Yes, I think they do in whatever way (s) they can. It would be a much richer world if people thought about others instead of themselves most of the time.

It needn't be anything large. Even a small favor or gesture can help a poor person more than you know. I can tell you from experience that it also makes YOU feel better about yourself. To share what we have or just not throw things away that someone else may need shouldn't be such a hard task. Let me ask this...Wouldn't you feel good if someone who barely knows you called and said, "I understand you need to go see the doctor next week but have no way to get there. I'd gladly take you and maybe we can stop for a cup of coffee after that!"

I can tell you that it makes you feel like a million bucks to help someone out in a time of need.

YES!

That is the moral obligation.

You have to by every religious and non-religious humanistic standard, help one you see in need.

This is an eddict, absolutely, both self as Sparsley stated, and and, I repeat socially.

This is a duty by any any moral standard ever in the history of man concieved and made popular.

So what the hell does that mean?

Does that mean Bill Gates should never have founded Microsoft, and instead should just have given everything away as he got it? No.

Does it mean every industrious invention ever should have been sidelined as the curators helped the poor? Nope.

That's the confusion, and the pull-youself-up-by-your-bootstraps bible belt I love Jesus but not more than my gun and get the eff off welfare even if you have 4 kids that would starve to death hypocrites just absolutely love, this conundrum because it forgives them for not living up to the idle they carry around their neck.

The standard is that:

1. you take care of your family if you have one,

2. you take care of yourself,

3. you help those closest to you with whatever you have left.

Now, just because I or you do not want to do this. And don't do this,

does not change the fact that you're supposed to do this.

So fine. I don't judge. I have all kinds of junk I really really don't need, and that if I sold could feed a few people.

I do what I can based on what I think is fair.

That doesn't mean I do enough.

Very few ever do enough. Jesus if he ever existed was an example of one who did, and preached that his followers should.

But we are alll like the rick dude who wanted to be his disciple (keep in mind please I'm a complete aetheist, this is just the best example I can think of.) Jesus said okay, go sell all your worldly possessions, use the money to feed the poor, and you can join me.

This is the standard.

Those preachers at the mega churches are charlatans, and akin to the pharaseas, not Jesus.

Jesus never saw the rich dude again. We don't wanna do all that, we just wanna do a little.

And that's better than nothing.

But don't try and justify your greed, twisting the idea of moral obligation to fit your wants.

Just admit you're not perfect.

It's better to be imperfect and honest, than imperfect and a liar.

Please read the entirety of this reply before you reply.

The author of this debate may not have foreseen the course that this debate would follow in order to answer his question. So, in accordance with the spirit of the letter and not the exactness of the letter, I will respond.

Our consciences bare witness of our inherent desire to be charitable. Yes! We are charitable by nature!

Philanthropic, altruistic, compassionate, charitable, sympathetic, empathetic, etc. are terms that are descriptive of the consequences of our natures to be kind to others. Those qualities, in greater or lesser degrees, are manifested in both deed and word by almost all mentally competent human beings. Every human being with an active conscience will demonstrate with words and deeds that they are de facto charitable, not de jure charitable. (If charity is a mandate of law then it cannot be charity, for then would it be obedience to the will of the lawmaker. If charity is a consequence of law, who has the authority to enforce or punish the subjects of the law?) Charity is a manifest consequence of the conscience. However, there are, perhaps, an infinite number of charitable decisions that are not seen or heard. Has anyone refused to give a drunkard another bottle of wine by evading the drunkard? How many among us have constrained ourselves from beating the tar out of someone who caused harm, or loss of property of ourselves?

We, including myself, demonstrate, more often than not, a self-justification for not complying with our own consciences. The multitude of justifications for refusing to obey one’s conscience is innumerable.

Now, instead of rambling about things which all adults ought to have readily identified by their experiences in life, I desire, charitably of course, to bare witness of our weaknesses and strengths concerning charity.

Please, pardon the emotion in my attempt to illustrate by word my understanding of men and charity. (Women also)

I have suffered many things in life that have ultimately brought about my ruin. However, I am not disturbed by that in and of itself; I am however, emotionally destroyed and brought low by the fact that my family equally suffers that which has befallen me; for that which has befallen me has befallen them as well. There is no doubt in my mind that I could have played the hand dealt to me differently than I did. Knowing the hand, the circumstances of the consequences of life, I labored and studied more diligently than anybody I know in order to hopefully change the cards I held. All to no avail, despite my best efforts and choices, I could not escape the certainty of folding. Am I to be blamed? Probably. Does anybody have a right to accuse me of wrongful decisions? Only they who suffer with me as a consequence of my decisions, my family!

So, if you see me, unshaven, with dirty hair and teeth on the corner of a street, wearing filthy, torn clothes, holding a sign that reads, ”Will work for food”, will you judge me by both my appearance and your ignorance and say, “It’s his fault, both he and his family should suffer for the decisions he has made; I will not think of him again.”? Are you therefore, any different than the priest, rabbi, pastor, elder, cop, politician, Christian or Muslim? No, for they are charitable only to they who are alike themselves.

Now, fast-forward five years into the future, and this time instead of me on the corner it is you on the corner. And this time, it is I who witness your destitution. What do you think I shall desire to say?

Come FRIEND, we have much work that needs to be done, but before we shall work, enter into my house, you and your family, eat that which my wife and family has prepared for you and your’s, cleanse yourselves, take upon your shoulders the clothes we have made for you, and take ye rest from your sorrows.

