A very predictable one. — Vera Mont

Well, don't be too hard on yourself.

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

Under most ethical theories (Kantianism, Utlitarianism, virtue ethics, most religious based ethical systems), providing some form of charity to others is obligatory. The fact that there is a broad area of choice doesn't diminish that obligation, and it need not be limited to giving money. That you acknowledge charity is ethical (although you think it super-ethical or heroic beyond the call of duty) is an indication that you understand what charity means. 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.

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.

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

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.

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

I would fundamentally disagree with calling that an obligation.

A person has a right to remain uninvolved.

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.

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

A standard of reasonableness is a standard even if it isn't quantifiable. 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. I must engage in reasonable efforts to fulfill that obligation.

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

Again, that I can't quantify it doesn't mean I am free not to give to charity. Under Biblical law, there is the law of tithing, which is taken as an obligation that 1/10 of your income goes to charity. Since neither of us subscribe to a divine command theory that provides a diety as the basis for the percentage of charity we must give, we consider 1/10 arbitrary. If you're not going to rely upon God, you must rely upon man, speficially the reasonable man, the hypothetical being that does things in a tempered and thougtful way, for which he can give reasons for his behavior.

Those reasons to give to charity and the amounts considered reasonable can be based upon various logical structures, for example, those provided by the Utillitarians or those provided by the Kantians.

The point though is that we can all agree that moral behavior requires things like kindness, respect, and consideration to others. That my kindness, respect, and consideration of others might look differently than yours doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that I'm free not to be that way.

The person who does less good is worse than the person who does more good, with good and bad being understood in the moral sense. There is some level where we think the person good even if he doesn't give his every ounce of energy to others because he did give a reasonable enough amount of himself to be recognized as good.

On the other hand, should you see a child bobbing up and down in a pool crying out for help, but you don't want to get any water on your new pants, so you let him die, you are a bad person. You had a moral and you breached that moral duty.

Under most ethical theories (Kantianism, Utlitarianism, virtue ethics, most religious based ethical systems), providing some form of charity to others is obligatory. — Hanover

Yes, so what worries me is that people are not true to their own religions or their own ethics. Of course one could give in secret.

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

You seem to believe you have a moral obligation to save children. Well, there is no shortage of children in need. Why aren't you saving them right now? It seems to me you're neglecting your moral obligation/duty.

Unless you're able to detail said obligations and duties, it follows that every moment you spend doing something else, you're neglecting them. I'm open to hearing why charity should be a moral obligation. By asking for details I'm trying to coax this thread into producing something worthy of discussion.

Personally, I don't believe a moral obligation for charity exists. Pursuing charity as an obligation simply encourages behavior that I would call 'naive do-goodery' - actions with the right intention but lacking wisdom.

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

I'd 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.

To loop it back to my first point, we have limited the moral obligation of 'saving children' to 'saving one's own children' - already a lot more reasonable.

None of this is to say that it cannot be moral to save children. If one is successful, then one has obviously done a good deed. It's the obligatory part that I take issue with.

And I also believe people have a right to remain uninvolved, which ultimately means that there is no obligation to save a stranger from drowning, but why one would do that is another question.

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

Now I remember why i've been sober for almost a year straight. Such thoughts are maddening and any attempt to satiate them is a pointless endeavour. . . including ignoring them. . . or attempting to satiate them through what are actually selfish actions that appear to be 'self-less'. I survive only by turning my gaze away into a kaleidoscope of distractions.

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

You've changed your objection. Your objection was that there was no obligation to help others because I couldn't quantify the extent of that obligation. Here you say my lack of obligation to others is limited to children other than my own, based I suppose on the fact I caused my children to exist. That is, moral obligation at first hinged upon whether that obligation could be quantified, but here it hinges upon one's duty to resolve issues they have personally created.

Your original objection then sort of flutters away and then for some reason becomes easily resolvable. 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.

