- Antonela TedFan
- Winston Salem, NC
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is helping others a moral obligation?
A few months ago, we were debating in our Debate and Speech club about "it is a moral obligation to help those in need". I recently read a book by Dalai Lama "The Road to Happiness" I believe, in which this "issue" came back again. Are people born selfish? Can they change? Are people altruist? Can we help others? Should we help others? In case we do, is it because of the good feeling we get, or just because we want to help them? Can this be confused with weakness?
Lejan . 30+
Debra Smith 200+
I started to get better when i took the focus off myself and started trying to help others. i stopped believing that this was the worst thing that ever happened when I deliberately tried to take my attention off vomitting 10=13 times a day and tried to fill a human need. When I realized that even with 2 clots in my brain - I Could fill a human need that there was no one else to fill, I started to improve dramatically.
I do not know how or why this worked this way but getting the focus off of myself and on to others somehow made me believe that it could be done and that what was required was some human courage and good will to others.
For me it was a moral imperative to reduce some of the suffering I saw around me. BUT even if it is not so to you, I hope my situation demonstrates that you should do it anyway to help yourself.
Anisha Rikhy
Barry Palmer 50+
After reading the other submissions, perhaps we should first debate whether the concept of moral obligation is still relevant.
Carolina Luzardi
If the degree of emotional connection is almost null (strangers or people you dislike) we would probably, most of the times, help them because it’s a moral obligation.
There could be also a case where you don’t know the person in need but you can still feel a strong emotional connection because you can identified yourself with that person or with the situation they might be going through so you feel the urge to help them and do it selflessly
Nigel Bamber
See Jeremy Rifkins talk on an empathic civilisation and Frans De Waals talk on empathy in primates.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"We are not born for the sake of ourselves, but we are born for the sake of others" ~ES
The human condition is such that from the moment GO! we are basically selfish. Basically all responses are for survival. As kids we have to learn to share, or else!! :) We have to follow rules, or else!! We have to fit in the structure of the family and further (sometimes still: or else!!.
When we learn and comply we will learn how to fit in and have the best interaction. At some point we may accept it as the way to behave and live.
The next stage is further in life where we have developed a love for doing things we have learned and accepted. When we have reached that stage, we are what we love.
Early discipline is necessary and needed so later in life this will develop into self-discipline. The early self- love will/should later change and develop into loving others.
Life time in a nutshell :)
Kevin Jacobson
Robert Winner 50+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Don Wesley 50+
I am told, by my spiritual brothers, that we are children of the Devil; with the power of choice to become Children of Truth and Kindness.
“What Kindness creates, reciprocates;
What the Devil creates, complicates.” (2012-djw)
Don.
Román Cantarero 500+
When someone has the "moral obligation" to do something it is because is pretending to act morally right despite it is not on his/her personality.
That is why helping others shouldn´t be a moral obligation. If it is in your moral code you won´t do it as an obligation but as a natural action.
The solution: Build a strong moral code in order to act naturally and not pretending.
Bharath Kumar Kunjibettu 10+
Well my opinion goes this way , as long as you can help someone you should . If you can't help them , we can't do anything about it ,it doesnt mean we are selfish. It just means ,we are not in a position to offer help. We cannot come to conclusions that people are selfish , they never change.
I have observed that I get more happiness when I help someone be it a small or a big favour because the smile on the other person's face is priceless. So help whenever you can but it is safer we make use of our intellect too when we are offering help rather than being emotional.
Don Wesley 50+
“Kindness”
Don't analyse - Accept
She loved me because I was the kindest man she ever knew.
The Look of kindness – Feel the difference
http://innjustice.blogspot.ca/2011/05/look-of-kindness-in-action.html
Don
Allan Macdougall 30+
A presumption towards materialistic payback for helping others is, in my opinion, very weak, false, and amoral. It is a way of commodifying kindness, and can therefore no longer be called altruism.
Helping others is a moral obligation, but it has to originate from the heart, rather than the head.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 30+
I would think that a good doctor, as an example, would be drawn to his/her profession at first through their heart, followed by the head.
