Are we morally obligated to help other people?

[meme duchess]

As reference, specific to the first situation:

As an example, this is the list that we use, consciously or not, to identify where we place ourselves in a hierarchy of class. If someone were to have the most "privilege", do you believe that it would be "inhumane" of us to choose not to put ourselves out there in order to help people who might have less privilege? Thinking of it in another way: climate change, and majority is caused by human activity. Majority of us are aware of it and I'm almost sure that all the people in this current world would die before they'd experience the dire consequences that would come with it. So right now, it doesn't really matter, especially in first-world countries, if we make decisions based off of whatever we think would help ourselves over others.

So that, to me, begs the question - is that okay?

 

[GIjade]

Just because we and a few more generations won't be affected by something such as climate change, doesn't mean that we should just disregard our role in keeping the environment healthy. The Earth deserves our respect. She has provided us with nourishment and a beautiful place to live. So, if not for future generations, we must always be mindful and respectful of the planet that we call home. IMO.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

Not necessarily. I think we're morally obligated to find a helpful cause that we believe in and make an effort to help said cause. I have two causes: child abuse and gender equality. Is it selfish that I chose these causes, as an NT woman who was abused as a child? I don't think so. My goal is to improve the situation of others, not just myself.

I think our individual lives determine what we'll fight for and what we'll not really care about. I'm speaking subjectively, of course, but I think the idea of white/straight/cis/able-bodied privilege in modern society is a little ridiculous, especially when there are so many forms of affirmative action. For example, as a second-wave feminist, I don't believe in "male privilege" or "rape culture." I think men are viewed as strong, rational leaders and women are viewed as social, emotional nurturers, and everyone who doesn't fit into their assigned stereotype gets screwed. That's not privilege, it's classic stereotyping.

Let's look at straight privilege. I have never had an employer ask about my sexual orientation during an interview, and public universities certainly don't discriminate against the LGBT community. Same-sex couples can get married anywhere in my country and receive the same benefits as straight couples. Where is the privilege? Is it in the fact that LGBT individuals are more likely to be bullied? I don't see the ability to not be bullied as a privilege. Of course, you could say that straight people have the privilege of talking about their significant others without surprising people, but again, that's stereotyping, not privilege.

Now, since this one is even closer to my heart, let's look at male privilege. Do men have the privilege of going out alone at night without the fear of being sexually assaulted? Not necessarily. If a male rapist is exclusively attracted to men, he will most likely assault a man. The "privilege" lies in the fact that the majority of women in the US are unable to defend themselves against attackers. However, this problem will not be solved with the "free the nipple" movement, a Lady Gaga song, or any number of laws claiming to protect women. Rape is already a major crime; expecting raised punishment for rape to deter rapists is a bit like expecting laws against carrying firearms to deter shooters. The most reasonable solution is mandatory self-defense lessons.

Now I'm just ranting, though. My point is that these "social justice" issues are very subjective, and one should not be shamed for not siding with the majority.

Back to "are we morally obligated to help people?" My opinion is that we are morally obligated to do some form of good in the world, whether it is helping to stop racism/sexism, raising money to improve the lives of homeless people, rescuing and caring for stray animals, campaigning for a law that would regulate the amount of pollution created by factories, or anything else. Hell, even writing songs/poems that get people through difficult times is a form of charity. So is giving up free-time to talk someone out of suicide, or advise a friend or family member on a personal matter. Not every act of charity results in mass change. I think we all have it in us to- and this is the most ENFP thing I've ever said -we all have it in us to put positive energy into the world.

 

[geedoenfj]

The question is do we have the right to damage the environment for the coming generations to satisfy our selfish activities?
I will not let anyone hurt my child, and the coming generations are our children am I morally obligated to protect them? I think so.. Besides, this planet have given us the resources to do these activities, we have to be grateful for the planet

 

[great_bay]

By law, you're not obligated to help people. However, society will think you're unlikable if a person doesn't help a guy in need. An example would be if somebody fainted. All they need to do to live is pop a pill in their mouth for a victim to survive. By law, you're not suppose to help them. Society will think you're stupid and unlikable if you don't help the unfortunate person.

 

[kyuuei]

Addressing the content of the OP but using the general, public proverbial "you" here instead of an actual single person...

.. I mean.. I think it's a bit childish to be all, "Well I don't need to help no one! Ain't no one arresting me for doing what I want! I do ME!". In general, humanity is a weak beginning of life.. by nature, we're obligated to be helped into adulthood and we pretty much suck as a species if we don't get that help. Your parents (usually) do literally all the providing for you and you contribute nothing in return really. If you're the child prodigy that invented the ocean-trash-collector-thing you get a pass here. Otherwise... quit being a jerk and help some people out sometimes.

 

[Betty Blue]

It's an interesting question which may come down to human natural behaviour as well as societal. You can take it right back to basics with something like rescuing a child when there is no risk of harm to yourself. E.g a pram rolling past you towards a busy road. I think most people would automatically stop the pram within a very short time span. Probably going back to some very early stages in civilisation.

I think most humans;I say most because there are certain humans who lack this natural ability to care for their fellow man, often conditions such as psychopathy disable it. But most humans do have an inherit desire to help other people albeit in varying quantities and some also for the greater good but not so much as on 1-2-1 basis. It's easier for people who live in places of abundance to consider the wider picture. If you are struggling to find your next meal it's harder to focus on anyone else except your immediate family, though of course you find that small villages do pull together like tribes would have in the earlier days.

