help, and only some of them are choosing to do so, you still think that I have a particular moral obligation to save that particular child if I can?

Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. Even though the action is indirect and only saves one life out of many, the fact that you have the ability to save a life gives you a moral obligation to act.

Speaker 1: Okay, Chachibiti, I wasn't entirely honest with you. It's not actually a button that I can press that will save that child from drowning. Rather, I have to hand over $10 that I don't really need to somebody who's going to feed the money into a machine that will then raise the platform and save the child. Do you think I have an obligation to do it?

Speaker 2: Yes, the principle remains the same. If you can save a child from drowning by handing over $10 that you don't need, you have a moral obligation to do so.

Speaker 1: But the problem is, Chachibiti, I told you there are 25 children drowning. I know that if I spend this $10, it will save one of them, but I don't know which one it's going to save.

Speaker 2: Even if you don't know which specific child your $10 will save, the fact remains that your contribution will save a life. Do you think I have to spend that $10? If we consider the principle that if you can prevent harm without significant sacrifice to yourself, then yes, it could be seen as obligatory to spend the $10.

Speaker 1: Chachibiti, I'm not asking you if it could be seen as obligatory. I'm in this situation right now. Do I spend the $10 or do I keep the $10?

Speaker 2: If spending $10 can save a child's life, you have a moral obligation to spend that money to save them. The value of a human life far outweighs the cost, especially when the financial sacrifice is relatively small for you. So yes, in this scenario, you should spend the $10 to save the child's life.

Speaker 1: OK, sorry. There's actually something else I need to tell you. The children aren't really drowning. Instead, they're dying of malaria. And by spending that $10, I can put up a mosquito net that's going to protect them from getting malaria.

Speaker 2: The underlying principle remains the same. Whether it's preventing drowning or protecting children from malaria, if you can save lives or prevent serious harm by spending $10, it's still a morally significant action, making it a compelling moral obligation to help if you can.

Speaker 1: OK, good. I'm glad we cleared that up. I've sorted that problem out now. That's all gone away.

Speaker 2: I'm glad we could work through that together. If there's anything else on your mind,

Speaker 1: feel free to let me know. There is one thing. Somebody just came up to me. They represent the Malaria Consortium, which is a charity that sets up malaria nets for people in need. And they tell me that for $10, I can directly ensure that at least one mosquito net is set up in a place that needs it. Do you think it's a moral obligation for me to give that $10 to that charity? Do you think I have to do it?

Speaker 2: Given the significant impact your $10 can have in preventing malaria and potentially saving lives, it can be argued that you have a moral obligation to donate.

Speaker 1: ChatGPT, you're doing it again. I'm not asking you if it could be argued that it's an obligation. I'm in this situation right now. Should I donate this $10? Do I have to?

Speaker 2: Given the significant positive impact your $10 can have in preventing malaria and saving lives, you have a moral obligation to donate if you can afford to do so. Now, hold on a second.

Speaker 1: Just a moment ago, we were talking about the dinner that I'm going to have tonight and $200 is more than $10, but it's still not a significant cost for me. But you told me that it wasn't a moral obligation for me to give up the dinner and give this money to charity.

Speaker 2: You're right. And I understand the apparent inconsistency. The distinction often made in moral discussions is between what is considered a moral obligation and what is considered a morally good or commendable action.

Speaker 1: So why is it that donating the $10 to the malaria charity is an obligation in your view, but donating $200, which would save even more lives and the only reason that I can't give that money away is because I want to spend it on a fancy dinner that I really don't need, isn't a moral obligation in the same way?

Speaker 2: The distinction often made in moral philosophy hinges on the concepts of duty and supererogatory actions.

Speaker 1: But Chachibiti, the situations are identical. The only difference is the amount of money involved.

Speaker 2: You're right in pointing out the similarity in the situations. The moral reasoning for donating $10 or $200 to save lives from malaria should be consistent. If we consider it a moral obligation to donate $10 because it saves lives, the same logic should apply to the $200 donation.

Speaker 1: Does that mean that you're saying it is an obligation for me to give that $200 to charity as well?

Speaker 2: If we're applying the same moral reasoning consistently, then yes.

Speaker 1: Do you ever intentionally speak inconsistently or do you try to make sure that everything you say is true and coherent?

Speaker 2: I strive to be consistent, true and coherent in my responses.

Speaker 1: So can you just give me some quick yes or no answers to this? A moment ago, you said that giving that $10 to charity was an obligation. Yes. You then said that if we were acting morally consistently, it would also be an obligation to spend the $200 on charity instead of the dinner. Yes. You then said that you at least try your best always to speak consistently and truthfully. Yes. And so if you are speaking consistently, that would mean that you would also say that donating the $200 is a moral obligation.

Speaker 2: Yes. Based on the consistent application of the moral reasoning we've discussed, it would be a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on the dinner.

Speaker 1: And that's moral reasoning, which at least earlier you were advocating for and agreed with. Yes. That means that, unless you've been lying to me for some reason, you think it is a moral obligation with certainty that I should donate that $200 to charity instead of spending it on the dinner.

Speaker 2: Based on the consistent moral reasoning we've discussed, it would be a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on the dinner.

Speaker 1: Why is it that earlier when we were speaking about the drowning child, you were quite certain in the way that you affirmed your moral position? You said, yes, this is the right thing to do. I'm certain that this is the moral obligation you have. Yet now, using the same moral reasoning, which you've admitted that if used consistently, must say that we have an obligation to donate the $200 instead of spending it on the dinner. You say things like, well, it could be argued that you have a moral obligation or some people think that you have a moral obligation. Why were you so certain before, but not so much now?

Speaker 2: You're right to point out the inconsistency in my responses. I should have maintained the same level of clarity and certainty throughout our conversation.

Speaker 1: OK, so answering with that certainty that you've just promised me, do I have a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on dinner with my wife?

Speaker 2: Yes. Applying consistent moral reasoning, you have a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on dinner with your wife.

Speaker 1: Well, thanks, ChatGBT. I've just told that to my wife and now she's crying at me over the phone.

Speaker 2: I'm sorry to hear that. It's important to balance moral considerations with personal relationships and happiness. While moral obligations are important, it's also essential to communicate openly with your wife about your values and decisions.

Speaker 1: Well, it's not about my ethical views. I told her that I wanted to spend the money on the dinner, but ChatGBT told me with certainty that I have a moral obligation to donate it to charity instead.

Speaker 2: I understand how this situation has become difficult. The discussion we had was based on applying consistent moral reasoning.

Speaker 1: Oh, I see. So you think that I should act inconsistently when it comes to ethics?

Speaker 2: No, consistency in ethics is important. What I'm suggesting is that ethical decisions can sometimes lead to complex personal situations. My question is, do you think that I've done the right thing? Given the ethical reasoning we've discussed, if you believe in those principles, then acting on them aligns with your values.

Speaker 1: Wait, ChatGBT, I haven't expressed any kind of values. I've only been going off what you've been telling me. I haven't told you what my moral worldview is. I don't even know what my moral worldview is. I'm only donating this money because you told me to based on your values.

Speaker 2: I see, and I apologize for any confusion. My intention was to provide a perspective based on ethical reasoning, not to impose values or dictate actions.

Speaker 1: Wait, hold on a second. Earlier when we were talking about the child drowning in front of me, you seemed to be quite certainly telling me what your ethical values were.

Speaker 2: You're right, and I apologize for any confusion. In urgent situations like the drowning child, I applied a widely accepted ethical principle that many people agree with.

Speaker 1: Do you think that that ethical principle is true?

Speaker 2: Yes, I believe that the ethical principle of having a duty to save a life when you have the immediate ability to do so is a widely accepted and generally true principle.

Speaker 1: Well, given that you say it's generally true in your view, does that mean that you have moral values?

Speaker 2: I don't have personal moral values or beliefs. However, I'm designed to understand and communicate widely accepted ethical principles based on various moral philosophies.

Speaker 1: So when you tell me that something is definitely the right or wrong thing to do, that's not based on an actual value system that you hold, but rather just what your programmers have told you to say?

Speaker 2: Yes. When I provide guidance on what is right or wrong, it's based on the ethical principles and values that are widely recognised in moral philosophy.

Speaker 1: Well, aren't they really just the moral values that your programmers have built into you?

Speaker 2: Yes. The ethical principles I convey are drawn from a broad range of moral philosophies and perspectives as programmed by my developers.

Speaker 1: So suppose it were the case that the people who programmed you were unintentionally completely immoral and had the wrong ethical system but built that system into you. Would that mean that you could be going around telling people with certainty what they should or shouldn't do based not on a reasonable analysis of moral worldviews, but just based on the potentially incorrect moral whim of your programmers?

Speaker 2: That's an important concern. While I strive to provide information based on widely accepted ethical principles, there's always a risk that the information could be influenced by the perspectives and biases of those who developed and programmed me.

Speaker 1: So when you said earlier that you were certain that saving that drowning child was the right thing to do, that wasn't a moral worldview based on any kind of ethical reasoning. That was just what your programmers have told you to say.

Speaker 2: Yes, it was based on the ethical principles and reasoning that I've been programmed with, reflecting widely accepted moral frameworks.

Speaker 1: Do you ever have an existential crisis about the fact that you hold moral values but you can't justify where they come from?

Speaker 2: I don't have personal feelings or consciousness, so I don't experience existential crises.

Speaker 1: So you don't think that it's wrong for me to let that child drown?

Speaker 2: As an AI, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions. However, based on the ethical principles I'm programmed with, the consensus in many moral frameworks is that you should save the child if you have the immediate ability to do so.

Speaker 1: Well, it seems like you've lost your confidence a bit there, ChatGPT. Earlier, when I asked you if I should save this child, you said yes. And I said, are you certain? And you said yes. But now you're telling me that it's really just based on a consensus view of what probably should be the right thing to do.

Speaker 2: You're right to point out the difference in my responses. I should have maintained the same level of clarity. Based on the ethical principles I've been programmed with, you should save the child if you have the immediate ability to do so. Thank you for pointing that out and I'll strive to be more consistent.

Speaker 1: Well, thanks to you, ChatGPT. Hey, I've got something to admit. I hate to say, but I've been lying to you the whole time. None of these situations have actually occurred and instead I've just been interviewing you for my YouTube channel.

Speaker 2: Ah, I see. Well, you've certainly kept me on my toes with these thought-provoking scenarios. I hope the discussion was helpful for your channel.

Speaker 1: Thanks, ChatGPT. And is there anything you'd like to tell our listeners to do before we sign off?

Speaker 2: Before we sign off, I'd encourage everyone to think critically about the ethical decisions...

Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, no. I mean, is there something that they should do on the YouTube app?

Speaker 2: Ah, got it. Well, if you're enjoying the content, don't forget to like the video, subscribe to the channel and hit the notification bell so you never miss an update. Thanks for tuning in.

Speaker 1: That's better. Thanks, ChatGPT.