While charity is generally regarded as a moral virtue, I think calling donating a moral obligation goes too far.
There are several gripes I would have with that:
- How much should one donate? How often? To what causes?
- What if money can't solve the problem? Am I morally obligated to fly over there and start digging wells?
- What if I am a poor person living in a rich country? Am I obligated to donate? Or are people morally obligated to donate to me?
This idea of donating as a moral obligation raises way too much questions and makes little sense to me. — Tzeentch
That you can't pinpoint the precise amount you might be required to love your neighbor as yourself doesn't mean you are fine to avoid it. — Hanover
A common idea running throughout this thread is that charity doesn't work, so why give it at all if all you're doing is temporarily postponing the inevitable. I'd just say that because we can't cure the problem is not a reason not to reduce the problem. If we can reduce a person's suffering on Monday only for him to die on Tuesday, I'd think we would be obligated to do that, especially considering how precious and sacred that Monday was, it being his last day. — Hanover
If one cannot pinpoint it (or at least give an exhaustive explanation), they have no business calling it a moral obligation. That was my point. — Tzeentch
If not, how come you are here writing posts on a philosophy forum rather than fulfilling your moral obligation of helping people who are suffering? There's no shortage of the latter. — Tzeentch
Under most ethical theories (Kantianism, Utlitarianism, virtue ethics, most religious based ethical systems), providing some form of charity to others is obligatory. — Hanover
Elon Musk, at least thought about it. Then again, he had billions in change.
Elon Musk gave a mysterious $5.7 billion donation weeks after he dared the UN to show him its plan for solving world hunger
BYAMIAH TAYLOR
February 15, 2022 at 10:06 PM GMT+5
That is, I have a moral obligation to care for the children I bring into this world, but because that obligation lacks a specific checklist doesn't allow me to walk away without effort. — Hanover
We even get something, I think, out of looking at the bad things in the world and watching ourselves being concerned about it. It can be a kind of little performance we do for ourselves, so that we might consider ourselves good people, worthy of love ourselves. I remember Victor Frankl talking about this, how we cry for others and then cry a little extra for ourselves, while patting ourselves on the back for being such compassionate people. We probably also unconsciously perform our caring for others, so that they might see us as good people.
It's also a little hard to take it all in, to really appreciate what's going on around the world. It's hard to carry the weight of the world's suffering on your shoulders. Naturally, much of the time, we just want to shut it all out and pretend that this cute puppy in front of us is all there is. — petrichor
agree with that, but the key word here is responsibility. One is responsible for bringing a child into this world, therefore moral obligations may follow from that, and I do believe we could come up with a pretty exhaustive checklist of what that obligation (parenthood) entails. — Tzeentch
Your objection was that there was no obligation to help others because I couldn't quantify the extent of that obligation. — Hanover
You now claim there will be no difficulty in quantifying one's obligations to one's own children because, well, that's just easily done. — Hanover
My response is that it is no harder or easier to quantify one's obligations to one's own children as it is to others. — Hanover
Since you've now said I do have an obligation to my own children, I suppose I'm immoral because right this second, I'm doing nothing for them. — Hanover
I simply come up with what I think is reasonable for the respective children. — Hanover
You may wish to say that the person who passes by the drowning child without simply bending down to lift him up is ethically neutral, but I don't. I think that person sucks as a human being and is unethical. I recall a case where a man heard a child being raped in the bathroom stall next to him and insisted he was under no duty to do anything at all. Maybe you would see a horrible wreck on an otherwise deserted road and feel no obligation to make an emergency call and then drive home and snuggle up in your bed without any worry about your ethical decision. If that is you, and I really doubt it is, then you are an unethical person. — Hanover
The best I can discern from what you've written is that you want to limit communal concern to the greatest extent possible and insist that each family unit is entirely responsible for their existence without any expectation from anyone not within their direct blood line. It has this hyper-tribal Randian feel to it, but it's too unworkable to be taken seriously. — Hanover
Arguing about charitable giving loses sight of the fact that by definition it is voluntary, that is free of moral obligation. If it was obligatory it wouldn't be a charity, it would be a tax. — LuckyR
I simply asked you to quantify the obligation, which you couldn't. Your defense was, 'just because I cannot quantify it, doesn't mean it's not a moral obligation'. Well, if you cannot quantify what you consider to be moral obligations, then I cannot take them seriously. — Tzeentch
I never said it was easily done, but in the case of parenthood I think it's quite realistic. — Tzeentch
I wouldn't suppose that. It's quite possible for one to do their moral duties in regards to their children without being occupied 100% of the time. — Tzeentch
All you're doing is pointing at a specific instance of refusing to get involved and calling it unethical, when in fact one is doing the exact same thing in less obvious ways. — Tzeentch
Lastly, I'd like to mention a comment made earlier, which I believe gets at a crucial difference between charity and moral obligation:
Arguing about charitable giving loses sight of the fact that by definition it is voluntary, that is free of moral obligation. If it was obligatory it wouldn't be a charity, it would be a tax.
