Amazon.com Widgets

Do people have a moral obligation to help those in need?

Asked by: jwcmcorbin
  • Those who are of means do have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate.

    The moral obligation to help those less fortunate then ourselves is about as old as modern man. The concept of "Noblesse Oblige" was almost a mandate in Europe in feudal days. I was raised in a family where money was not an issue, but we were taught to respect all people regardless of their circumstances, and taught about the importance of charitable giving. Way to many Americans have a snobbish "I made mine--make your own" attitude. Oops, I just described the Tea Party!! LOL We were not allowed to "show off", and I still live that way. People who are ostentatious are so lacking in class.

  • It's the reason humanity have been able to thrive.

    We are a specie that live in groups/herds and has been since before we came down from the trees. It is the reason we survived everything earth had to offer of predators, parasites, viruses, and whatnot. We work together, and we take care of those weaker. And we should continue, if we wish more than a very few to survive in the long run. Besides, who can honestly say one person deserves to live more than another.

  • Moral is a flexible term... Except in this case.

    We are humans. Other animals choose various strategies to deal with the weak: some cooperate, some abandon them, some kill them, and some show variable behavior (sometimes they help, sometimes they kill). Unlike them, we fully understand the implications of helping and not helping. So I attribute the persistance of "let them die" attitudes as the wild wolf genes in us. I'm not advocating charity per se, which in many cases is just a form of guilt, and often put the alleged help in the wrong hands. I'm for direct help, working with the community, volunteering, sharing some of what we do best with those who are not so good at it. I don't know whether to call this a moral obligation -to me it's simply being human.

  • Yes. It is a basic human trait.

    In my humble opinion there are a set of basic moral humane values, applicable to any human being. To help someone in need is one of them. Without it we could not function as a healthy society. Hold on, we are far from healthy as a group of human beings; mm...

  • One Obvious Choice

    Humans are not only aware of themselves, but of other people around them. They can sense emotional turmoil in other humans despite having even felt that emotion in themselves. When humans sense another human in need, and they have the material to help, it would be wrong if they ignored the opportunity to bless a life.

  • Are you selfish?

    Your kidding. Of course we have a moral obligation....If there is the car accident on the side of the road or you witness a heart attack. Are you just going to sit there and let it go bye and not do anything about it? Please. You may say that we don't but you know that you really do and you may even suprise yourself if you happen to find yourself in a situtation like this.

  • NOT morally bound to helping others

    Morals are different for everyone. We are not morally bound to helping anyone. It is impractical, creates unnecessary dependency, and so forth. We do have a moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves, i.e. children. If someone can help themselves, then they are not "in need." We have a choice to help others, but we are by no means morally obligated to do so.

  • NOT morally bound to helping others

    Morals are different for everyone. We are not morally bound to helping anyone. It is impractical, creates unnecessary dependency, and so forth. We do have a moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves, i.e. children. If someone can help themselves, then they are not "in need." We have a choice to help others, but we are by no means morally obligated to do so.

  • Humans are Negative by Nature

    I say no because human nature is cynical and selfish, for when we see someone in need, a person thinks if helping will benefit their own person before they think about others. That's precisely why advertisements offering a "good cause" also provide a reward such as a handbag or poster to those who donate. Also, the law cannot bind others to morals because in our country their are many moral and belief systems.

  • Everyone has different morals

    Just because this is the case for many with certain moral principles, doesn't naturally mean that is the way everyone should behave. Morals are not static or objective, so saying everyone should abide by your set of morals is flawed at best. On a more cynical note, letting the weak and incapable to fend for themselves essentially die off is beneficial in terms of evolution, but that's another topic all together

  • Is it help?

    If everyone was bound by some moral duty to assist someone in need, would that assistance be out caring or out of just fulfilling ones own obligation. This does not say whether or not the moral obligation is required, only that whether or not it should or might exist. Help and assistant is therefore only useful where the person who does something cares. When someone acts based on a public view or to fulfill an obligation they don't offer the true assistance as they may lack on their giving and most definitely on their own caring.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
DatAzian says2013-11-13T15:12:54.807
Unless you're a sociopath. Then you don't have any morals. Like @LAQUAINE
LAQUAINE says2013-11-13T15:14:21.280
Says DatAzian over there. You got a problem, Captain Squint?