Us and Them

Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
820
Sorry its not about Pink Floyd...

People in far distant countries are suffering, yada yada we hear it all the time. The question is, morally, should we care about them, not individually giving charity and such but as a society that can as a whole 'assist' them in ways such as humanitarianism, education, health, charity, food, stopping their own genocides, barbaric practices such as genital mutilation, or would doing so just be noble and not the right thing to do?

Do we, and why or why not, have any sort of obligation to our fellow man in other distant places?
 
We have no obligation to help anyone, whether in far distant lands, our own lands or our own street.

Nevertheless, the 'golden rule' of morality (as discussed in another thread on here recently) would encourage you to support all of those in want that you can reasonably aid.

I would argue that our moral obligation is greater to those who cannot assist themselves - the young, the elderly and the ill - than to those who can look after themselves to some degree.

However, I do not see any moral - as opposed to practical - driver for prefering to aid your fellow citizens over foreign nationals, or neighbours over those far distant from yourself. Surely morality recognises no artificial boundaries....

BFR
 
Well, humans do have a moral responsibility to help others, but some countries are so deep in the rut, that anything we give the needy there will come right back to their warlords. Some nations need revolution before they can be helped at all.
 
It is noble to go out of the way to help others. It is also noble to mind your own business.
 
You can't care for people that want to kill each other.

Oh yeah, Galatians 4:7-13 care to explain why?

Humanitarianism is the mark of an evolved mind, selfishness the mark of tribalism and our primitive instincts, so yes, it's best to follow the golden rule, give to charity, help out, whatever, or you can just make excuses and hide behind them?
 
Oh yeah, Galatians 4:7 care to explain why?
Mmmm, I love Galatians :drool:
extreme-jello.jpg


Humanitarianism is the mark of an evolved mind, selfishness the mark of tribalism and our primitive instincts, so yes, it's best to follow the golden rule, give to charity, help out, whatever, or you can just make excuses and hide behind them?
I'm all for helping other nations, but you can't help those unwilling to work at solving thier own internal mess.
 
Mmmm, I love Galatians :drool:
http://www.bravozulu.bm/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/extreme-jello.jpg[/img]

I'm all for helping other nations, but you can't help those unwilling to work at solving thier own internal mess.

Well you can give to charities that work to help there internal issues such as UNICEF, Christian Aid, The Red cross etc. I'm with you on Galatians though mmmmm, now that's tasty.
 
Well you can give to charities that work to help there internal issues such as UNICEF, Christian Aid, The Red cross.
Oh yeah, there are plenty of things you can do, but you need to understand that it ain't gonna fix the world and some nations are gonna get left out.
 
Oh yeah, there are plenty of things you can do, but you need to understand that it ain't gonna fix the world and some nations are gonna get left out.

Well of course the worlds a funked up place, I think we're on the same page.
 
I don't think we're "obligated," but I think it's a good thing to help people. This should be done wisely, though; sending aid to African governments helps no one...
 
USA already cared about Serbia and Iraq.

Card about Iraq. SInce we got there the economies gonen worse. Also let me see 600K dead civilians.
 
Card about Iraq. SInce we got there the economies gonen worse. Also let me see 600K dead civilians.
That doesn't mean we didn't care, just that we did a poor job expressing our care.
 
Back
Top Bottom