Is there a moral obligation to help the less fortunate?

In human relations, the most rewarding course of action is to treat others as you would wish to be treated. It is not so much an obligation as it is the best way to insure a favorable outcome.

I think we are social animals. We live in groups. The group takes care of us, we take care of the group. That life comes with an innate sense of fairness.

How successful one is, is very much dependent on luck. In my book, therefore, fairness dictates that the strong help the unfortunate. Who knows some day it will be the other way around.

So… Yes, according to my mores it is the right thing to do. I also try to live that way.

The challenge we face is to extend the group to which we feel that we belong, when deciding who we empathize with.

Other people like us? Other people in general? Other animals like is, other life in general?

There is a lot of room left to grow for us, I feel.

Yes, I believe we are morally bound to help the less fortunate on humanitarian grounds. If we have the means to help them, then we should. But helping those who won’t help themselves is a complete waste of money and time. I donate old clothes, food, books etc. Giving them money would do more harm than good.
There is an old saying ” Don’t give fish to the poor, Teach them to catch the fish. So that he does not depend on anyone for his next lunch or dinner.”

It is a strong part of my moral code.

I don’t have much, but I share it often with people that have less.

I’ll be doing my “Orphan Thanksgiving” for the fourth time this year. Since we don’t have a lot of family that likes getting together for the holiday, I do two Thanksgiving dinners on two nights. Thursday is close friends who also don’t have family around, and Friday or Saturday is for friends of extremely limited means, such as the several homeless guys among our extended crowd.

Being hungry sucks. Being without a home sucks. It’s not my place to judge a person’s past and determine whether they deserve to be hungry. If I see suffering, and I can help it a little, I will.

No, it’s just common sense. Is a parent obligated to make sure their child grows up healthy and ready for adulthood? You don’t really have to but it happens because some people aren’t assholes.

@Smitha There’s another side to that. Teach a man to fish, and you also teach him to sit in a boat all day and drink beer.

I’d call it a decent personal choice.

It’s far less altruistic when one is forced to do so, or pressured by others to do so, through government.

Yes. I fall far short here, usually worried that if I give someone money, it will end up going to meth. I shouldn’t judge people this way.

I am having a problem with the term ‘moral’. For many, morality is defined by a religious authority. For me, however, the only morality is care/love. When one focus their concerns on the needs of others, not because they desire to do or be ‘good’ but because they witness suffering and choose to not turn away, their actions to relieve suffering and diminish the causes of suffering brings them into spiritual alignment with creation.

One cannot be obligated to do this. Caring acts are born of one’s free will. Actions arising from obligation, no matter what good they may accomplish, are not spiritual. They are self-serving. Consciousness, compassion, and caring conduct consummates creation’s cause.

To directly answer your questions I must ask another question.

Morals, are, at their essence, internal human values. An obligation is a forced imposed on a person (whether externally imposed or internally motivated). Is it moral to force something on someone who may not have the internal motivation to do it?

@Adirondackwannabe LOL! I missed the other side!

Yes, all societies/cultures have always had their poor populations for whatever reasons, and helping others follows the religious mantra of ” there but for the grace of god go I.” I am not religious but that saying does pretty much sum things up quite nicely.
I also strongly disagree with any controlling “giving”, such as mandating whether or not one will give actually monies and how they “should” be spent.

If I give a homeless person money, my “gift” now belongs to them and I do not care whether they buy food or booze or drugs or whatever they need to get through their day. I find those that insist on only giving food, or otherwise controlling how their cash “gift” is used to be the pinnacle of arrogance and infantalizing as hell.
Once, when my ex husband and I were young, in our early 20’s, we fell upon hard times and his mother, instead of giving us a gift of grocery money and trusting I would use it accordingly, took me shopping and humiliated me by picking out all the cheapest crap for me as if I was a child.

If one is going to GIVE, you don’t giver crap, you GIVE in a manner that preserves the persons dignity. Giving away old clothing and other, more than gently used, items is not giving.
If I am to “give” I will give items that enhance a persons self esteem, a nice new jacket, pair of shoes, not some ratty discard.
Don’t get me wrong, I love browsing thrift stores and their are plenty of decent items to be found, but…in general, I don’t consider pawning off your crappy leftover anything, to be in the true spirit of “giving.”

