ANSWERS: 8
  • Romans 15:26
    • C3Po
      religion should not determine what is moral.. and in terms of the rich giving to the poor.. religion has nothing to do with morality and the compassion of humans.
  • 2-5-2017 When two or more people live in the same area they have to adopt some rules about who does what to whom. Any such rule is called a more, pronounced "mor-ay". The adjective form is moral, and the habit of following mores is morality. Mores do not have to be right, only accepted. Another group on the other side of the river might have very different mores. People who speak of "moral obligation" have never traveled -- they think their local customs are universal laws. In fact, they are arbitrary and voluntary. What you are talking about is taxation, which is not voluntary, and misappropriation of public funds, since a government has no particular reason to be concerned about individual solvency except in bankruptcy. It is good for people to give when they can, but coercion is not giving.
  • I think we do. Which does not mean the government taking it from us.
  • ever year of "Noblesse Oblige" (a french term stating that those of royalty or those of suficient wealth and power have a moral and duty bound obligation to help those less fortunate..) its rare that this ever happens anyway.
  • Absolutely. Theres no question about it. There are a certain number of resources in the world and just because theyve fallen into your lap because youre good and managing them doesnt mean that you can allow people to starve die or suffer just so you can keep them. Its called greed. The rich should use what they need, enjoy a litttle, and pass the rest on. It belongs to society and the poor jot to them, so to keeo it is a moral crim. It is greed.
  • Yes but a personal moral obligation. Not a moral obligation that would justify laws or others to desparage wealthy individuals that do not help the poor. Individual wealthy people cannot help all the poor people in the world. I hate it when wealthy people who help the poor are criticized for not helping the "right" poor people or that they should have helped in some different way. That criticism frequently seems to comes from people who help nobody,
  • Moral obligation? No. There is no obligation to help the poor. Depending on the society in question, it would be considered to be a component of being a good person. Without society's beliefs, helping the poor would be part of not being an asshole... at least that's what I believe.
  • Sure, but most of those people are like, "they aren't my problem". And you can't very well make them help.

Copyright 2016, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy