I say no. Live and Let Die. While it is noble to do so, there is no responsiblity to take care of our fellow man. What say you?
By helping out the poor and less fortuanate . . . you are helping yourself out. But let's keep going with your thought . . . do we really need public school. If parents can't afford private school, oh well, live and let die. Do we really need unemployment . . . if you lose your job, oh well, live and die. Katrina victims . . . live or let die . . . wait a minute, not so fun to say anymore.
the government is there to support its citizens. on an individual basis, helping the poor is not a moral obligation in my view. I think even if you do a lot, it doesn't make that much of an impact..so why bother.
example: you're walking down the street and some homeless person keeps on bothering you for help. you are not obligated to help.
Sure. But I also think it's a logical necessity. No one makes money without a society. Select any successful businessman/woman and place him or her on a desert island and see how much money they earn. All successful people require the machinery (people being a part of that) of society to be successful. In capitalism, while there's a general upward movement for the whole society, there must always be an underclass to allow an elite class. While it's not true in every single case, a lot of who ends up where has a great deal to do with opportunity. Unless opportunity is equalized across the board, that opportunity should have a price (like anything else in capitalism, nothing is free). That, to me, is a perfectly reasonable justification for "wealth redistribution." Wealthy people are still wealthy, but the taxes they pay (some of which are infused into poorer people) are the price paid for the greater opportunity that the vast majority of them enjoyed. And I say this as someone who is fairly well-off and absolutely knows I had more opportunity than most.
Ah. You're referring to charity, not taxes and social programs? I think we have a moral obligation, which I think comes from empathy with those who are less fortunate, but that's pretty subjective. If you don't feel something for people who have lesser lives, there's probably not a lot someone could say to convince you of a "moral obligation."
Oh . . . I thought you meant if the gov't had a moral obligation. I give money here and there because I actually do think the money given has a greater impact on the people getting the money than on me (not that I give tons away because I can't afford it). Sally Struthers . . . feed that child for 1 dollar a day . . . where else can you get more impact for a buck?
Did you just read an Ayn Rand book? A lot of my taxes go to social services, so I only give to charity if I have something I don't need anymore. And of course, I never give money to bums, because most of them just use it for drugs and alcohol. If we didn't have food stamps, unemployment and all that, I'd probably give more though. Even for selfish reasons, realize that a human is not going to just go to a corner and starve to death. They will steal what they need. And you'll end up paying for that anyway. But "morally" in my view it all depends on why they are in the situation they are in. If it's just misfortune or bad luck, I'd feel really good to help them, but people that screw themselves over by doing stupid things...I have less sympathy.
Moral people don't ask questions like that, and immoral or amoral people by definition are without moral obligation. Helping people makes most people feel better, and Karma is for real in this world so factor that into your personal equation. Personally, the people I've met in my life who needed the most serious help have all been well off financially, but empty inside, mentally confused, self-absorbed, and not very well liked by others for good reason. Much easier to help someone out financially than it is to repair a damaged mind.
I gave to this one cancer charity. Then I found out it was a fake charity. Now I have a hard time giving money to charity. (Not that I will anytime in the near future because of the economic climate).
Whether to give in a given situation is a decision based on many factors (for example, be sure it's not a fake charity). But IMO hard times can happen to anyone. The poster seems to think he is somehow immune from layoff, or illness, or catastrophic accident, or natural disaster. The concept was once phrased as help your neighbor because tomorrow you may need help. Civilization by definition is communal. If a basketball player who never passes the ball is considered selfish, what of a person of means who never shares?
I understand that hard times can happen to anyone. I've gone through some of these in my life and adapted as such. This, however, is all independant from having a moral obligation to help the poor. our society is one of the haves and the have-nots, and its just the way it is. There is no moral obligation to help those less fortunate, although it is not prohibited to do so.
I think you mean there is no legal obligation to help those less fortunate. Whether there is a moral obliagation depends on the morals of the individual.
Incorrect. A moral obligation is independent on the morals of an individual. By the use of the word "obligation", it implies that something is required and is universally applied to all within a population. Some say that when you help the poor, you are improving society and helping yourself, as to which I feel that is just an oversimplification of the expected results. I think a lot of people would say "sure, we have an obligation to help the poor" but then when you ask them what they do specifically, the silence would be quite surprising.
I believe there is an obligation, in at least a very minimal sense (how far you go with it depends on your political perspective, I suppose). Maybe the first members of civilized society had an equal and clean slate and earned as much as they deserved, but its never been the case since then. Inequality is institutionalized in societies and I think its very important for us to recognize that people don't all start off on an equal footing; that individual success is not earned solely by one's talent/hard work. They are always extenuating societal forces which push us in the direction of prosperity, as well as poverty. Society should make some attempt to fix that disparity in opportunity. It'll never be perfectly equal, but that doesn't mean its morally acceptable to pretend as if institutionalized inequality doesn't exist.
It is up to each individual on what they do or do not do. No big deal, everybody is different. But I would remind folks, you don't always have to donate money to help out. Volunteers can do a lot. For instance, I have helped habitat for humanity once or twice over the years. I don't have a lot of money, so I donate some elbow grease. Also a few years back when the floods happened, I wasn't effected, but I went up to Washington and helped flood victims clean up their property and recover belongings. All it took was a little gas to drive around and help out.
What if you recognize the injustices but choose not to correct it? Why must everyone be at an equal level, there is a social hierarchy and economic hierarchy, always has been.