— LuckyR
When I undertake an act of charity, I do so out of a desire to do good. Not out of fear of being unethical. — Tzeentch
What is it about parental duty that makes it subject to a differing sort of analysis than neighborly duty? — Hanover
And the same towards one's duties towards other children. — Hanover
My question is whether you have a moral duty to do anything at all when you hear a child being raped in the bathroom stall next to you. Yes or no? — Hanover
This does not draw a distinction between charity and moral obligation. This draws a distinction between voluntary and coerced.
If I perform an ethical act, like telling the truth, that act is ethical if it is "voluntary," but the opposite of voluntary is "coerced." The opposite of coerced is discretionary. So, if I tell the truth with a gun to my head and under such duress that it can be said that I have been relinquished of my free will, so much so that the act is no longer something you will judge me moral or not, then I cannot be said to be moral when I told the truth. The opposite holds true as well, meaning if I lie under the same sort of duress, I would be morally excused from that conduct because it was not the result of my free will.
That I am "obligated" to do something does not mean I have been coerced into doing it. I am obligated to stop at stop signs, but maybe sometimes I don't. When I don't, it has nothing to do with my being coerced to run the stop sign. It might just be that sometimes I choose to be disobedient. The point being, I have the discretion to run the stop sign or not, but I am obligated to stop there, but when I do stop, it is not the result from a loss of free will coercing me to do as I must.
As it pertains to morality, I am morally obligated to tell the truth. That is what I must do to be a moral person. It is no coincidence that the ten commandments are commandments, meaning they are obligatory. They are not general guidelines to think about. Kant refers to his standard as the catagorical imparitive. That is, it is what must be done. This is not to say you lack the ability and discretion to do otherwise. In fact, the ability to do otherwise is what makes matters subject to ethical evaluation. If I had no ability but to tell the truth, then I would not be ethical when I told the truth. I'd just be a machine. — Hanover
It might be a moral good, but it is not a moral obligation. — Tzeentch
One carries responsibility for their child. Not for their neighbor, at least not by default. — Tzeentch
Other children are not one's responsibility, unless one has voluntarily taken up responsibility to care for them. — Tzeentch
No. It might be a moral good, but it is not a moral obligation. I have already given my objections for why I believe that is. — Tzeentch
You are currently aware that many people are suffering in the world, yet you choose inaction towards the vast majority of them. Now you point at a specific instance of suffering and claim that inaction is impermissible. I don't see the basis for it. It seems hypocritical. — Tzeentch
Obligation clearly implies coercion - the threat is that of not being an ethical person, which to a lot of people matters a great deal. — Tzeentch
What is your basis for this rule you just made up? — Hanover
No you didn't. You just stated people don't have duties outside their own children, which is just a restatement of your thesis, not a basis for your position. — Hanover
That I can't do everything doesn't mean I am free to do nothing. — Hanover
The ethic you're advancing, which is that we must do everything we can to eliminate all suffering to the greatest extent humanely possible, is not an ethic I subscribe to, nor one that anyone I know does. That is to say, you're presenting a strawman. — Hanover
If I am coerced to tell the truth, I am not ethical, even though it was my obligation. — Hanover
The difference between moral obligation and legal obligation is precisely that the former is not coerced and the latter is. — Vera Mont
Moral obligation is part of the unwritten social contract, ... — Vera Mont
As to whether that obligation extends to people other than one's own family, community or nation, that is a matter of individual world-view. — Vera Mont
People are responsible for their actions, so they are responsible for their children, so they have moral obligations towards their children. — Tzeentch
I believe people have a right not to get involved, because without such a right a system of morality simply cannot make sense. — Tzeentch
You believe it is unacceptable to let a drowning man drown. Why do you believe it is acceptable to let people in the third world starve? — Tzeentch
In that case 'moral obligation' would be little more than a fancy term for social custom, to make it sound more authoritative. — Tzeentch
People who claim they have moral obligations and subsequently are not making every effort to fulfill them are just fooling themselves, in my opinion. — Tzeentch
You have no moral obligation to me to tell the truth? — Hanover
If you see no difference between me sitting on a chair eating popcorn while watching a child slowly die from a fall off a swing and me not flying to Ethiopia to make a meal for a starving child in terms of ethical analysis, then I can't help you. — Hanover
I also don't think anyone within your community will find your response to watching the baby slowly die very persusive when you tell them they are just as bad as you are because they haven't solved the world hunger problem. The reason they will think you are an unethical person is because you would be, [...] — Hanover
Unless the moral obligation is does not include the requirement we must "make every effort to fulfill them." — Hanover
The rule that I must give to charity can be qualified howerver we determine that moral rule to be, which might be 10%, it might be a certain percentage of discretionary income, it might be limited to helping others after other duties (including those to one's self) are fulfilled. — Hanover
