PDA

View Full Version : To what extent are people obliged to help?



SkyBurn
01-05-2013, 10:57 AM
A common perception on this forum, I've found, is a very right-wing (and arguably legitimate) sentiment that people have no obligation to help others. Often, this is regards to the less fortunate, or another culture/country/ethnicity...

Is it selfish to help only those we care about? Do we have a responsibility to expend ourselves for no obvious gain? Do you believe in welfare, or foreign intervention? Do we prioritise survival of the fittest, or a utilitarian 'selflessness'?

What are your thoughts/reasons? Religious, experiencial, philosophical?

Personally, I believe that each human should help others where they can, as to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, without compromising too much personal freedom (Utilitarianism). Although I believe in capitalism, I agree with the need for taxes and foreign aid, as to support anyone, regardless of background and nature.

Thoughts?

Absinthe
01-05-2013, 11:52 AM
Personally, I believe that each human should help others where they can, as to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, without compromising too much personal freedom (Utilitarianism).

I personally share the same belief. :)

Illancha
01-05-2013, 12:04 PM
Well I believe that you only have an obligation to help when you go around claiming or pretending that you are a 'Champion of Democracy' and 'Guardian of Human Rights' as some hypocritical countries in the West do because this inevitably leads to double standards.

However just because you're not obliged to help doesn't mean you shouldn't. In fact more acts of kindness is exactly what the world needs to bridge the gaps. Of course the best scenario is when someone extends a helping hand without expecting any favours in return, but that rarely ever happens.

Kazimiera
01-05-2013, 12:13 PM
Personally, I believe that each human should help others where they can, as to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, without compromising too much personal freedom (Utilitarianism). Although I believe in capitalism, I agree with the need for taxes and foreign aid, as to support anyone, regardless of background and nature.



However just because you're not obliged to help doesn't mean you shouldn't. In fact more acts of kindness is exactly what the world needs to bridge the gaps. Of course the best scenario is when someone extends a helping hand without expecting any favours in return, but that rarely ever happens.

This.

SkyBurn
01-05-2013, 12:36 PM
Well I believe that you only have an obligation to help when you go around claiming or pretending that you are a 'Champion of Democracy' and 'Guardian of Human Rights' as some hypocritical countries in the West do because this inevitably leads to double standards.

However just because you're not obliged to help doesn't mean you shouldn't. In fact more acts of kindness is exactly what the world needs to bridge the gaps. Of course the best scenario is when someone extends a helping hand without expecting any favours in return, but that rarely ever happens.

The thing is, if people don't feel the obligation, it tends to not happen.

Which is why we need the pressure, because without it, those who truly need help may not get it. That's why we have the 'champion of democracy' + 'guardian of human rights' attitudes; it's to inspire people to care for those they wouldn't otherwise.

Stefan
01-05-2013, 12:42 PM
Do I think helping others should be forced onto somebody (i.e via a state)? No.

Do I think a responsible citizen should give their help where and when needed? Yes.

Should somebody be able to rescind their efforts to help others based upon only their freedom of choice? Yes.

I think too many leftists think of all people as inherently greedy, but this is certainly not true. I trust that a responsible, and moral person who is able to help will help. Those who are not responsible nor moral will not. Hence, it's not a legal obligation because that implies nobody should be given the choice, but it is a general axiom any moral person should follow with moderation. Furthermore, I believe blindly helping can be harmful as it promotes dependency and complacency. Helping with the ideal of enabling somebody to better themselves is the most moral.

Illancha
01-06-2013, 10:01 AM
The thing is, if people don't feel the obligation, it tends to not happen.

Which is why we need the pressure, because without it, those who truly need help may not get it. That's why we have the 'champion of democracy' + 'guardian of human rights' attitudes; it's to inspire people to care for those they wouldn't otherwise.
I think you underestimate the capacity for good in people.

Perhaps what you say might be true for Western societies because individualism is really strong, but in many 'third world' societies people are much more closely knit and dependent on one another hence making them more empathic towards the needs of others.

I suppose therefore that the problem arises because people of third world countries are not in a position that allows them to lend help.

Stefan
01-06-2013, 10:11 AM
I think you underestimate the good in people.
Perhaps what you say might be true for Western societies because individualism is really strong, but in many 'third world' societies people are much more closely knit and dependent on one another hence they are much more emphatic towards the needs of others.

It isn't true for Western countries either. They're the MOST affluent and the MOST charitable.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/9/7/1283879899440/World-giving-index-graphi-007.jpg

The United States is arguably the most individualistic country in the world, and before we had healthcare for the poor and elderly, churches would cover medical expenses at special hospitals in which doctors worked long shifts for something a bit more than what minimum wage is today. Individualism doesn't imply greed. Its basis is that people are responsible for themselves primarily then afterwards they should help however they can. It's an emphasis of the moral worth of the individual rather than the group.

SkyBurn
01-06-2013, 10:21 AM
It isn't true for Western countries either. They're the MOST affluent and the MOST charitable.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/9/7/1283879899440/World-giving-index-graphi-007.jpg

The United States is arguably the most individualistic country in the world, and before we had healthcare for the poor and elderly, churches would cover medical expenses at special hospitals in which doctors worked long shifts for something a bit more than what minimum wage is today. Individualism doesn't imply greed. Its basis is that people are responsible for themselves primarily then afterwards they should help however they can. It's an emphasis of the moral worth of the individual rather than the group.

