Amazon.com Widgets

Are people morally obligated to help the less fortunate?

  • Everyone needs a little help at sometime in their life. Why judge at their point of crisis?

    I have helped many people through tough times in their life. It has now come to my tough time. I am struggling to find the strength to carry on, and are any of the people i have helped in my lifetime there to offer help to me? No! We live in a selfish society where everyone only cares about themselves. I am very disheartened to think that there is no-one willing to help me. I have begged for help but no one listens. :(

  • I am helping a famly.. A single mom

    I have opened my home to a single mom and her children, she is a recovering alcoholic. She is not married and her family would not let her move in there home with her children, so I did. I want to believe I have help give her and her family by providing a stable environment and good home life. She has found a job and working to find her own place. I don't know what would have happened to them if I did not step in

  • Everyone should help those that are less fortunate then themselves because that is the only way we can progress.

    We live in the society that only advanced after we adopted disciplined beliefs in helping others. If we did not, we would decay, ruined by personal rivalry and obsession about our own well being. Imagine where our kids would be if we never took care of them. Those that can't help themselves can receive help and in turn, that can empower them to help others, and so everyone standing and livelihood improves.

    Posted by: BurM4rk
  • Neutral

    I love helping others,it puts a smile on Gods' face & peace in my heart.Giving to others who are really less fortunate than I am really comforts me just by knowing that I made someone day cheerful.
    It's a blessing to be able to bless someone eles in such a way that I feel within myself that im doing the right thing.

  • YES YES YES

    Yes people are morally obligated to help the less fortunate. Simple as that. As a society we are supposed to bring one another up and by doing so we must help one another. It would be counterproductive to leave our peers in the rubble while we glamorize our lives. We would not be able to progress in our communities.

  • Moral Advice to the needy people.

    Dear Friends.
    This is Manjula Soma, from India, yes I firmly believe, through our moral advice and support, even verbally with small examples, will definitely and surely change the lives of the people.

    Actually I am requesting for a little donations who ever reads this content, for the cause of helping the old aged, children who cannot pay their school fees, who are struggling to stand on their feets for their better improvements in their lives. It is my humble request, atleast through my moral guidance, I can change the lives of many people.

  • Im neutral

    I am more than happy to help someone who is in a less fortunate circumstance than myself to an extent they that will eventually be able to help themselves and not be dependent on others again. However I will not be obliged to help again on those who abuse my charity.

  • Yes we are morally obligated to help others.

    Think of the poor, and think of the rich, who has the better lives? Well I'm not even going to answer that because that's a straightforward rhetorical question. Yes, its' their own fault for not living a great life but the economy around the world is terrible right now and the percentage of people getting hired for jobs that pay minimum wage (eg. McDonald's, Burger King, Tim Hortons, etc.) is very low. We can blame the government for this. Besides, we already pay taxes and the poor people will get free health care. So we're pretty much always helping them. There's no running away. The government also takes money from us when we cash in our cheques and that's a lot of money. For example, if you make $100,000 a year that's just before taxes. After taxes, you'll have maybe $70,000 after taxes. That's a lot of money that the government is taking from us. But they don't use enough of it to create jobs. They just use that money to build whatever they want. It's not fair. They need to distribute the money evenly. I'm starting to doubt the government ways. Without enough jobs, there will be more jobless deadbeats.

