• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Responsibility to Others?

See OP for Question

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 64.5%
  • No

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • I Don't Know

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • Total voters
    31

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've been thinking lately about the thoughts of several ultra-rich men. Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, John Rockefeller to a certain extent; they all did things to better the poor. I know there is a lot more to their stories, and how they accumulated such wealth, but the principle is still there.

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.

On a more personal level, I am one of the smarter students in my school. As such, I always help my peers when they have questions. very recently, a good friend got rejected from a college he wanted to go to, and I spent sometime trying to help him get over it, and figure out what to do.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I've been thinking lately about the thoughts of several ultra-rich men. Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, John Rockefeller to a certain extent; they all did things to better the poor. I know there is a lot more to their stories, and how they accumulated such wealth, but the principle is still there.

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.

On a more personal level, I am one of the smarter students in my school. As such, I always help my peers when they have questions. very recently, a good friend got rejected from a college he wanted to go to, and I spent sometime trying to help him get over it, and figure out what to do.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?
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!!
 
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!!

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...
 
Absolutey. Rich/Poor whatever. We as a "higher" society have a responsibility to our fellow mankind. To each according to their needs....from each according to their abilities. We all have a duty to pay back to our communities, either by service or by monetary means.

There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.

Which is why the bible says "It is easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God."

If you have the means or the ability and do nothing to help others than the content of your character shines brightly.
 
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?
You refer to the parable of the good Samaritan. Indeed I would help.

Well, I was wondering if that principle could be applied a bit more broadly...
Not really.
 
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.

So moral responsibility is a figment of your imagination?
 
You refer to the parable of the good Samaritan. Indeed I would help.

Not really.

Okay, you just conceeded the idea of a good samaritan, and that one should at the very least attempt to be one. But why can this not be more broadly applied? I've always been taught that if you can help someone, you should help that person. Given certain chances where you really cannot help someone, shouldn't people do more to help?
 
Absolutey. Rich/Poor whatever. We as a "higher" society have a responsibility to our fellow mankind. To each according to their needs....from each according to their abilities. We all have a duty to pay back to our communities, either by service or by monetary means.
Reading Karl marx again, Komrade Bolsheveik??

There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.
You mean take from people who damned well earned every penny and has every right to keep the fruits of their labor!!!

Which is why the bible says "It is easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God."
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 you have the means or the ability and do nothing to help others than the content of your character shines brightly.
If it is of your own free will, not forced by big daddy gubment.
 
No, it's a figment of your individual belief system.

If someone was bleeding on a street, would you just pass by without a word to him/her?

As I'm sure your answer to the previous question is a no, you would help the person, maybe you are arguing that the context for being a good person cannot be overbroad.
 
Okay, you just conceeded the idea of a good samaritan, and that one should at the very least attempt to be one. But why can this not be more broadly applied? I've always been taught that if you can help someone, you should help that person. Given certain chances where you really cannot help someone, shouldn't people do more to help?
Because your formula means government forces charity and never encourages people to be resourceful and take responsibility for their own lives.
 
If someone was bleeding on a street, would you just pass by without a word to him/her?

I wouldn't just pass by, but it's my responsibility because I take it on as my responsibility, not because I "should" as judged in the eyes of others.
 
So in your mind, moral responsibility is a myth. Wow...that is a really sad state.

Maybe sad to you, but pretty obvious to me.

Morals are based on personal beliefs and extended by way of social acceptance. Their validity is based in nothing other than belief. In reality, morality is a human concept and cannot be proven to be right or wrong. We believe things are right and wrong, but it's still just belief.
 
Maybe sad to you, but pretty obvious to me.

Morals are based on personal beliefs and extended by way of social acceptance. Their validity is based in nothing other than belief. In reality, morality is a human concept and cannot be proven to be right or wrong. We believe things are right and wrong, but it's still just belief.


It is sad. If something is only right or wrong because of a value system that we place on it than there is no true societal value system and everyone is at his/her whim to do their own thing.
Sorry..but there are some things that are inherently right or wrong. True...there are others that are based on individual values, but its not as simplistic as you want to believe that it is.
 
Because your formula means government forces charity and never encourages people to be resourceful and take responsibility for their own lives.

You're just putting words in my mouth now, I never said anything about a government forcing someone to do anything. I'm talking about strictly in the private sector.
 
You're just putting words in my mouth now, I never said anything about a government forcing someone to do anything. I'm talking about strictly in the private sector.

Bassman does that with everyone......
 
I wouldn't just pass by, but it's my responsibility because I take it on as my responsibility, not because I "should" as judged in the eyes of others.

But the "should" exists, does it not? And if someone walked by the same bleeding person without helping, wouldn't you hold that person accountable if the person who was bleeding died?
 
This is an interesting question. I know for me personally I give money to the homeless all the time. Granted it tends to be at most a dollar or two since I am in college and I don't really have a lot of money. But I do find myself giving more when it is colder in a hope they can get out of the weather for a while. Hell, I remember during this one pretty bad snowstorm I gave a homeless man a 20 so he could just go somewhere and warm up for a while.
 
You're just putting words in my mouth now, I never said anything about a government forcing someone to do anything. I'm talking about strictly in the private sector.
BS, this is what all Democrat welfare, including this healthcare farce, is all about. Forcing Charity!!
 
Yeah, the American thing to do is help only yourself, no help for anyone else!

That's the real America, don't look out for your fellow man!


:roll:
 
So in your mind, moral responsibility is a myth. Wow...that is a really sad state.

I don't think that's what she meant. I think she mean that moral responsibility it relative to the individual... which I agree with.
 
The only responsibility I have to others is the one I choose for myself. I have no inherent "moral" responsibility, since there are no inherent "morals".
 
The only responsibility I have to others is the one I choose for myself. I have no inherent "moral" responsibility, since there are no inherent "morals".

It's weird how, sometimes you and I are about as opposite as opposite can be, and other times, we agree 100%.
 
Back
Top Bottom