I say to you, and those like you, of which I too was regretably numbered, who was compassionate? He, whom, along with his family had suffered much, or he, whom, along with his family suffered not?

Call it a moral tale if you will. Yet, the tale, so called, speaks of the reality of life’s experiences.

Yes.

I am an Eagle Scout for BSA. As a boy scout I learned a lot about helping people.

I think the key word here is "help". People forget that there are many, many ways that you can help somebody other than giving them money.

You could give them food, you could do yard work for them, help clean their house. You can help somebody just by being their friend.

It is not ones moral obligation to climb them out of poverty. That is up to them. But people need help. So lets make it easier for them to do that.

Yes, I think so. But simple charity is not the answer. Like the old saying goes: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

We need to create sustainable societies in which all people have a chance to contribute in exchange for their fair share of the wealth.

Yes, if you are able and it won't really harm you i think you are obliged help those less fortunate. It is a sad fact that we live an apathetic society where we choose to blame the less fortunate than try to help them. Some people are in their social status because of their own actions but many more are because they didn't have the support or ability to be more fortunate.

A moral obligation to help does not mean you need to give someone a job, money etc, just to care and do something to help them out no matter how little as long as it is sincere. The more you can help the better, obviously, but just acknowledging there position and trying to help them is all that is required morally.

We can often do a lot, with very little cost to our selves, to help those in need and to judge and blame the less fortunate shows a weak or hypocritical moral standing and lack of compassion that is a very sad yet common state of humanity in many societies.

I'd have to say no, because in general, moral obligations are internal edicts. That is, they are adopted by individuals through personal validation and commitment.

For that reason, one cannot make a blanket statement that all individuals have a particular moral obligation, as morals differ from one person to the next.

No, because i can't speak for everyone. I don't even believe in moral obligations.

If you want to talk about what we accept as socially, then that's how laws are passed. But it doesn't mean that people have MORAL OBLIGATIONS to obey these laws. A lot of the time, they do it just cause. Like speeding and seat belt laws. I speed all the time unless a cop is around. Not because my moral meter came up, but because i know that there's a chance he'll give me a ticket.

This whole idea that there are OBLIGATIONS really just makes it sound like a drag. I like to help people by giving to charity. It's not because I feel like I have to. If I felt like I had to, it would just piss me off. This is why welfare pisses me off. My tax dollars are going to some dip shit who probably broke into my car just a few weeks ago and stole, get this, a pair of sunglasses. Fuck, next time I'll just leave the sunglasses on the hood of my car cause fixing the window costs more than the fuckin' sunglasses.

In fact, I don't think I have any moral obligations. Nothing makes me feel like I just have to (maybe cause i'm not religious anymore). The only reason why i stop myself from doing something I want to do is because I'm not allowed to.

Depends on how they got to that circumstance.

If I see a homeless man on the street he has probably lost his life to alcohol of course this is just an assumption since most homeless people like the drink. So lets say that I just got my pay check and I have a couple hundred dollars on me. I see a homeless man on the street and he asks me for some spare change. Let us assume that he is a drunk why should I give him money when all he is going to do is purchase booze?

We can look at it in this perspective also. Lets assume that this time the man is down on his luck. Lost his job, wife, kids, and all of his money and it wasn't even his fault! So here he is at a bus station wearing dirty clothes and he looks at me once making more in a day than what I make in a week asking me for spare change. Should I give him money? I think so, but since the majority of homeless are homeless on their own faults and avoidable faults at that how can I just know when that homeless man is going to go and buy food instead of booze? How do I know that that homeless person isn't just another drunk?

This is where most people confuse charity with justice. Justice would say we need to help the poor. I don't think we all need to help the poor financially or in any other way. We all need to work hard for ourselves first and foremost and for our families as well. After we have worked and earned our money and spent some of it on necessities, this is when we should consider charity. I'm not saying I'm a stingy person, but I don't feel I should be forced to donate my hard-earned money to those with less than me. For some of them, they do work hard and have fallen on hard times, but for others, they can get off of their butts and work harder to have a more comfortable lifestyle. That's why I don't feel the need, morally, to give to charity.

As a side note, I do give to charity, not because I feel obligated to, but because I want to help the poorer. This should be the same for all people. Don't feel obligated to do anything.

I don't think that anyone has a moral obligation to help someone less fortunate than them because then guess what? Everybody spends all their time helping every body else! No matter how low you sink, you can always sink lower, and if you can sink lower, then so can others. So ask yourself this: Do you want to spend your entire life helping other people and basically doing nothing else? I know I don't.

But, as I'm saying this, there is something of a legal obligation related to this subject called the good samaritan law. This law legally binds you to assist anybody that you see in danger or in trouble. I personally am not a fan of this law. I know this will sound stupid, but after watching the final Seinfeld episode, what lawyer Jackie Chiles states: "With this law, we've created a new person: the guilty bystander." I don't approve of that. But whatever.

I say no, for the simple fact that many people lack morals. If you lack a heart, or if you are inclined to be selfish, you wont have it instilled in you to help the less fortunate. But another question is "Who are the less fortunate?" Those bound by what social economics dictates should be the way to live, or those freed by making choices that are not predetermined for them. Another point to make is about the person giving, if the person is a political figure they likely aren't giving from goodness, they are giving to benefit themselves.