If I am going to put together a “care” package for someone ( I have done this for my 20 something daughter over the last few years ) I am not going to further humiliate and add insult to injury by offering up a case of Top Raman and an institutional size bucket of oatmeal. I am going to “give” QUALITY items! Nothing worse than a Scrooge that toots their own horn over a tuppence. Bah Humbug!

I think we have an obligation to help those in need , yes. I don’t do much. I send money to our local food pantry and to Helpforpaws.org . Sometimes less frequently I send money to a mission in Dallas that picks up addicts and feeds them, gives them a safe place to stay. I think I should be giving half of my income to others but I don’t and never will.

I have no idea if we are “morally” obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves…. but I do on a regular basis. I have very little, but I give what I can to the closest shelter that gives help to the homeless. Being hungry & homeless is devastating to those who end up like this. Far too many of us are just a few paychecks away from being hungry & homeless. So I do what I can to alleviate these circumstances.

Oops, wrong thread.

No.
But it makes the helper feel good so it is in fact a selfish exercise. Most people like to be helpful, because it makes them feel important, and they enjoy the gratitude, also because it makes them feel important. Charity is a selfish exercise.
Unless the helper is forced to do it. Then it is slavery.

The liberal says: “Let’s help the less fortunate to make their lives more tolerable.”

The Libertarian™ says: “Don’t make me help the less fortunate!”

The socialist says: “Let’s change society to make it impossible to be less fortunate.”

The conservative says: “There’s always going to be less fortunate people. Get over it.”

@Kropotkin Heh..well, I fall into the socialist camp.

This conservative says “When times get hard, the poor might just have to sell their boat to get by.” or something like that

@josie I disagree, for some, “giving” is all about puffing up their own self image, but it is, entirely possible, to give without ones own ego needing excessive stroking.
A good rule of thumb to see how attached you are to your altruistic side is if your ego feels pissed off because it didn’t receive the appropriate gratitude.
True giving is really about wanting to aliviate anothers suffering or stress not about self agrandizement.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I fall down on my luck and honestly need a helping hand, I would want someone to help me get back on my feet again. And so yes, I have a moral obligation to do the same. It’s paying forward for shelter on my rainy day.

@josie

The (proposed) fact that helping others makes oneself feel better doesn’t make it a selfish act to do so.

btw there are too many human actions that show true altruism to deny that option.

A moral obligation is a contradicting statement since violence (an immoral act) is required to obligate one to follow a certain set of moral principles (in this case helping the less fortunate). Violence and benevolence are not complimentary.

@annabee What? Why?

What part don’t you understand?

@annabee It isn’t a single word or a phrase that I cannot grasp. My question applies to the whole statement. So again, I ask, “What? Why?”

The what and why was already incorporated into my comment.

@annabee
“violence (an immoral act) is required to obligate one to follow a certain set of moral principles”

ehhhh?

VIolence is not an immoral act in and by itself.

On top… a lot of people stick to their (perceived) moral obligations by their own choice.

You are right… behavioral requirements can and may have to be enforced, but violence is not always necessary for that. Sometimes people use threats or a promise of reward… (Such as heaven and hell in the afterlife.)

@annabee Your statement does not stand by itself. I regret asking two questions. Let me boil it down to one single-word question. Why? Do you still need details?

@whitenoise

Same contradiction. Threat and benevolence are not complimentary. If you don’t follow a certain set of moral principles (helping the less fortunate) you will be burning in hell forever.

@annabee Why does threat and benevolence have to be part of acting morally? What’s wrong with the Golden Rule?

The golden rule is a moral principle that some choose to follow and some don’t. If the golden rule should become obligatory to all, then it is a contradiction since to obligate everyone to follow the golden rule would be in essence using violence on people to force people to not be violent to others.

@annabee Reciprocity is how the Universe is wired up. It’s not a moral principle some idiots (like Hammurabi, Buddha, Confucius, and Christ chose to follow. It’s a truth that people from all parts of the world have realized as truth. What goes around comes around.