If the heart is not in it, then helping people would be a forced form of kindness, tainted by falsehood and compromise - and too much 'ought' at the expense of 'want'.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
isn't it the other way around? if the heart motivates you, it is not your action. it is just instinct. your personality has nothing to do with it. it could just as well be a biochemical function, you can't help it. however, if it is a conscious decision, you can claim full credit for it.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
You might pursue medicine to help people, to make money, for status, to meet family expectations etc some could be simultaneous motivations.. Many of these things could come back to evolutionary drives or human nature.
Our heart actually pumps blood and doesn't seem to be involved in any behaviour or decisions.
I'm with KP on this one.
Allan Macdougall 30+
The well-known phrase 'Hearts and Minds' roughly equates to emotion and intellect. It is my assertion that the two are bound together in a process of referral and re-referral back and forth to each other in many areas, including acts of altruism. In altruism I think the emotion comes first, which then gets verified by the intellect, which then gets re-referred back to emotion - back and forth several times until the altruistic act becomes confirmed as a rationalised action of both heart and mind.
My belief is that the birthplace of altruism is more likely to be within the bounds of emotion and instinct, not the intellect - though the intellect plays a crucial part in post-rationalisation of the emotion.
I see what you guys are getting at, but I have to say that consciousness and the unconscious mind are uncertain quantities, so what we are discussing here is mostly hypothetical. This is what makes it interesting, because we are justifiably approaching the subject of altrusm from the perspective of our own thinking styles. Either could be right.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
"isn't it the other way around? if the heart motivates you, it is not your action. it is just instinct. your personality has nothing to do with it. it could just as well be a biochemical function, you can't help it. however, if it is a conscious decision, you can claim full credit for it."
pranoy sundar 20+
instincts are not motivated my heart. its the enviornment that we are in which generates instincts, mostly a biochemical reaction designed for our survival. instincts will be same for almost all humans...but it is not motivated by our heart. what motivated by heart is emotions that we feel on certain situations and that wont be same for all humans... it will depend on ones personality and point of view.
ofcourse, all emotions are generated inside our head, but that part of the brain which generates emotions are metaphorically called HEART, i think
Allan Macdougall 30+
I think the heart very commonly motivates one into action (action being the head's response to the heart) - and such action is linked strongly to instinct, depending on personality type (which might include the effects of biochemicals).
Example: A career change motivated primarily by job satisfaction in spite of a significant drop in salary, is an action initiated by the heart rather than head. If that same career change involves helping other people, then it is also moving very close to altruism because that person is disadvantaging himself materially, and on purpose, in order to satisfy a heartfelt career path. In this case, I suspect that the head is providing verification to the heart that all will be ok in the spiritual sense, despite material loss.
I concede that not all personality types either want - or are able - to do this.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 30+
Is the judgement of what is better/worse dependent on what the heart/head is involved in?
Is successful human to human contact only dependent on rationality and logic - and the infrequency of what the heart has to offer?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 30+
And then: "...feelings are easy to manipulate too."
Not sure I understand that - can you explain?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Marisa Marques
Barry Palmer 50+
When someone provides food to a starving person, does the starving person care what the motive is?
Allan Macdougall 30+
Isn't it still even more an act of altruism where there is no demonstration of gratitude from the receiver, and absolute self sacrifice of the giver?
What do you think of the notion that altruism cannot really be assessed as a single quality of helping/giving, but more as a kind of qualitative 'spectrum' of selflessness? In other words, having the ultimate in self sacrifice at one end of that spectrum (which might include death of self, in order to help another) - while at the other end there is an expectation of material and emotional reward for helping someone?
Barry Palmer 50+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Suggest helping others is part of what helps hold a society together and increases well being.
Not sure if obligation is the right word, but helping others seems to make a positive impact on the human condition.
I'm sure there are examples where too much help has adverse consequences but in general it is a good thing, but you'd need to assess each situation case by case. Some people may think they are helping by enforcing values or behaviours that may have net negative aspects.
I suggest we evolved as group animals so there are norms and behaviours that encourage healthy group dynamics but also some negative aspects. Life is more complex now and we have moved past being dominated by instinct and limited reason. Life is about a balance. It is competitive but we can have better lives with some cooperation.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
E G 10+
So is it a moral obligation ? If it is, why ask (because I repeat : "if we don't feel that way...")
edward long 100+