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. In either instance you're going to have to set out what you believe the minimal reasonable requirements are that one has to his own children versus other children, with likely greater responsibility toward one's own than others 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. Surely there is some wisdom I might be able to impart that I'm not doing, but yet I fail.

The way out of the quandary for my own children is the same way out for other people's children. I simply come up with what I think is reasonable for the respective children. That you think I have an obligation to persons A, B, and C and not X, Y, and Z is based upon some theory you've not identified, but it is, as I have said, inconsistent with most, if not all, major secular ethical systems and religiously based ones. That is, you stand within a very small group of people who beleive that ethical duty to others ends at the four walls of your house.

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.

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.

A very clear and thorough explanation!

Your objection was that there was no obligation to help others because I couldn't quantify the extent of that obligation. — Hanover

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.

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

I never said it was easily done, but in the case of parenthood I think it's quite realistic.

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

I disagree. Since one's children are born of one's own actions, one is responsible for them. Responsibility, in my view, is a critical component for moral obligations, I'd say almost obviously so.

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 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.

I highly doubt it would be possible for one to fulfill their moral duties to all children without being occupied 100% of the time. In fact, it's clearly impossible to fulfill such a supposed moral duty.

I simply come up with what I think is reasonable for the respective children. — Hanover

Yes, as does everyone. But what you think is reasonable is not a basis for a moral obligation, assuming you mean with moral obligation something along the lines of 'something everybody should always adhere to'.

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

What this seems to imply is that awareness of some perceived harm produces a moral duty to alleviate said harm. This produces once again a supposed moral duty that's impossible to fulfill.

You are aware of a lot of harm being done right now, so why aren't you doing your moral duty? Every moment that goes by, you are the person who is passing the drowning child and refusing to undertake the actions required to stop them from drowning.

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.

Perhaps a fair question one could ask the person who refuses to do good when it seems 'easy' is why one would pass up on such a great opportunity to do a good deed.

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

I guess you'll have to try harder then, because I see nothing in this paragraph that remotely connects to my views.


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.

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

You can offer specific criteria for what makes a parent a "good" parent to a child, but you can't offer specific criteria for what makes a neighbor a "good" neighbor to a child. Why is that? What is it about parental duty that makes it subject to a differing sort of analysis than neighborly duty? My answer is that there is none. Each is subject to the same sort of analysis, which is a combination of objective factors, probably none of which is absolutely essential, coupled with certain subjective evaluations. That's how we always measure quality. Quality is not reducible to quantitfication, which is precisely what you're attempting to do here. There is not a single set of criteria that assures one they are a good parent or a good neighbor, but there all sorts of variables involved, many of which are subjectively evaluated.

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

And the same towards one's duties towards other children. If a parent can satisfy his duty to his own children by spending only a small amount of time doing that, and that parent has a higher duty to his own children than to his neighbor's children, then it follows he could also satisfy his duty to his neighbor's children by only spending a small amount of time doing that.

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

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?

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

This does not draw a distinction between charity and moral obligation. This draws a distinction between voluntary/discretionary 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. That is, an obligation can be accepted or rejected by the person.

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.

What is it about parental duty that makes it subject to a differing sort of analysis than neighborly duty? — Hanover

One carries responsibility for their child. Not for their neighbor, at least not by default.

And the same towards one's duties towards other children. — Hanover

Other children are not one's responsibility, unless one has voluntarily taken up responsibility to care for them.

In other words, voluntarily taking up responsibilities might incur moral obligations.

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

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.

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.

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

Obligation clearly implies coercion - the threat is that of not being an ethical person, which to a lot of people matters a great deal.

