promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Is there an inherent obligation the assist our fellow humans when in trouble?

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Indeed...but the lines between heroic action and obligatory action are blurred. If I were standing on a beach and saw a kid drowning-it would be hard to prove that I, a strong swimmer, have no moral obligation to save that child. However...suppose you were swimming and saw someone surrounded by sharks....do you have a moral obligation to swim in the middle of those sharks to help that person, even though this has a good chance of ending in your untimely demise? Ethical lines of thought like these get much more detailed and contestable.

    Nationally speaking, it depends. Does American hegemonic status really translae into an obligation to maintain world peace, even though this ends in the rest of the world bitching about nosy Americans? However, the current medium we have for doing this is the UN...so, um, yeah. Screw you, genocide victims...one day the UN will look at your plight and sanctimoniously utter the words "never again" for the 1000th time in its history. As for poverty...I have no issue with aiding the impoverished, but national foreign aid donations, by and large, are only given to corrupt government officials who caused the poverty in their countries to begin with...like every country in Africa. So, yes, there is an obligation...but the HOW is the sticky part. I would recommend privately researching good charities, since that is the clearest way of directly helping troubled people. I would be more than willing to share a few that I use...by and large, I contribute to foreign causes. Ethopian people act less entitled than Americans, have fewer opportunities to help themselves, and make the little aid you give them go much longer than an entitled American ever could.

    Peace

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • ?
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Its' the golden rule, or should be. The next time you see someone bleeding to death from a major arterial wound do you walk away? That said 3% of the population are sociopaths by nature and would likely weight the end result in their favor, particularly if they have something, potentially to loose, their supposed culpability in such an outcome. That's the other side of the coin but how could you live with yourself if you didn't? That remains the real question. I like common decency above all other values.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't think so. I believe we are all born individually and should be free to make our own decisions. I know some people feel we should help everyone who is struggling, but I rarely see anyone giving up all of their luxuries to help others--meaning, in theory, they want everyone to have everything, but they themselves don't want to sacrifice.

    Also, I believe that people learn life lessons when they are faced with adversity. If someone is always there to take care of those in trouble, why would that person change their behavior? If they can never get themselves in trouble, they will never change--I believe it's called tough love.

    I do believe those physically and mentally incapable of doing things for themselves should be an exception.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The Devil is in the details.

    I don't have a problem helping people who truly want to help themselves, but I do have a problem with (1) helping people who exploit the system, and (2) creating a huge bureaucracy that only helps the people who run it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    You should help but you are not legally obligated to do so.

    Now if you mean helping a victum of crime or accident or health,,,, yes help.

    If you mean assist fellow humans on welfare, or government assistance, for year after year or generation after generation, then forget about it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Going by how people react when someone is getting robbed, beaten up, attacked, etc ... most people don't think so

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes but, there are many who ignore their instincts and become self-serving regardless who it is in trouble. Some people even let petty Politics cloud their vision regardless how “that” affects their country.

    “United we stand, divided we fall”

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    no. instinct tells us to provide for those who are in our immediate tribal group. it is through the evolution of large scale societies and greater empathy that we have come to value helping our fellow humans. empathy is a learned social trait it is not innate.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • madart
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    It is part of what makes us human.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Yes, but at the barrel end of a gun, no.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.