Either from a religious or humanistic standpoint, do we have an obligation to prevent genocide, or inhumane acts against our fellow humans?
If your answer is yes, then what "standard" do we use based on the differing cultural attitudes as what constitutes inhumane?
To what degree are we obligated to assist?
2006-06-26 06:28:47 · 6 answers · asked by Mathew 7:1 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
We have an obligation to help everyone that we encounter that needs our help. As a nation we have an obligation to stop genocide and bring justice to those who do it.
Is there a culture that thinks rape and killing is humane? I know of cultures that thinks its OK to burp at the table to let the host know it was a good meal, but I pretty sure that it is a universal standard that rape and killing is less than ideal.
Ah now that's the thing putting your money where your mouth is. How can we go to Darfur and stop the janjaweed when we are protection our Oil interests in Iraq. At least we can take comfort in the fact that no country not even Sudan's neighbors are being Good Samaritan's. If we go to Dafur, how about Haiti? If we fix Haiti's wagon how about Detroit? I think the reason we do nothing is because it is over whelming and nobody can agree on priorities.
2006-06-26 06:44:28 · answer #1 · answered by mattwbell 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
obligation in the legal sense mean if we do not act to intervene, we are guilty of aiding and abetting these crimes. yet, who are we to interven when the world powers are not doing anything to stop it.
you say referendum? the power of the people to vote? yeah well ,UK did those polls about not going to war but they still went ahead anyway
assuming that we got over the 1st problem, the standard should be based on the best form of protection for human beings..... even in the nastiest of countries, only the best form of protection should be applicable.... because if we settle for anything less, the "obligation" will never come about...
we have given power to all the international organizations, its time they stood up for what they represented..... equal representation in not actual equality....
there will always be a Hitler, pol pot, slobodan Milosevic somewhere. and if an "obligation" or a "duty" is imposed upon us, i don't think mankind would survive very long
regards
2006-06-26 13:41:16 · answer #2 · answered by Rainbow nation 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there is a standard of right and wrong outside ourselves, then we may very well have an obligation to do right and avoid doing wrong. But if we are all there is, then it is impossible for us to determine what right and wrong are, or even if they exist.
Even if everybody voted 100% in favor of a certain law, or plan or proposal, they could still be mistaken. There is simply no guarantee that human beings can generate right and wrong. If they exist independently of human beings, fine. But if not, then we have no obligation at all. If there is no God, there is no right or wrong, except what we imagine after staring at things too long.
Either way, "It is not God who kills the children. It is not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us."
It's our fault. Not God's fault.
Only, if there is no God, there is no such thing as 'wrong', and as the Marquis de Sade said, "Whatever is, is right." So, if there is no God, save them or kill them as you please, it isn't wrong. And the same applies if someone kills me, or you.
2006-06-26 13:48:40 · answer #3 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes!! There is only one standard, Human Decency. In every degree possible. I am "my brothers keeper."
2006-06-26 13:31:34 · answer #4 · answered by digilook 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. it is inhumane to cause pain for any reason other then punishment that they deserve
2006-06-26 13:37:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have the second fattest head I've ever seen.
Adder_Astros
Powerful Member of the House of Light
[]xxxxx[];;;;;;;;;;;;;;>.
http://www.adderastros.com
2006-06-26 13:31:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