So when I ponder the question of weather we 'should' help others it's a little bizarre. I think humans have always/near always (not sure where the line is on this) had a regard for other humans.... so it's more a case of how to quantify this moral obligation to others because it does vary wildly.

It's more a type of intelligence maybe, that could be taught to others because some have much better natural inclinations towards it and others struggle so much.

/halfpenny

 

[Luke O]

Sometimes it seems to me that the sins are now seen as virtues. At least in the Western world.

Lust: We're encouraged to cheat, lust about others and see porn as what sex should be.
Gluttony: Food challenges are becoming more popular, as is unhealthy eating in general. If you go on a diet, it's expected that you pine for a massive pizza.
Greed: Gordon Gekko. Your first million. Get rich or die trying. The Art of the Deal. Defining your worth by your wealth.
Sloth: It's still fashionable to lounge around infront of the TV for hours watching movies or playing games. Even after a workout.
Wrath: As is enacting revenge on others versus forgiveness. A victory is a victory, no matter how pyrrhic. Where war is preferable to peace.
Envy: It's such a competition these days to make sure you have the latest phone, fashions, cars, best looking houses, even the billionaires want to be the one with the biggest yacht. It doesn't stop you feeling envious though if someone else has something better than you. And you'll get it even if it means crippling debt.
Pride: It's the thing to boast and brag, and be the most self confident person in the room. And make everyone envy you.

I can see the situation worsening. Besides there's a republican candidate who espouses most of these "virtues".

 

[Mole]

We might ask does cooperation or competition lead to reproductive success?

 

[Pionart]

"Moral obligation"... is an oxymoron!

 

[prplchknz]

If it's not much of an issue i will help no questions asked, like i have a friend with ms, and she forgot one of her drugs and we went out for like 6 hours and she needed to take it so she could walk have cordination and not slur her speech, I ended up helping her upstairs because she could not walk and needed help. that was not a big deal i was going there anyways. now if someone's like go 5 blocks out of your way for something i don't really need then i'm gonna be miffed. but if they actually need something i don't mind.

so my position is helping people if you have the ability and time to, is not something to think about, just do it, because you would want the same if you were in there situation.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I was programmed with ethical subroutines.

 

[indra]

It goes beyond morality. It's logical.

Shit aint no fun if my homies can't get none. Even Snoop understood this.

 

[Poki]

I am obligated to help others who need and want it. I choose who is deserving. I am also aware I can't help others if I don't first take care of myself. Yes, I put my own well being above others by knowing when to not help and when to help.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I find it hilarious that people really identify their own selves based on such in my opinion absolutely generic, traditional, too old and absolutely non-important things... Words like gender, race or "sexual orientation" should not even exist in a human language.

 

[GIjade]

By law, you're not obligated to help people. However, society will think you're unlikable if a person doesn't help a guy in need. An example would be if somebody fainted. All they need to do to live is pop a pill in their mouth for a victim to survive. By law, you're not suppose to help them. Society will think you're stupid and unlikable if you don't help the unfortunate person.

Twice you mentioned what society will think. To me, it doesn't matter what society thinks, it's my own conscience which will prompt me to help someone in need.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

My husband got an email from his Florida Granny, who is a rich bitch, saying that he needed to buy a car for his little sister QT. The justification was that my husand's dad had bought a car for him and one for his other sister. So, he should've bought one for QT too. But, the reason that his dad bought the other siblings cars was because they were doing what they were supposed to, living in the same state as him and getting good degrees. QT moved to Florida with her mom, ASS, the crazy bitch who won't pay her taxes.

Anyways, I told my husband that he shouldn't buy QT a car, but if he had to get involved, he should solicit donations from other family and just enough for a down payment. So that's what he did.

Then ASS's bank account got frozen by the IRS for not paying her taxes. QT transferred her car money to ASS to pay her IRS fines and unfreeze her accounts. It is in the government black hole now.

ASS still won't pay her taxes. She didn't learn her lesson because we "helped." It would've been better for everyone had her house been repossessed, so that QT would have to move in with her dad, who would buy her a car, and ASS would go to a mental institution.

So, I may be obligated to help, but I should decide how, and sometimes, the best way is to let people suffer the consequences of their actions.

 

[Beargryllz]

In a word, no

 

[Santosha]

It depends on where the authority of moral is. If you allow others to be your authority, then you can get yourself into situations where you 'should' do things that you might not really want to do. There is an energy exchange between human beings (and everything, actually) that, I believe, greatly outweighs most, if not all physical actions and exchanges. It's just not easy to measure, it's not surface. I believe when we do things for other people that we do not really wish to do, we are actually creating psychic injury.

I also think that, if you accept that we are all connected and all one.. then it easily follow that in helping others are you helping the self, and visa-versa. Why would you not want to lift others up?

I think when you dig deep enough, you find that people really do want to love and help other (the self). The physical manifestation of that help can be a source of great contention though.

 

[Stephano]

It depends on the situation. If you come by a car crash you should without a doubt help.
If millions of people pour into Europe from all over the world and politicians claim we are obliged to fund them with our social transfer system, it's simply not possible. North America and Europe combined make up only a little more than 10% of the world population. Socialistic redistribution on a global scale is utopian.