But that it neither here nor there. Let me restate my original question. Why does violence have to enter into reciprocity? Why can’t I pay ahead just as well as I can pay back?

Isn’t the topic obligation? You certainty can pay back, but you’re not obligated to pay back.

I’m not sure how the golden rule works with the less fortunate since (for argument sake) the less fortunate person did not become less fortunate because of another individual. The golden rule would only apply if someone caused someone else misfortune, but again, not everyone subscribes to those principles nor are they obligated to unless someone other than themselves wants to make it an obligation which brings out the contradiction I was referring to.

Your moral of principles is the golden rule.

Someone else’s principles are “he who has the gold makes the rules”

My set of principles is to help my self.

Do I have an obligation to help others instead of myself? I obviously think not. Comes along you and tells me I do have an obligation and thus you have created a contradiction. You’re going to use violence on me (an immoral act) to force me to be benevolent to the less fortunate (a moral act).

To sum up, and I really cannot be more clear than this,

Violence enters when you obligate, although violence does exist despite obligations since there are those who adopt moral principles that are violent in nature.

Contradiction enters when you obligate morals through immoral methods.

Since the question is moral obligation and obligation (excluding self) requires the use of violence to enforce benevolence, then it is a contradicting statement.

A moral obligation is an obligation that comes from someones mores.

So if your mores dictate to you to behave in a certain way, that way becomes your moral obligation. What is so hard about that?

And… i didn’t say threats are a part of moral obligations, I said some may use them.

And… benevolence is not the criterion on which one decides the morality of things. For that, one has to have a moral code. So benevolence may be your criterion… it cannot be a generic one.

@ETpro

Reciprocity may be part of the system. It sure isn’t the one and only element.

Reciprocity is how the Universe is wired up. If only that were true… I wish…

@whitenoise wrote “A moral obligation is an obligation that comes from someones mores.”

No, I disagree. I have religious people on my block yet I’m an atheist. If moral obligation came from mores. we would all have to be either atheists or religious.

If mores did indeed dictate morals, then that is the contradiction I am talking about for if I refuse to follow the communities morals, they will use violence against me (an immoral act) to force me to adopt their morals and disregard my own.

@whitenoise It actually is. It just takes time to play out. @annabee may get away with a lifetime of seeing herself as superior to the animals in the zoo outside her wealthy white enclave (as she articulated in the linked response), but she also may come up against what happens when you think the man with the gold makes the rules, but that bunch of humans she wants to define as animals get tired of hearing “Let them eat cake.”

Game theory actually proves that the theory of reciprocity works better than king of the mountain. One of the reasons is, if you want to play king of the mountain, there can ultimately be only one king, and there are 7 billion animals in the zoo ready to tear the king to shreds.

@annabee

I fail to see the logic in your statement, so I find it hard to respond…

“I have religious people on my block yet I’m an atheist. If moral obligation came from mores. [we] would all have to be either atheists or religious.” ehh? Why?

“if I refuse to follow the communities morals, they will use violence against me to force me to adopt their morals.” Why? Would you if they don’t stick to your morals? Whether that group uses violence is totally dependent on the mores of that group.

Webster:
mo·res noun plural \ˈmȯr-ˌāz also -(ˌ)ēz\
the customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group, culture, etc.
1) the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group
2) moral attitudes
3) habits, manners

mor·al adjective \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

1: based on what you think is right and good
2: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior

@ETpro
You are right from a certain angle… The world as such doesn’t care about ‘us’ though. If a meteorite hits earth next week, it will all be over. If the religious fruitcakes invoke armageddon, it is all over.

The system rewards reciprocity. On a system level reciprocity works best. individuals are not so always rewarded in line with what is best for the whole systems. Cruelty pays as well for many people and sometimes better than kindness.

Game theory also shows sub-optimzation is the most likely outcome.

I will concede to you if you’d say ‘life is about reciprocity,or at least should be’.

Anyways… semantics… I know you a bit by now and I feel we agree in essence anyway.

@whitenoise

Obligation can only be done by violence accept as you mentioned if someone uses violence against themselves (threats of hell is part of violence), so I fail to see how communities using violence to force individuals to do benevolent acts in their community is not a contradiction. Indeed, they can obligate me, but that doesn’t mean it is not a contradiction. It is. A bat shit crazy one if you ask me. It is like killing most of the worlds population to achieve world peace.