It might be a moral good, but it is not a moral obligation. — Tzeentch

Morality is not coerced, unless specific aspects of it are enacted as law. E.g. driving a car on public roads, only if competent to do so; keeping one's house and environs free of potential hazards to passers-by; telling the truth to the best of one's knowledge when testifying in court; refraining from sexual congress with a minor. These are social obligations written into the legal code and enforceable under threat of punishment.
The difference between moral obligation and legal obligation is precisely that the former is not coerced and the latter is. Hence, mandatory payment of taxes by all citizens, so that government can aid and protect all citizens. Any giving beyond that is voluntary; how much one is able and moved to contribute is left to the individual.
Moral obligation is part of the unwritten social contract, according to which the citizen has a stake and a can reasonably expect to be rescued by his neighbours, with the corresponding obligation to rescue them. Such civic duty is usually performed voluntarily by good citizens, but can also be enforced by law, if public opinions leans heavily enough in that direction. In common law, there is a "duty to rescue" , which is not generally written into law - coerced - in the United States, except in particular circumstances, but it is in other countries.

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.

One carries responsibility for their child. Not for their neighbor, at least not by default. — Tzeentch

What is your basis for this rule you just made up?

If you'd like a Utilitarian, Kantian, Biblical, or virtue ethics basis for why I find your rule wrong, I can provide it if you're interested in a philosophical debate.

Other children are not one's responsibility, unless one has voluntarily taken up responsibility to care for them. — Tzeentch

Again, you're just making up rules.

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

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.

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

That I can't do everything doesn't mean I am free to do nothing. Again, we all have limitations and all sorts of competing interests, meaning we have to divide our attention among the millions of things that comprise our lives and we can provide reasonable limitations upon what we do.

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.

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

No it doesn't. Obligation and coercion are different concepts even if you don't want to recognize the distinction I drew. I am obligated to tell the truth, but nothing forces me to, so I can lie, oftentimes with impunity. If I am coerced to tell the truth, I am not ethical, even though it was my obligation.

What is your basis for this rule you just made up? — Hanover

People are responsible for their actions, so they are responsible for their children, so they have moral obligations towards their children.

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

I believe people have a right not to get involved, because without such a right a system of morality simply cannot make sense.

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

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?

This cherry-picking is inherent to your view. You find inaction in one instance abhorrent, and don't bat an eye at the second. It's inconsistent, and your indignation hypocritical.

My view accounts for this, by allowing one to freely choose what acts of charity one does and doesn't get involved in.

Charity is a free and selfless act. A moral obligation is not.

If I am coerced to tell the truth, I am not ethical, even though it was my obligation. — Hanover

I'm assuming you meant 'unethical'?

The difference between moral obligation and legal obligation is precisely that the former is not coerced and the latter is. — Vera Mont

I disagree.

As I said to Hanover, there is something at stake when we speak of moral obligations: one's moral integrity. To many people that matters a great deal, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The threat is clearly there - the threat of being judged an immoral person.

In case one's moral system is derived from religion, the threat is even more overt - the threat of divine punishment.

Moral obligation is part of the unwritten social contract, ... — Vera Mont

In that case 'moral obligation' would be little more than a fancy term for social custom, to make it sound more authoritative.

Personally, I think social customs tell us very little about morality.

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

Well, no.

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.

People who claim they have moral obligations and subsequently are not making every effort to fulfill them are just fooling themselves, in my opinion.

Maybe it makes them feel good about themselves to claim they have such lofty ambitions towards the Good, but I view it as empty virtue-signaling. Even worse when they use such so-called "obligations" to judge others.

People are responsible for their actions, so they are responsible for their children, so they have moral obligations towards their children. — Tzeentch

You have no moral obligation to me to tell the truth? You didn't create me.

The vast majority of ethical conduct occurs outside family members and it relates to social obligations because you are a social creature living in a social community.

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 have a right to do whatever you want, but the fact you have the right doesn't mean your decision will be moral. I have the right to decide whether to lie or tell the truth to you, but my moral obligation is to tell the truth, and the consequence of my lie is that I will be unethical if I do.

Of course, our use of the term "right" here is not at all the way "right" is typically used when referencing civil rights and things like that.

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

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.

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, regardless of how blue in the face you argue that they are confused about what makes a person moral and immoral.

In that case 'moral obligation' would be little more than a fancy term for social custom, to make it sound more authoritative. — Tzeentch

A custom and contract are different.

