Ignoring the truck accident victim is considered a crime, most times punishable by law, and is also considered very immoral. — Seth72

No, no, and no. Although there is no accounting for what some people might consider.

And maybe that's the way out: your misunderstanding of your obligations and duties. Should you, ought you? Perhaps. There is also a do-no-harm consideration. That is, a calculation to be made. Do you know how to help? If not, you could be worse than the accident itself.

My point is, the general consensus seems to be that morally, we can choose to keep our extra money instead of donating it to save people's lives, — Seth72

The Gates and Buffets of the world are giving away a lot of money and attempting to do it in as responsible a manner as possible. It would be nice if more followed their example.

People like Bezos and the Waltons brag about giving away a few millions. But as against their wealth, that is an insult. And the expression, "obscene wealth," seems to be a judgment on great wealth itself. Imo, if there is any imperative, it is that each should first take care of him- or herself. Giving away too much is ultimately giving what you do not have, which as a practical matter often becomes giving away of someone else's. It's a questionable practice to try to save another if in the long run you both have to be saved by a third, fourth, and fifth.

I'm not sure what you're describing is a contradiction in morality, but inconsistency in the law. If a person feels they should sacrifice their time to help other people, and they are consistent in that, then they are consistent morally. If one is inconsistent in implementing one's morality, that doesn't mean there is a contradiction either. A person can fully realize they are being inconsistent, and view their inconsistency as immoral.

To sum, inconsistent implementation is not a contradiction of what one considers moral.

Most people have way more money that they would need to simply survive — Seth72

Do they really though? Most people don’t own a place to live and could scarcely dream of ever having enough money to. Most people are less than a month of unemployment (or one major expensive problem) away from starvation and homelessness.

But yeah, there are nevertheless lots of people around the world with even less than that, and if inaction were morally wrong then we’d all be morally wrong for saving up toward escaping our own poverty instead of giving that money to those who are already starving, not just a month away from starving.

It’s a good thing that inaction isn’t morally wrong then. Instead, taking action to help those in need is an omissible good: good, but not obligatory.

It’s a good thing that inaction isn’t morally wrong then. — Pfhorrest

Phew, what a stroke of luck! We dodged a bullet there. I do hope whiskey remains morally acceptable, fingers crossed.

It's interesting how most people here did not decide to argue towards saving the truck accident victim. Instead, the general consensus seems to be that the choice is yours to help or not, and neither is necessarily good or bad. Helping could make the situation worse same as it could make it better, and not helping is not in itself a display of amorality.

That's... Surprising to say the least. Most people I know would immediately jump to try to help, as if trying to prove to themselves that they are on the right side of "good and evil". It is nice to see people having different opinions.

Pfhorrest, I suppose I overstated how much of the population have a surplus of money, but regardless my point was about the people that do, and we seem to be in agreement. Later though, you mention an "omissible good" and while I see where you are coming from, I don't understand how the opposite isn't considered "good". You are basically saying that not helping the truck accident victim is a valid, although morally weaker choice. It seems that helping others is a consistently more "moral" than helping yourself. I don't understand why that is.

Philosophim, "Inconsistent implementation is not a contradiction of what one considers moral". This is basically saying that not only does one decide what is moral or not for themselves, they can also decide whether to follow that morality or not. And I do agree, in a solipsistic point of view, but this doesn't work when applied to a society. Law, for one, is supposed to have a consistent and logically sound code of morals so that we can extrapolate a solution to grey-area situations from it. It may not, and will not, be what everyone agrees on, but it first and foremost cannot be contradictory otherwise, by principle of explosion, anything can be extrapolated to be legal.
Basically my point is, inconsistency is not a contradiction to an individual's morality, but it is for a legal system's code of morality.

And finally, tim wood, you make an interesting consideration about how helping others at the expense of oneself can lead to misery for both sides if not done properly. And I agree, however, regardless of my specific argument, my point was more like "assuming you are able to help at a minor expense, are you morally obligated to?"

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I've been having... Trouble in dealing with people lately, and I thought maybe trying to understand other people's points of view would help me better understand them. So far I believe it has worked.

about how helping others at the expense of oneself can lead to misery for both sides if not done properly. And I agree, however, regardless of my specific argument, my point was more like "assuming you are able to help at a minor expense, are you morally obligated to?" — Seth72

Please do not think I disagree with you all the way 'round. I agree we should, and moreover for the most we do, and in many cases try very hard to do, sometimes even to a fault.

But on first sawing into these matters, we encounter the flesh and fat of it, and it can be squishy and indeterminate in substance. Soon enough, though, we get to the bone and gristle. And with that we progress from the could-be or maybe-not, through the neither-nor, and finally to the either-or of the thing. Call it the skeletal part if you like. And if in dealing with the skeleton it sometime seems like we're pathologists with dead thing, as opposed to doctors curing a live thing, well, that just goes with the territory. So should and ought, and where feasible desirable and admirable and a matter of deontological duty, but nowhere must. Is what I think.

You are basically saying that not helping the truck accident victim is a valid, although morally weaker choice. — Seth72

Yes. And giving money to those who need it more than you is good, but it's totally okay if you don't.

It seems that helping others is a consistently more "moral" than helping yourself. I don't understand why that is. — Seth72

I don't think that helping others is always better than helping yourself, but (leaving aside the question of means and whether they are obligatory/permissible/omissible/impermissible) helping someone worse off than yourself usually produces a better end than helping yourself, because of marginal utility: something is worth more to someone the less of it they already have, and worth less to someone the more of it they already have.

A millionaire losing a dollar won't even notice the harm he incurs, while a homeless beggar might be able to get a snack and stave off his hunger for a little while longer with that. Conversely, it does not produce good ends for the beggar to give a dollar to the millionaire: while that might demonstrate some positive character trait of the beggar like selflessness, it hurts him far more than it helps the millionaire (who couldn't care less about a single new dollar), and so in the end produces net worse ends.

I have to mention again how surprised I am that I do not vehemently disagree with any of your points. For me, they all seem to have something in common, they respect an individual's choice, even if that choice can seem by many to be immoral. That's something I can get behind.

I was under the impression that there was a general consensus in which an individual's opinion is not as valid as the opinion of the many. And while I understand the need for cooperation and sharing, I still believe a person is nought without the ability to choose for themselves. And choice is meaningless if one is to be completely morally bound to certain choices. The possibility of the opposite path has to exist.

I don't want to get into the argument of the existence of a "general morality" because that's a whole other can of worms, but I want to mention how Pfhorrest argues toward charity by using logical arguments instead of simply "because it's the right thing to do". And I appreciate that.

All and all, thank you for all the comments. If anything it's good to see that my view of morality, although particularly extreme at times, does not necessarily clash with everyone else's. It may be a matter of finding people who will listen.

I have a surplus of money. But I live in a culture that generally did not go out of their way to help me in my times of need. So with that in mind, I save my money for the next time I get in some kind of trouble that I would be in a position to dig myself out of whatever hole I find myself in. I don't help others because in my greatest times of need no one was there to help me. If we lived in a more altruistic society I think I would help others more, but we don't.

I disagree with some of the responses here, inaction can be morally wrong but the key issue is responsibility. As a bystander of an accident, you are likely one of the few people who can render potentially critical assistance. For some, this could mean that you have a responsibility to help. In other situations, perhaps it's because someone is a relative or a friend, so you should help. A responsibility to help a stranger who you've never met or would meet unless you tried to find them to give them help, almost nobody argues for that.

Actually, they do and it's called politics but that's politics so it doesn't count.