Well, my answer is: not necessarily. I'm not sure that what a person ought to do is the only thing that does, or should, have moral standing in the matter. It seems to me that the reason societies exist in the first place is to ensure a certain basic living standard for all participants (the exceptions being spelled out in a society's criminal code). But the rules governing wealth distribution in a society are essentially arbitrary. When one part of a society has to start adapting certain aspects of their living standards, it strikes me as manifestly unfair. For example, the answer to the poor having a difficult time getting out of poverty is to "work harder." Well, how hard should
someone have to work? If society owes a person literally nothing
, then why in the world should the person owe anything back? It would be easier for the person to steal, murder, and pillage their way out of poverty, and, again, if no one owes the person anything at all
, then why wouldn't this be fair? Why do the poor owe anything to those who owe them nothing in return? The exceptions in criminal code are for those who enjoy the fruits of living in society with others. When there are no such fruits, no consideration has passed from society to the individual, and hence there can be no binding agreement.