  • It is not their fault

    If there were enough well-paid jobs, if industry wasn't sold off to cheaper shores, if unscrupulous landlords did not charge extortionate rent, if energy companies didn't bleed the people dry, if banks didn't rip us off and multi-million £ companies paid their taxes within the country that has allowed them to make millions, think Starbucks, UK, Vodaphone, etc etc, then we would have a more equal society. We have unwittingly allowed this inequality to happen and it is up to us as a civilized society to ensure those less fortunate are helped, educated, healed and fed. Children who are born into vulnerable families do not ask to be born into such deprivation, it is our role as human beings to ensure this cycle is broken, to educate and heal all what is wrong with society.
    Not necessarily legally obligated or otherwise coerced, but I mean if there's an entire section of a city slowly starving to death while you just keep spending and spending on things to make your life more and more lavish, don't you think you should help the starving people?
    As a society, natural selection has been taken out of the procreation process. Couples that would not have been able to survive and procreate, if they were anything but human, have offspring and perpetuate an unfortunate cycle. Society should be obligated to help the less fortunate, because they are, in effect, a product of our own creation.
    People should help those less fortunate than themselves, but who they help should also be important. Giving money to someone you never met and will never know is good, if they need it. But giving money to a neighbor and friend that you have known all your life that has hit hard times is even better. Charity starts at home. Look to your own community before you try and help others.
    People should help those less fortunate than themselves, but who they help should also be important. Giving money to someone you never met and will never know is good, if they need it. But giving money to a neighbor and friend that you have known all your life that has hit hard times is even better. Charity starts at home. Look to your own community before you try and help others.

  • I 100% agree that people are morally obligated to help the less fortunate in our society.

    If there were enough well-paid jobs, if industry wasn't sold off to cheaper shores, if unscrupulous landlords did not charge extortionate rent, if energy companies didn't bleed the people dry, if banks didn't rip us off and multi-million £ companies paid their taxes within the country that has allowed them to make millions, think Starbucks, UK, Vodaphone, etc etc, then we would have a more equal society. We have unwittingly allowed this inequality to happen and it is up to us as a civilized society to ensure those less fortunate are helped, educated, healed and fed. Children who are born into vulnerable families do not ask to be born into such deprivation, it is our role as human beings to ensure this cycle is broken, to educate and heal all what is wrong with society.

  • No. Moral obligation is forced responsibility by false accountability.

    There is no some standard morality by "higher" authority.
    Morality is individual and circumstantial, as is measure of fortune. Obligation is forced (mostly by guilt) and can lead to resentment, it is better replaced with Desire.

    If there is "moral obligation" construct, it is to yourself. To take responsibility for your own life and be accountable for your own actions and consequences - good or bad. To ask help from others but not expect others to take care of you. Difference is between right to be helped and right to get help, and it makes a world of difference.

    That being said, helping people more or less fortunate, when and how you can is great.
    Difference is , to help sick children, to help weakening elderly, to help someone in accident... is helping ones that are helpless.

    Less fortune is state on a scale which can be improved with own actions by being proactive and accountable. You should expect no more help then you should expect if you had "more" fortune, most of legwork you have to do yourself. Help you get - is that you can help yourself.

    Most of people already are helping other people they come in contact daily by some good deed (that has nothing to do with moral obligation) - providing advice or some small token of goodwill . And it is more then likely some of them are less fortunate :)
    All that ads up over time and improves everyone's life.

  • No one is obligated to do any thing for anybody.

    No one was obliged to help me get through the ruff spots in my life. Yet there were those that did for me even when they themselves had little to give. Family, friends and people who I have never met gave of their time, love and commitment to help me. And, I remember giving back, there was the time I served a holiday meal to a homeless vet, I still remember his smile as we took time to talk. The little extra money given at church to help someone in need. All of the times I held a door for a person in a wheelchair. Morels or not it doesn't take much to hold out a hand. Do what you can for someone and don't take too much time to question if they are less fortunate than you. Just because we see someone who may be rich by our standards doesn't mean they are more fortunate. Don't pick and choose who to help, that is the morality of helping. Just help and let God figure out the rest.

  • Aid breeds dependence and therefore inequality,

    bringing us all down to a lower level. The hard working will realize they don't have to work as much, and eventually will sink down to the level of those in need. If we keep helping people, we will show them that they don't need to work hard, because there are people out there who will look out for them and keep them afloat. Essentially, they are feeding off of the hard worker's harvest. This is why I believe we don't have to help those in so-called "need".

  • I don't really agree with the word "obligated", that makes it sound forced. If anything, it should be a heart choice.

