A Responsibility to Others?

I have always believed that nations and societies should be judged based on how they take care of their weakest members. Our modern consumerist corporatocracy has made a lot of people lose sight of that, but it still rings true.

A society doesn't have to be socialist for its weakest members to be cared for; there need only be a heart of good will and compassion in those who have the abundance to take action. I think that good heart is largely lacking these days due to covetousness.

Yes, I think they do. The got where they are/were only because society was there to support them, and because of that I think that they owe at least a little bit to society if they make it big.

lizzie said:

Exactly. Those who give because they have a sincere desire to help someone are being charitable. Those who give because they "should" are doing so out of societal pressure, and the meaning is lost.

Click to expand...

And what about those who do so because it gives them good PR, gets them on the front pages and is all, of course, tax deductible?

Orion said:

A society doesn't have to be socialist for its weakest members to be cared for...

Click to expand...

But Boy, does it help if they are!

Andalublue said:

But Boy, does it help if they are!

Click to expand...

It can, depending on what aspects are socialized.

repeter said:

I never said anything about having the government force you to. I'm talking about on a more personal level in general. For example, if you saw someone lying on the street bleeding, you'd probably help him/her out, right?

Well, I was wondering if that principle could be applied a bit more broadly...

Click to expand...

In other words as a moral question, should one engage in charitable giving, voluntarily, if one is able to do so?

Yes.


I know a few people who are rather wealthy, and they all engage in philanthropy to some degree. I also know plenty of people who are barely above poverty themselves, who nonetheless give of their time or their meager wages as they can, to help the less fortunate.

You know those big drug companies everyone loves to hate? They give away 100's of million$ in free drugs every year. :mrgreen:

Some people who are in need, are in need through no fault of their own. Many others, perhaps the majority, are in need due to poor choices or a screwed-up lifestyle. While the former are more worthy of help than the latter, helping either is morally worthy for the giver... none of us are without fault, and "there but for the grace of God go I".


Voluntary charity is noble and morally worthy. Now, forced charity (ie wealth redistribution) is an entirely different thing... it removes all the nobility and moral value from the equation because it removes choice.

Bassman said:

Reading Karl Marx again, Komrade Bolsheveik??
We have been taught since childhood that Marx/Engels are evil, but by who's standards??
You mean take from people who damned well earned every penny and has every right to keep the fruits of their labor!!!Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo have railed this attitude, why??

Taken completely out of context. The actual account refers to the rich young ruler who would not allow G-d into his heart. G-d certainly never condemned wealth. Joseph of Aramethea was a rich man in his time, a member of the Sanhedrin, and never partook of the crucifixion of Christ.

If it is of your own free will, not forced by big daddy gubment.

Click to expand...

I'd prefer to be influenced by the liberals and the conservatives and then draw my own conclusions.
God never did anything, condemning or condoning.
Jesus had a fair amount to say...May all of this should be taken from the Bible and installed in a separate book.

repeter said:

Do people who have greater power and wealth have a responsibility to others, in terms of a moral responsibility?

I personally believe that the strong are supposed to protect the weak. Government itself is based on that proposition, assigning power to a few to protect the interests of the many weak.

Click to expand...

I've only read the first page so sorry if I'm repeating other's thoughts.


I think it's a personal thing, Repeter. As you said in the "blue" portion ^^. You personally believe.......

I personally believe that people should just help people regardless of the weak/strong poor/rich contrast. I think a lot of people actually do practice this theory within their lives but the range is broad.

Some people put a coin in the Red Cross box at the grocery store and then we have people like Mother Teresa. I think most people fall into a range somewhere in between.

IMO, giving should hurt a little. Giving without some kind of sacrifice is the superficial "feel good"......



:twocents:

lizzie said:

They only have a moral responsibility to help others if they believe they do. In reality, no they don't have a moral responsibility to help others.

Click to expand...

If you were walking down the street and someone collapsed in front of you, would you just step over them and continue on your way?

Rusticus said:

If you were walking down the street and someone collapsed in front of you, would you just step over them and continue on your way?

Click to expand...

No, and I believe I have already answered that once (or at least a very similar question).

lizzie said:

No, and I believe I have already answered that once (or at least a very similar question).

Click to expand...

I believe that most if not all people on this thread would help someone in an emergency regardless of their politics.

I doubt anyone would turn their back and say, "I'm not responsible."

lizzie said:

They only have a moral responsibility to help others if they believe they do. In reality, no they don't have a moral responsibility to help others.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going by reality, then there's no such thing as morals, or responsibility.

In the human frame, yes, that person has a moral responsibility to give back.

Bassman said:

There is this principle that you gravely overlook called personal liberty and keeping the fruits of your own labor. In short, if I ever "make it big", it should be up to me and my family, not some damned Government shill, to decide where the hell my hard-earned should go!!

Click to expand...

That it should be up to you to decide is irrelevant. The OP shouldn't have brought up government, though, that is just going to distort perspectives.

There is a difference between moral responsibility and legal responsibility.

repeter said:

Do people who have greater power and wealth have a responsibility to others, in terms of a moral responsibility?

Click to expand...

When we are in a structured society like the U.S., and it is a legal responsibility, then it kind of becomes a moral responsibility.