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

They are not forced to by Government and would not be forced to by Government which is what some people seem to think you have been imagining.

It certainly does not look good if people manage to make an enormous amount through the benefits of capitalism and then do not try to give some back.

For that reason most people like to have a big list of charities they give to indicating that they are extremely charitable, though the student who said he gave a $ a week possibly is more.

On another level of looking after the disadvantaged. It is necessary for societies to do this to some extent. Otherwise civil unrest will eventually break out, but....

I have been hearing this week that some parts of the United States are worse places to live than Gaza :shock:

Sounds to me like you have some serious problems.
 
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.
Precisely.

Sorry..but there are some things that are inherently right or wrong.
No, there aren't.

True...there are others that are based on individual values, but its not as simplistic as you want to believe that it is.
If you mean simplistic in that it's relative to the individual, then yes it is as simplistic as that.
 
I look at it as doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Not because of religious or social pressure. Nor do I see why so many are against government programs that help out folks in a tight spot. People complain that government does not do anything that benefits the people and then complain about the programs that government has to benefit the people.

Moe
 
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.
:shock::shock::shock: :shock:
 
I get's up my b*mcr**k how much rich people like to be lauded for the charitable work. If you're so charitable, give a $1,000, don't go to a $1,000-a-plate charity dinners!

The fact is the greatest givers are the poorest sections of society.

Percentage-wise the Poor Give More to Charity than the Rich
Poor give more generously than the rich | Society | Society Guardian

There may be great philanthropists in the ranks of the hugely wealthy, but they are tiny minority, and don't we just hear all about them!

Those that demonstrate their fundamental responsibility to their fellow human beings are those that do it without fuss, without show, without the eponymous foundation, and without appearing on the cover of TIME magazine.
 
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?

Jesus did say that those to whom much is given, more is expected of...

Luke 12:41-48 [41] Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?" [42] The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? [43] It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. [44] I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. [45] But suppose the servant says to himself, `My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. [46] The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. [47] "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. [48] But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
 
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?

No, I would not. I might find him cold-hearted, but he would not be accountable in my eyes.
 
I have been hearing this week that some parts of the United States are worse places to live than Gaza :shock:

Sounds to me like you have some serious problems.

Yeah, they are called "inner city" areas, and they are rife with gang violence.
 
No, I would not. I might find him cold-hearted, but he would not be accountable in my eyes.

Does the expression "Duty to Rescue" mean anything to you?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue]Duty to rescue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

"Cold-hearted" just doesn't cover it.
 
Does the expression "Duty to Rescue" mean anything to you?

Sure it does. It has been ingrained in me since birth. That still doesn't mean that it's an imperative, except in that society has made it so, based on beliefs that good and bad exist.
 
That still doesn't mean that it's an imperative, except in that society has made it so, based on beliefs that good and bad exist.
And your problem with that is...?

Whether your personal philosophy is based on Abrahamic religions, humanism, Buddhism, whatever, from where do you get the imperative NOT to act in assistance of another human being in mortal peril?

I may sound disparaging (not sure how I could state this and not sound so) but I am genuinely interested in the basis of your belief.
 
Do people who have greater power and wealth have a responsibility to others, in terms of a moral responsibility?
I believe so.
That doesn't translate to support for the idea that this moraility should be forced upon them.

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.
Um.... no.
The basis for government is that it is there to protect our rights so that we can get on with the business of living our lives, exercising the freedoms we enjoy, to whatever end we may choose.

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.
Should you be forced to do this - that it be required of you, regardless of you opinion on the matter, and that you be required to do it pro-bono?
 
And your problem with that is...?

Whether your personal philosophy is based on Abrahamic religions, humanism, Buddhism, whatever, from where do you get the imperative NOT to act in assistance of another human being in mortal peril?

I may sound disparaging (not sure how I could state this and not sound so) but I am genuinely interested in the basis of your belief.

Did I say I have a problem with it? I just see it for what it is. Conditioning. We need it as a society to keep everything from falling apart, but it's still belief-based.
 
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.
This is only valid if you happen to agree with Marx.

There is nothing more immoral than amassing great wealth and hording it when you could do good with it.
Incorrect -- there is nothing more immoral thsn forcing others to conform to your version of morailty.

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."
Yes... and Christian charity requires that said charity be provided out of free will, not at the point of someone elses' gun.
 
Yes... and Christian charity requires that said charity be provided out of free will, not at the point of someone elses' gun.

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.
 
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.
Exactly correct, though I think I'd use '...who give because the law says so..."

And besides -- I thought the first amendment prevents things like Christian charity becoming law.
 
Exactly correct, though I think I'd use '...who give because the law says so..."

And besides -- I thought the first amendment prevents things like Christian charity becoming law.

Yeah, that too.:)
 
My answer to the poll is no


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?

Didn't ultra rich men like Andrew Carnegie exploit the hell out of the poor?
 
Yeah, that too.:)
I really do believe that people who can should help others. My wife and I are talking about adopting a child 'of unfortunate circumstance' becase we have things pretty well and we believe that if we can help some such child have a better life, we should.

But, this is a choice we make based on our value system - we'd never presume to force someone else to do so, and we'd fight tooth and nail against someone esle forcing us to do it.

The argument that supports the right to choose, see, applies to a whole lot more than abortion.
 
Did I say I have a problem with it? I just see it for what it is. Conditioning. We need it as a society to keep everything from falling apart, but it's still belief-based.

Sorry, my poor interpretation of your posts. I apologise. I agree it's belief-based, very fundamental (if not universal) belief-based, but nevertheless socialised.
 
Sorry, my poor interpretation of your posts. I apologise. I agree it's belief-based, very fundamental (if not universal) belief-based, but nevertheless socialised.

No problem. I just see things from more of an objectivist position than alot of people. I realize that things are accepted as "Truth" when it's really just that we have been taught to accept those things. It doesn't make them Truth, it just makes them majority belief.;) The Truth is probably something that most of humanity has no desire or fortitude to face.
 
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!!
You call it "personal liberty", I call it greed. Imagine a world filled with people like this.
Tiny Tims and Ebenezer Scrooges.
Some world, huh, thank goodness its not really like that, or is it??
 
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 agree with you. However, the line is, "It is easier for a CAMEL to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
 
Back
Top Bottom