Is it society's responsibility to assist it's less fortunate members?

  • they are a part of the society

    we all rise or we all fall. If we don't help each other out then what are we saying? we are saying that we aren't united as one country who cares for others and their well being. This society will be the only chance for us as a whole to become the best.

  • Noblesse oblige:

    "suggests noble ancestry constrains to honorable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility" -Oxford English Dictionary -

    "with great power there must also come great responsibility"-Uncle Ben-
    With all joking aside, those with the capability to do the most good, ought to do the most good. Additionally, if the standard of living in a nation can be raised to a level where all people have an abundance of quality living, we can finally get over the trivial pursuits of selfishness, greed, gluttony, envy, pride, war, hoarding and other social tools used for manipulative control and propaganda.
    Aiding the less fortunate is more than just feeding them out of pity, guilt, or even social obligation; it is about apprenticing him in your trade; teaching him to be his own businessman and creating healthy competition, either with him as a partner trading outward "paying it forward", or as a dynamic competitor; where you are both driven to produce the highest quality of service of work, while keeping respect for each other.
    Sadly though, helping hands are not always welcome. For those that do not want better for themselves, for those that do not grasp the open hand, the individuals that do not want to be raised along side the nation, they will not be shunned from a quality life. They may not choose to participate directly, but when the nation rises we rise together. Even the lowest of lows are elevated. This is the nobles obligation to his people.

  • It is the responsibility of every good human being to help others that cannot help themselves.

    I am a big believer that everyone has a moral responsibility to try to help others that cannot help themselves. Whether this means giving money to the Salvation Army, donating to the local homeless shelter, or even just donating blood, I think everyone should try to help others that are less fortunate. That does not release individuals from trying to help themselves. I think it should only apply to less fortunate members that cannot help themselves.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • Of course, it is a responsible society's duty to help those in need.

    If my neighbor were hungry, I would offer him food, period. It is the
    duty of every human being to provide at least some help to those in need
    and society, in general, should be cognitive and responsive to the desperation that exists.

    Posted by: MarsBIue
  • Yes society should!

    YES! Its not fair that children that have cancer thats famous gets everything under the sun! But what about they other kids thats not???!! Huh?! SO THEN ITS NOT FAIR THAT UNGRATEFUL, OUT OF CONTROL CELEBRITIES GETS EVERYTHING, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE STREETS THATS REALLY KIND IN THE HEART THAT DESERVES IT MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN MOST CELEBRITIES!!!!!!!

  • Society should support its less fortunate members, because that is the primary purpose of societies.

    Societies exist for a purpose. Otherwise, they would cease to exist. If that purpose is not to create a safe place, a safety net that will protect the less fortunate members, then what is it? Societies first began to exist with the division of labor: I can kill a dinosaur better than you can, but I can't make a really good spear like you can, so let's trade my dinosaur meat for a new spear. It's as simple as that, no matter how complex that "skill trading" seems to have become. If each of us could do every task with equal skill and ease, then we would not need to live in a society at all. There are always going to be some individuals in a society who are "behind the curve" and have not developed, or are not capable of developing, the skills that are currently needed in that society. They are a product of the direction that society has taken, and of the skill sets that society has decided are needed. If the only value we assign to individuals is their ability to produce, then we are back in the dinosaur age. We are, hopefully, more evolved and more caring than that.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • Yes, because a society without humanity is not one I would choose to be part of.

    Society should want all of its members to thrive. This means that, at times, they must assist their less fortunate members, so that one day, they can be valuable, and an asset to society.

    Posted by: 54iy4nAIfo
  • Everyone should be helped and treated equally.

    I think that society is not doing enough in helping with justice and human rights. Society just larger influences media. Think about it for a second, if we are a part of society, and we have impacted media in such a dramatic way then we should be able to influence and impact the less fortunate member in our community in a dramatic way as well. We ourselves, as a society have still not fully realized our potential, therefore not much is still being done.

  • If we want our society to realize its true potential, then yes.

    Until every member of our society is given equal opportunity to contribute to the best of his or her ability, we will continue to be plagued by poverty, violence, and inequality. This “every man for himself” mentality will only get us so far, and I believe that we are at a critical point in human history where we must either change our attitudes or continue down a path of certain destruction and ultimate extinction.

  • It is generally accepted in every religion and culture on Earth that there is an obligation to help the less fortunate.

    Almost every culture and religion hold that society has a responsibility to help out the less fortunate. This help can come in many forms, and does not always have to involve either a church or the state. Society, in general, does however have to help the needy, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it helps create a more stable and fair community.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • It is not society's responsibility to assist those who are less fortunate, because we are all adults, and we have to be responsible for our actions.

    It is not up to the rest of the people to make up for other people's stupidity and selfishness. We are all adults and make adult decisions. If you are dumb enough to not plan for things, then you should not have to rely on others to carry you through life. I do believe, at times, that people do go through hard times and could deserve a helping hand, for a short period of time. But, under no circumstances, should society have to provide for them the whole time.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • Nopeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we should not

    Is not up to the rest of the people to make up for other people's stupidity and selfishness. We are all adults and make adult decisions. If you are dumb enough to not plan for things, then you should not have to rely on others to carry you through life. I do believe, at times, that people do go through hard times and could deserve a helping hand, for a short period of time. But, under no

  • It answer is no

    I do support helping the less fortunate but, It is not our responsibility.
    Even if we should help we do not HAVE to hep these people and we should not HAVE to help them. Again I do support helping them but but it is not our responsibility to help the poor.

  • Why should we help them out when they can help themselves.

    The majority of the less fortunate got themselves in that position in the first place. Why should we be responsible for their stupid actions? We were able to become successful and so can the less fortunate. We shouldn't have to provide for them when they're surely can provide for themselves.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.