@whitenoise Game theory actually shows that reciprocity works best, cutthroat ruthlessness works subliminally, but well for a few; and trying to reach a happy medium between is an abysmal failure.

@annabee If you’re looking at the “obligation” part of the question primarily, then I apologize for being so tough with you. I am an atheist as well. I am not up on some pulpit preaching to you. But I still fail to see how violence has anything to do with the OP. We can ask @Gifted_With_Languages if that is what was meant by moral obligation. The OP should know. But I did not read that into it. I read it as “As rational actors, how does the wiring of the Universe compel us to act.

@annabee

It doesn’t help if you make your own definitions of words, if you want to discuss the topics that they touch upon.

again, webster:
ob·li·ga·tion noun \ˌä-blə-ˈgā-shən\
1: something that you must do because of a law, rule, promise, etc.
2: something that you must do because it is morally right

I think, in this context, we are looking at the meaning under ‘2’. Nowhere do I see that this implies a threat with or a role for violence.

Just to be complete:
vi·o·lence noun \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
1: the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.

2: great destructive force or energy

@ETpro
So see… we agree. The world should be about reciprocity.

So according to the definition and what you’re saying, I’m obligated to help the less fortunate because the community made it an obligation?

Okay my response to them would to be shove it up their ass. I would tell them my moral obligation, according to me, is to help myself.

You’re asking why it is so hard to drop your own moral principles and be submissive to the communities moral obligations that you find unacceptable? So if someone is a religious christian in a community that doesn’t tolerate religion, you don’t see what is so hard about dropping your own religion and adopting the communities? You don’t see why the religious person would be defiant?

@annabee
No you are not morally obligated to help the less fortunate because the community makes it an obligation. You would be morally obliged to do that, because you would understand that to be “the right thing to do”.

I understand it that way, so that is why I see it as a (my) moral obligation. If you don’t understand it as ‘the right thing to do’… then you would not see it as your moral obligation.

If you are part of a group and this would be an essential believe of the group that you disagree with, then you would likely fall out from the group at one given moment.

Would you regard helping a drowning child by throwing it a rope as your moral obligation, if you were in a position to help the child? I would, because I would see it as ‘the right thing to do’.

If I were to live amongst a group of people that would state it as my moral obligation to watch and do nothing… then I am obviously not part of that group. At least not in this respect.

You are touching upon the difference between laws and morality, I feel.

Ah, well that cleared things up, cheers.

Well the main question was pretty vague so it looks like people are interpreting it different ways. It seems like everyone is on a different page to me.

Alright, good talk, I’m out.

Here is the way I see it,

I consider strength to be a good quality which means I immediately see weakness as a bad thing. I form my own morals and I don’t need to seek validation for my virtues. This process creates resentment because a lot of people cannot attain my values. A child’s faith is set when he/she is born into a family of servants and there is nothing that the child could do. This is the birth of resentment. The only way the weak can preserve themselves is my setting values they could attain. This means their values are a negation, out of resentment of my own values. What happens now is if I consider wealth to be a good thing, the weak will call it a vice. If I consider sex before marriage a good thing, the weak will consider chastity as virtue and so on ad infinitum.

@tomathon Good luck. You’re gonna need it.

One more equivocation on the word “moral”. There is a moral obligation to draw conclusions and take actions that allow you to preserve your existence,and if possible happiness, in accordance to those values that define your humanity.

It is social convention that determines how we treat others. There may be lots of reasons based on moral principle, to choose to be charitable. But they would involve choice never the less. Charity mandated by force of law, enforced by institutions that have a monopoly on force, is not charity at all.

@whitenoise

It occurred to me that this moral obligation of helping the less fortunate can be a contradiction even if no violence is involved but it would be circumstantial. For example, if a skateboarder broke his arms/legs after failing to pull off a stunt and this person ends up being “less fortunate” on account of his injuries, then if you were to help this person because this is your moral obligation, you would be committing an immoral act since this skateboarder injured himself through stupidity and is thus undeserving of help. Also, you wasted your resources. They could have been invested into someone who was actually deserving of help. So this too is a contradiction since you think you’re doing a moral act when it is actually immoral.