That's a really interesting graph.

But maybe I'm a sceptic. Or a pessimist. But I don't believe that altruism truly exists (http://www.unc.edu/~bhpratt/pratt7.html); the only way for people to give assistance is usually when state-forced, or religiously/socially intimidated into it.

I do agree that people have a responsibility to themselves first and foremost. If they can't support themselves, they can't help others. But taxing allows for institutions and services to be developed that wouldn't be otherwise; whether healthcare, public schooling, or scientific research.

Zmey Gorynych
01-06-2013, 10:29 AM
Two or three years ago I was coming home from training. As I was walking down the road a teenager (couldn't have been older than 15-16) approached me and asked me to buy him bread an a pack of kefir (it's a milk based drink) because he was very hungry. I waved his request away without saying a single word. My refusal had a lot to do with the language in which the boy addressed me. I didn't gave much consideration to the choice I made at that particular moment but I regretted it later.

Stefan
01-06-2013, 11:21 AM
That's a really interesting graph.

But maybe I'm a sceptic. Or a pessimist. But I don't believe that altruism truly exists (http://www.unc.edu/~bhpratt/pratt7.html); the only way for people to give assistance is usually when state-forced, or religiously/socially intimidated into it.

I do agree that people have a responsibility to themselves first and foremost. If they can't support themselves, they can't help others. But taxing allows for institutions and services to be developed that wouldn't be otherwise; whether healthcare, public schooling, or scientific research.

Well I've seen it first-hand, so I know it exists. Sure, it might not be the most common occurrence, but that's because not many people - even in these first world nations - can afford to help. One must remember that in a first-world nation there are more costs in order to make more money, and while you might have a higher salary than the entire third world it is also more expensive to just eat or have a home. Often because of useless taxes, and the poor efficiency of the government, but not always. Notice how the countries with the highest life expectancy (Asian ones) are also the most capitalist ones (i.e Hong Kong.)

finşaų
01-06-2013, 01:27 PM
To the extent of which others are able to force them to do it. Might is right! :D

Absinthe
01-06-2013, 01:28 PM
I am inclined to help anyone who seems to be in genuine need, provided there is a way to help, of course.

Aquafina
01-10-2013, 01:53 AM
We love to help the less fortunate, as long as they are not white. :wink I think that is the sentiment those on the right believe of our ideology.

Svipdag
01-10-2013, 02:25 AM
Well I believe that you only have an obligation to help when you go around claiming or pretending that you are a 'Champion of Democracy' and 'Guardian of Human Rights' as some hypocritical countries in the West do because this inevitably leads to double standards.

However just because you're not obliged to help doesn't mean you shouldn't. In fact more acts of kindness is exactly what the world needs to bridge the gaps. Of course the best scenario is when someone extends a helping hand without expecting any favours in return, but that rarely ever happens.

Noxcho, we DO help. In every natural disaster, it is the USA who is there with the "firstest and the mostest" help, and often the ONLY. If there were another Lisbon Earthquake, to whom would the Portuguese turn for help ? It would be the USA, 3000 miles away, rather than their European neighbors.

All of the greatest philanthropists have been and are Americans. Is this hypocrisy or altruism ? We Americans are more generous and more kind-hearted than you are willing to give us credit for being. Yet, despite the ingratitude of nations such as France (which welshed on its World War I debts) we go on giving help where help is needed.

And what favors, may I ask, have we ever got in return for our generosity ? We haven't asked for nor have we received any. We WOULD like not to be stabbed in the back in the UN by those whom we have helped, "but that rarely ever happens", also.


"INGRATVM SI DIXERIS OMNIA DIXERIS" - PVBLILIVS SYRVS

Illancha
01-10-2013, 02:35 AM
Noxcho, we DO help. In every natural disaster, it is the USA who is there with the "firstest and the mostest" help, and often the ONLY. If there were another Lisbon Earthquake, to whom would the Portuguese turn for help ? It would be the USA, 3000 miles away, rather than their European neighbors.

All of the greatest philanthropists have been and are Americans. Is this hypocrisy or altruism ? We Americans are more generous and more kind-hearted than you are willing to give us credit for being. Yet, despite the ingratitude of nations such as France (which welshed on its World War I debts) we go on giving help where help is needed.

And what favors, may I ask, have we ever got in return for our generosity ? We haven't asked for nor have we received any. We WOULD like not to be stabbed in the back in the UN by those whom we have helped, "but that rarely ever happens", also.


"INGRATVM SI DIXERIS OMNIA DIXERIS" - PVBLILIVS SYRVS
I never said you do not help, I said you only help when it is convenient for you to do so. Do you have any idea how desperate Chechnya was for Western aid and recognition? Read the first post in my 'Understanding Chechens' thread you'll find a link for it in my signature.

You can also take a look at this (http://www.waynakh.com/eng/2012/12/maskhadov-s-open-letter-to-the-leaders-of-g-7-nations-2002/) last ditch effort made by our president practically begging for your help. Unfortunately his and the cries of my nation as a whole fell on deaf ears and that is the direct cause of the state we are in today.