    "Morally obligated" is a terrible phrase. Let's say that you were on your death bed getting ready to die unless you got a liver transplant. What if someone came to you out of "moral obligation" to give you the liver. At first, you'd be glad that you got the liver, but over time, you'd know that they were hanging it over you. You'd start to feel guilt because this person made it a point to stress that they're only helping out of obligation. And furthermore, they expect something in return. I think that's terrible. I think people should help the less fortunate but only when their heart is in it. It should only be dine when they're doing it just to be kind and not out of obligation. They shouldn't expect anything in return, and if they can they should do it anonymously.

    Posted by: CarmenH
  • People are in no way obligated to help the less fortunate.

    We live in a very turbulent time right now. The economy has been in and out of recession and now there is a threat of a "double dip" recession. In economic times like these, people need to worry about themselves. Any extra money should be saved in case a person suffers a job loss or other economic hardship. While it would be nice to help out the less fortunate, people should not feel morally obligated to help them. People need to focus on themselves and their families first and help out others after.

    Posted by: balam49
  • People are not morally obligated to help others. People are only obligated to treat each other respectfully.

    People should only feel obligated to provide for themselves and their dependents. I do not believe that people get rich by being generous. Some of the most successful people are also the thriftiest. I think the only obligation people have to each other is to treat each other with mutual respect.

    Posted by: TaraThi
  • No.

    Its not our duty to help the less fortunate. Out of the kindness of our hearts we will though. But you also have to take in consideration why they are less fortunate. Why is it considered that a homeless man/woman is less fortunate? Because you see that in the open. You don't see the little girl afraid to go home because it's a hell hole to be at. Parents always fighting, been around drugs since she could walk. No one sees that her daddy touched her. But because she puts on a smile, no one asks questions. In 1995 354,670 women had reported raped or sexually assaulted. This makes them less fortunate than those women who have luckily never had anything like this done to them. Do we help them? Telling someone that they have an obligation to help the less fortunate means that they have to help all the less fortunate. The rich have to help the middle class. The middle class has to help the lower class. The lower class has to help the poor. The poor have to help the people who are more poor. If it was just as easy as helping someone, that's fine. But now people say we have an obligation to help. I don't think that's right.

  • It should be a choice to give, not an obligation

    Is it the right thing to do? Of course it is, but should the rich feel pressured into giving, no. It is a choice to help others. Some do not believe in morality the way other do and therefore why or how can society bind them to an obligation. I would hope that helping the poor in this country and in others would be something that a wealthy person would want to do, but this is not always the case. Unfortunately the rich are entitled to their greed.

  • Do we have a moral obligation to help people?

    Do we have a moral obligation to help people? Not all the time. There are times when we will think of ourselves only. Making decisions that can change people lives. People often think of what’s best for them. When we think of other in current situation, we first think of helping. Then we starting thinking, what will happen to me. Then we look at the picture that is in front of us. Then we react. Usually our first instant is the best one. Our thinking of other is a wide view. Donating money to a cause that can help feed a large group of people. We deem that we are not selfish. That we are considering other people needs. Visiting sick adults and children in the Hospitals can help up lift their spirits. The moral of most people are good. We try to believe that how we treat others is what we want in return. Using our decision of making chooses can be a decision that can have a bad or good outcome. Being different individuals Life circumstances will vary at times.

  • Do we have a moral obligation to help people?

    Do we have a moral obligation to help people? Not all the time. There are times when we will think of ourselves only. Making decisions that can change people lives. People often think of what’s best for them. When we think of other in current situation, we first think of helping. Then we starting thinking, what will happen to me. Then we look at the picture that is in front of us. Then we react. Usually our first instant is the best one. Our thinking of other is a wide view. Donating money to a cause that can help feed a large group of people. We deem that we are not selfish. That we are considering other people needs. Visiting sick adults and children in the Hospitals can help up lift their spirits. The moral of most people are good. We try to believe that how we treat others is what we want in return. Using our decision of making chooses can be a decision that can have a bad or good outcome. Being different individuals Life circumstances will vary at times.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-05-30T19:34:14.710
Poverty - a Christian perspective
Paul encourages the early church by holding up the Macedonians as an example of a Christian community that, despite its own extreme poverty, was a living example of Christ-like living. They had almost nothing, but were extraordinarily generous with what little they did have.