The skateboarder is just one of many examples of people who are undeserving of help: you have those who get sick from smoking, the junkies, the alcoholics, the candy-cake-cheeseburger-milkshake dieters, hazardous chemical exposures, work environments, those who live on beach-heads, flood-zones, tornado valley, fault lines (earthquakes), you have those who are able to work but don’t, you have those who had the opportunity to learn but didn’t, and on and on and on…....

An example of someone who is deserving of help are children born into poverty or children who are sick. This would not be a contradiction.

@annabee Sooo..you are perfect, never eat a cheeseburger, never smoked a cigarette, never had a drink, never gained 30 lbs. never have struggled with some less than perfect habit and therefore think you can determine those who deserve help and those who do not. Pffft!
You think those forced to work in hazardous work environments or are subject to natural disasters by their geographical zones are not deserving of aide?
What about all the heros of 9–11 that risked their lives to help save others and then were forced to get medical treatment in Cuba because our fucked up government wouldn’t give them medical aide?

I am turning 54 next month and this economy has wiped me out the past 5 years. I have lost my home, all my savings and am now working for ⅓rd of my previous income, I have lost my health insurance, pets, and am now living in a room mate situation after having my own home for the last 35 years. Just HOW have I deserved this turn of events?
I’ll tell you what, there are millions of over 50 people that have NO HOPE of EVER rebuilding after this economic shit storm, but according to you if I fall ill I don’t deserve any assistance?

Your arrogance is appalling!

I don’t eat meat, I eat fish. Fish are cold-blooded, so they don’t feel any pain when killed.

I don’t smoke.

I drink wine, but I don’t need to drink 2 bottles of it per day to enjoy myself. It is called balance/moderation. Wine is very healthy, but not in large doses.

I don’t gain weight because I exercise daily and eat well.

I don’t use chemical products or expose myself to hazardous environments to absorb the kind of toxicity that cause one to get sick, hence the organics.

No one is forced to work, period, so your statement is inaccurate from the start. A construction worker chooses to build high-rise buildings because he is aware of the risk but is willing to take those risks because it pays well. As is a fireman, financial investor, starting a business, etc. You risk for reward. They’re all aware. If I were to follow your logic, I would have to bailout every small business that fails because they’re now all less fortunate and yet when they’re successful from the huge risk they took, it is all gravy.

When a student in school gets an F on the final exam, does the teacher give him an A?

@ annabee Correction..you eat, sleep and breathe chemicals by default every day of your life, and you are certain that fish don’t feel pain? I guess suffocating to death is not painful, of course you know this for certain right? Pfft!
If you drive a car on city streets you are exposing yourself to hazardous chemicals, fish are amongst the worst ’ meats” for all sorts of toxicity so hardly elevates you to some superior status.
My statement of arrogance still stands, and who ever said anything about bailing out small businesses?

As I said in my first comment here, nobody is “obligated” to give away their wealth, but charity DOES begin at home and that includes countries taking care of their own in dire circumstance.
I’m happy to agree to disagree on some points, lets just call our little rodeo ride here a bust. No need for a re-ride. lol

Contrary to popular Nirvana lyrics, fish do feel pain, though not quite the same way as mammals.

Just throwing that out there.

And I don’t care how healthy you are, you can still slip in the bathtub and break your hip, or a limb can fall off a tree and break your skull, leaving you brain damaged.

May such happenstance never befall you.

Yes I am certain fish don’t feel pain. This is science. You could have easily fact checked me with a quick google search. fish don’t feel pain

I live in a valley. The population is small and spread out, hence the exposure of car toxins is far less than in a high density city like New York.

It depends what type of fish and from what waters. I personally eat salmon and I have it delivered from Alaska. This type of salmon is called sockeye (wild salmon). They eat zooplankton and seaweed, hence it is the least contaminated as are its waters. Norwegian as well. The salts you eat also make a world of a difference. Sea salt being the best, but if it comes from contaminated waters, it is just as harmful.

If you agree that I don’t have to bailout small businesses when they fail, then you have to no choice but to agree that construction workers and fireman don’t deserve any of my help.