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

Unless the moral obligation is does not include the requirement we must "make every effort to fulfill them." No one has ever said that other than you (over and over in fact). 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.

Your approach to append an impossible standard on the rule is what makes it impossible, but that's only because that's how you've decided to do it. 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, although your society might fall short of maximizing happiness.

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?

You have no moral obligation to me to tell the truth? — Hanover

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.

But keep in mind that 'telling the truth' is an action one undertakes, and as I said one bears responsibility for their own actions.

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

There's a difference. It's just not a relevant one.

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

I don't see how people's opinions are all that relevant to a discussion about morality. People used to believe witch hunts were moral.

I'm also not sure why you are so keen on making this personal. The question isn't about what I would do, but about how I would judge someone who chooses not to get involved.

Unless the moral obligation is does not include the requirement we must "make every effort to fulfill them." — Hanover

Sure. That's the point of a moral obligation. Shouldn't I make every effort to fulfill your supposed moral obligation of having to save the drowning man?

Or do I get to choose how much effort I put in, and am I free to choose no effort at all?

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

"Morality is whatever we want it to be." - I'm not convinced.

Your approach to append an impossible standard on the rule is what makes it impossible, ... — Hanover

The impossible standard is inherent to the moral obligation(s) you're proposing. That's what I am objecting to.

Your proposed solution is cherry-picking. Not very convincing either.

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

Why would that be an advantage?

It's rather typical that you've been trying to frame me as being selfish when nothing we've discussed has anything to do with how I conduct myself.

Maintain a bit of class. Assuming the other side is morally bankrupt is intellectual poverty.

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

Individuals who join the police force accept the responsibility that comes with that. So I'd say they can no longer choose not to get involved.

Why society should provide police forces and prosecutors? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't really care either way.

The threat is clearly there - the threat of being judged an immoral person. — Tzeentch

That 'threat' is ever present. Unless you are a hermit in a remote cave, people will judge whatever actions you take or fail to take or refuse to take.

In that case 'moral obligation' would be little more than a fancy term for social custom, to make it sound more authoritative. — Tzeentch

It's not a question of authority but of interdependence. Customs arise from what works in a society.

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

What one believes is the deciding factor in what one does. One certainly can fulfill a sense of obligation by giving what they can, doing what they can. Obligation can never extend beyond ability.

I view it as empty virtue-signaling. — Tzeentch

So you do. That odious phrase is a dead giveaway. Expressing any opinion about right and good is automatically bad and dishonest. Only callous people are truly virtuous; compassionate ones are just pretending. What a complete stinker Plato must have been!

People are responsible for their actions — Tzeentch

Responsible to whom?

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

This comment makes me regret ever having begun this conversation with you. 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.

keep in mind that 'telling the truth' is an action one undertakes, and as I said one bears responsibility for their own actions. — Tzeentch

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.

Maintain a bit of class. Assuming the other side is morally bankrupt is intellectual poverty. — Tzeentch

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.

The truth is I don't think you think that, which means I don't take your position seriously. It's nonsense.

Why society should provide police forces and prosecutors? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't really care either way — Tzeentch

It's not a guess. It has to do with providing public safety. I also don't believe you don't care if your community has law enforcement.

Your arguments aren't persuasive, believable, or even intriguing.

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

If you're going to argue a moral obligation exists to tell the truth, you had better be able to delineate exactly what truth is. And obviously you can't - no one can.

That's not nonsense. That's a massive hole in your argument which you're trying to disguise by posturing and indignation. Seen it all before.

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

This is an inaccurate representation of cause and effect.

When a man drowns, it is not the uninvolved person who remains uninvolved that made him drown.

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

Yet here you are, doing the equivalent of eating popcorn while people are starving.

You've yet to give me any reasoning for why that would be ok, other than alluding to there being some fundamental difference which you have yet to present.

Also, what is with the preoccupation with children being harmed? Having to resort to extremes doesn't speak in favor of your argument, and it's unsavory.

Like I said, maintain some class. It's possible for people to disagree and remain civil.