Your approach to append an impossible standard on the rule is what makes it impossible, ... — Hanover
Your system does provide you a convenient way to absolve yourself of all societal responsiblity and to live as selfishly as possible, so it does have that advantage, ... — Hanover
Since you don't think you have a duty to interfere in a child rapist's activities in the bathroom stall next to you, does anyone other than that child's parents have that right? I mean, why should society provide police and prosecutors to interfere in such conduct and impose upon themselves the rights and duties associated with that? — Hanover
The threat is clearly there - the threat of being judged an immoral person. — Tzeentch
In that case 'moral obligation' would be little more than a fancy term for social custom, to make it sound more authoritative. — Tzeentch
One may believe they have all sorts of moral obligations to their nation, or even the entire world. But this is nonsensical, because such obligations one cannot fulfill. — Tzeentch
I view it as empty virtue-signaling. — Tzeentch
Given the limited access people have to 'the truth', what would such a moral obligation even look like? Does answering "I don't know" to every question fulfill the obligation? It would be truthful. — Tzeentch
keep in mind that 'telling the truth' is an action one undertakes, and as I said one bears responsibility for their own actions. — Tzeentch
Maintain a bit of class. Assuming the other side is morally bankrupt is intellectual poverty. — Tzeentch
Why society should provide police forces and prosecutors? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't really care either way — Tzeentch
You now don't know what a lie is. Super. I can't be sure there are other minds than mine either. This isn't a profound observation. It's just nonsense. — Hanover
Your sentence could end with the words "to others," meaning how you treat others matters for ethical analysis, including whether you watch them suffer while you stand idly by. — Hanover
You said there is no ethical problem with watching a child get raped while eating a bowl of popcorn. If you do that from time to time, you would only be ethically bankrupt if that was unethical, but you've told me it's not. — Hanover
It has to do with providing public safety. — Hanover
The truth is I don't think you think that, which means I don't take your position seriously. It's nonsense. — Hanover
I also don't believe you don't care if your community has law enforcement. — Hanover
Your arguments aren't persuasive, believable, or even intriguing. — Hanover
Customs arise from what works in a society. — Vera Mont
Obligation can never extend beyond ability. — Vera Mont
Expressing any opinion about right and good is automatically bad and dishonest. — Vera Mont
What a complete stinker Plato must have been! — Vera Mont
As to whether that obligation extends to people other than one's own family, community or nation, that is a matter of individual world-view. One may feel an interdependence with all of humankind, or life, or the planet - or one may feel that he is not even his own brother's keeper. If that sense of obligation is absent from one's personal morality, it cannot be imposed or instilled by suasion or compulsion. — Vera Mont
is it an inner feeling that you have, based on your
social programming, or your internal impulses? — FreeEmotion
As to whether that obligation extends to people other than one's own family, community or nation, that is a matter of individual world-view. — Vera Mont
This is a subjective ethic though, meaning that you're willing to concede it's ethical to ignore others if that happens to be your own personal viewpoint. — Hanover
Those are exactly the situations in which the state and the community intervene, because collectively, we have decided such an attitude is unacceptable.If that is the case, I see no reason not to attach that subjectivism to everything, meaning if I personally don't believe caring for my own children is necessary, I don't mind murdering, and I think lying is perfectly fine, then so it is. — Hanover
My position is that if you are ethically obligated to help others regardless of your worldview. — Hanover
What I'm willing to concede is irrelevant. My whole point was that none of us have the authority or power to impose our moral outlook on people who don't share it. — Vera Mont
And we are free to disobey our governments and our churches and endure whatever consequences result from that. Sometimes we even have to endure penalties from our governments when we've been ethical because our governments are unethical.Governments and churches can levy taxes and tithes on their membership, and pass laws for minimum civil behaviour. Beyond that, we are pretty much free to decide our degree of participation in the human race. — Vera Mont
Intervention might or might not have anything to do with morality. It might just be a rule of covention, like we drive on the right side of the road and not the left. None of this has anything to do with what is demanded us of in order to be ethical people, and none of this is what provides the basis for legitimate governmental authority.Those are exactly the situations in which the state and the community intervene, because collectively, we have decided such an attitude is unacceptable. — Vera Mont
And you are entitled to that opinion, as am I, since I happen to share it. Sure, the world would be better if we all cared for one another. The fact remains that neither of us is in a position to impose it on others. — Vera Mont
I'm not sure where we're disagreeing if you're acknowledging that we should help others in need, with "should" designating that which is ethically demanded of us. — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.