Moral 'obligation'

[The Terrible Sweal]

One can frequently hear people say things like "It's our duty to help the poor/the thirf world/disaster victims/whoever".

But what is the source and nature of such 'obligations'?

Why should we help tsunami victims?

[WageSlave]

It's a complicated question, the fact is that "we" as individuals can't do anything for anyone. "We" need to start making ourselves a "we", before it is even near possible to end the imperialism that causes much of the hunger, ignorance, and homelessness.

On the tsunami subject, if the western ruling class were forced to stop extracting the wealth from these countries, they would have the technology to help themselves, and there would be little need for aid.

[Grantler]

Governments the world over sent money to the tsunami victims. Then, in these same countries, organizations ask for individual donations.

It may sound heartless, but I did not participate in those. The governments do not just magically come up with the millions they sent. It is taxpayers money so really, we all already participated in relief.

[PocketRocket]

Why should we help tsunami victims?

For the same reason that farmers all pitched in to help rebuild a neighbour's barn that had burned down, instead of letting the poor chump do it for himself, IOW, because we can.

[Michael Hardner]

Why should we help tsunami victims?

Because our physical biology gives us the instinct to help others, because helping others makes the clan stronger.

Why should we not help ?

Because our biology gives us the instinct to be selfish, because taking care of ourselves makes us stronger as individuals.

It's all in the biology.

That was easy.

[Chloe]

Why should we help tsunami victims?

The same reason why you would want help if you needed it in a time of crisis.

Not only are we selfish beings we are social ones, therefore the social aspect of us requires that we also need someone else, for whatever the reasons. In this case the victims needed help from other countries not directly impacted by the big wave.

And is it not just the right thing to do. We are not idepedent of each other, what affects you affects me whether directly or indirectly.

[Newfie Canadian]

Because survival of the fittest isn't always the way to live life.

From a purely practical stand point, if you show mercy and compassion, mercy and compassion may be shown to you should you one day need it.

[Chloe]

You mean from a purely Theorectical standpoint, if you show mercy and compassion, mercy and compassion it may be shown to you, should you one day need it.

From a practical standpoint people don't show mercy or compassion unless their is an immediate pay off, unfortunately.

[Grantler]

IE. Save Iraq...but take some OIL!

Perfect

[PocketRocket]

From a practical standpoint people don't show mercy or compassion unless their is an immediate pay off, unfortunately.

I agree with this in part, but only if you add the rider "some people" and "Material payoff".

A lot of folks do not seeks any material payoff, for many the satisfaction of knowing they have helped is payoff enough.

[Chloe]

Yes, that is what I meant.

There are those few that can show mercy and compassion without wanting anything in return or show compassion because it will make them feel better about themselves.

I just wish the world community can show such compassion to every nation less fortunate all the time and not just when the media will be able to glorify their so-called "selfless act" of generousity.

[The Terrible Sweal]

i found everyone's responses interesting, but I think i may have posed my query inperfectly. what i wanted to investigate is what is the nature/content of those things we consider moral "obligations" ? what is the character of the oblgation? when someone says we 'should' or 'must' help, are they merely using a shorthand phrasing for 'it would be wise/kind/useful to...' , or is there a more imperative quality to it?