Personally, I am not even considering helping anyone until I’m satisfied with my own life. Perhaps if our system made it easier for me to reach that level of satisfaction I desire, I would be less inclined and more willing to help. Although I am still not going to help people who I feel deserve a darwin_award

Alright, agree to disagree.

@Seek_Kolinahr

Most of the examples I gave you have nothing to do with slipping in a bathtub or a tree coming down on you. I gave you examples of those who are aware of the high risks and do it anyway and those with no self-control over their natural instincts.

@what a ramble…sheesh, okay fine…fish don;t feel pain, but suffocating is not a pleasant experience for any creature. Nuff said about this idiocy.
Well..you finally really made your point. Until the “system” meets your needs you will continue to dine upon sour grapes. The big picture finally unfolds. haha

Read that article she posted. It’s a study funded by anglers. The people who conducted the studies were interviewed and stated they think fishing is more important than worrying about fish pain.

This study was a political ploy to keep European fishing laws in place.

Which is fine. I mean, I eat fish, too. But this is more of a “fish don’t legally feel pain” than a “fish don’t actually feel pain” thing.

It was peer-reviewed link

in “Fish and Fisheries”.

Bottom line…unless you ARE a fish all the science in the world doesn’t matter. When fish can speak then and only then will we have a true answer.

@annabee

Not all fish are cold blooded. So do the warm blooded ones feel pain?

And since when is pain a criterium. Is it okay for me to kill you in your sleep, because you won’t feel pain?

Sometimes, not often (very rarely, actually), I wish I could award negative lurve.

As far as I’m aware of, only swordfish and some types of shark are partially warm-blooded. They might feel pain, but I haven’t researched it. I don’t eat those.

As far as cold-blooded one’s, the peer-reviewed study says they don’t feel pain.

Well humans > fish. I need the essential nutrients from the fish to function properly. Vitamin b12 and 1 more (forgot) is a big issue for those who don’t eat meat or fish.

I choose to eat fish over meat, not because of the lack of pain factor, but because it offers more nutrients, is less contaminated, and less fattening.

Furthermore, everything is technically alive, so by your logic, we can’t eat anything or else we kill it. Good luck with that.

Straw man, my friend.

I didn’t say you can’t eat fish. I merely addressed your shaky reasoning.

And don’t worry… You can safely go to sleep. I believe we shouldn’t kill anything or anyone without a good reason.

That includes fish, animals, forests and you.

Bluefin tuna are warm-blooded, too.

Mmm… warm-blooded sushi…

I wouldn’t say it is shaky, more like selective.

I’m sure by my brief comments here you would have realized that long ago I have taken the necessary steps to prevent myself from being killed by other humans. No worries here.

@annabee Stop with the temptation or the consequences are yours to own.

@ETpro LOL…so far she’s got 3 hits on her. haha

yawn

Internet-keyboard-warriors.

Yes, because it’s a fundamental human quality. In evolution it turned homo sapiens into a successful species.

Before a meteor change the Earth, dinosaurs were the most successful species.

That’s not my point. Dinosaurs were successful for other reasons. Also today, there are many lone predators that do not rely on cooperation. A single cat of prey can’t kill a healthy fully grown large mammal such as an mammoth or elephant or buffalo. Humans are not particularly strong. They rely on cooperation.

@mattbrowne, I believe evolution “turned homo sapiens into a successful species.” However, I think our adaptability is the trait that sets us apart from other life forms. The ability to cooperate exists in many living things, plants and insects as well as other animals. Furthermore, the success of ecosystems demonstrates that cooperation exists between life forms as well.

The topic is about moral obligation, which I doubt that many creatures other than humans can even conceive of. In war we have a moral obligation to kill, and in peace a moral obligation to avoid killing. An individual acquires their sense of morality from what they witness others doing and, if they have an established sense of self, feel obligated to respect what they believe is right for them.

@Bill1939 Chimps, Bonobos, Orangutans and some monkeys (Capuchin, as one) all are social animals. From time to time on forays when food is plentiful

@ETpro

Bonobos?

Social for sure.

@SecondHandStoke Yeah, they are social at my level of understanding of the word. :-)