Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Hedonism, humanism and hatred are all essential parts of a healthy human psyche. There will be times that you won’t get put of bed because you don’t want to. There will be times when you will feel the urge to kill don’t act on it, there will be times that your heart will be broken and you will break other people’s hearts. There is no way around creating needs, denying needs and so on, as such you are not obligated to doing anything. You don’t owe the world or the children or humanity anything.

But since we all also have the desire to help, give and be liked (as Hobbes would put it, even selfless acts are selfish) we should but there still should not be an obligation, as such. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNFiffOKic]]

I understand we may minimize suffering but we should not be morally obliged to do so. For, moral obligation does not exist. It is just the feeling of guilt that pushes us to donate, or give charity.

According to Rawls, we are selfish. Therefore, we are doing things for our own benefit. We do not become a more virtous person but we obtain something. We also tend to do things for our own fulfillment. If you are doing something for yourself, you are not being virtuous.

That aruguement makes a separation between obligations and understanding. Essentially, if one understands another and their pain, a moral obligation is thus created. This means that it is not a moral obligation that we have to help peole, but a problem of understanding. Some could then create a meaning or create an understanding that compels them to assist another. The logic then is flawed because it leaves understanding up to the individual as well as what assistence they are to act upon to fix what they understand. If that is the case, the overal goal would then never be accomplished. It thus places the power to define all relavent terms into each and every individual. This is counter productive because this would cause more harm then good. The reason for not having a moral obligation to assist a person in need would be because one can never truly understand whether or not the need is ralavent or if the assistence is even fruitful. I then ask what makes up a moral obligation?

Sure, everybody’s in need but that is no excuse to bother a homeless person sleeping in a garbage can or pooping in the park It is horrible enough that this person has to sleep there or poop there, the indignity of his/her circumstances is only worsened with your pity or your food throwing or what you call help. Every human being has the right to be left alone and not be judged or interfered with.

Suppose someone ‘needs’ to have sex and comes up to you and asks you to do it. It is not your moral obligation to help, okay. Kids today! Just because someone has asked you do something or if someone needs something, is not obligation to go ahead and help them. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99JgYrgzco&feature=related]] If you want to help people and they want your help then by all means do so, but otherwise there’s no ‘obligation’ per se. Free will, exercise it. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q99JgYrgzco&feature=related]]

A moral obligation is an imperative. As good as philanthropy is and that it improves the world, it should not be required. Morally one’s task should be to do the right thing by improving oneself rather than others first.

Although helping people in need is an honorable thing to do, when we tell people that they are “obligated” to help, those on the receiving end will develop a laziness or dependence upon others. Now said person is ALWAYS in need help and ALWAYS want more. This makes them a serious drain on society and a serious drain on my wallet. <—(yes… i’m a capitalist)

Virtue ethics states that when we act righteously we become more complete persons. Thus the most moral action for ourselves, would be to help others and, in doing so, become more virtuous persons.

this is actully a yes and not a no but anyway….