It has to do with providing public safety. — Hanover

Oh?

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

Yet here you are.

The truth is, I think you're trying to find excuses not to deal with the problems in your reasoning as I have pointed them out, and you are now clutching at straws.

Customs arise from what works in a society. — Vera Mont

Sure. I don't see how that is remotely connected to questions about morality, though.

People have silly ideas about what makes their society 'work' all the time.

Obligation can never extend beyond ability. — Vera Mont

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but I think people take up responsibilities that they cannot fulfill all the time. Taking up responsibilities (and thus moral obligations) that exceed one's ability is just a terribly unwise thing to do.

Imagine I were to find a job as a lifeguard, but I myself am unable to swim. Obviously I have taken upon myself a moral obligation to save people from drowning, yet fulfilling it is something I can never do.

Expressing any opinion about right and good is automatically bad and dishonest. — Vera Mont

Well no, that's obviously not what I meant.

My problem is when people put forward standards for moral behavior with which they judge others, while simultaneously refusing to walk the talk themselves. That's hypocritical, and usually little more than empty virtue-signaling, ergo stroking of the ego.

What a complete stinker Plato must have been! — Vera Mont

I like Plato. :blush:

I don't see how that is remotely connected to questions about morality, though. — Tzeentch

Pity!

"People are responsible for their actions"
— Tzeentch

Responsible to whom?

Depends on perspective.
Legally? To the state.
Morally? To yourself.
Ethically? To your "community" (depending on whose standard you are referring to).

It also depends on their capacity, degree of autonomy and range of available options.
According to 's ethical code, a veteran with two missing limbs and a sick wife is just as responsible for the care and protection of his children as a stock-broker with a young, healthy wife and a staff of seven domestics.
And if a boat capsizes and ten injured people fall into the water, since you can't possibly save them all, you have no moral obligation to rescue even one, but should you jump in to attempt it, calling on other bystanders for help is empty virtue-signalling.

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

I agree with that.

I think we can remove the problem of difficulty by framing the question like this:

If you could provide a meal to a hungry child by pressing a button, would it be unethical not to do so?
This is almost cost-free. Would you be morally obligated to do so? Is there a difference?

If you do so, then you have to look at your motivation: is it an inner feeling that you have, based on your
social programming, or your internal impulses?

is it an inner feeling that you have, based on your
social programming, or your internal impulses? — FreeEmotion

Any reason it can't be both? It's not so unusual, in my experience, for a society or community to reflect the personal attitude of its members.

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. 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.

My position is that if you are ethically obligated to help others regardless of your worldview.

How this is sorted out will require you adopt some sort of ethical theory. If you're faced with the question of watching a child drown in the pool or bending down to lift him out, some responses might be:

Which response would result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people? (Utilitarianism).
Which response should I choose if I were to will it to be a universal law? (Kantianism)
Which response would be most promoting of personal virtue (like courage, kindness, and charity) (Virtue ethics).
Which response would I choose to be most consistent with traditional religious teachings (love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc. (Divine Command theory).

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

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.
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.

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

Those are exactly the situations in which the state and the community intervene, because collectively, we have decided such an attitude is unacceptable.

My position is that if you are ethically obligated to help others regardless of your worldview. — Hanover

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.

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

I didn't make any reference to imposing anything on anyone. I indicated what would and would not be ethical. If you lie, you are unethical. That doesn't mean I have the power to stop you from lying.

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

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.

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

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.

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. I've not suggested that a person who watches a child drown ought be arrested. I just think he sucks. Any by "sucks," I mean he's unethical.

At some point this conversation turned from "what is ethical" to "when is authority properly exercised"? I'm just talking about who are good people and who are bad people. Bad people listen idly by while children are raped in adjacent bathroom stalls.

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

I'm not disagreeing. I simply stated some facts around the issue. Yes, it's wrong for them to do the wrong thing or not do the right thing. I do judge them, just as others of their fellow humans judge them. And there is nothing we can do about their seeing it otherwise.