Do you think that we are morally obligated to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves, or do we only owe our allegiance to our immediate communities (i.e. family, town). To put in more bluntly, should we consider ourselves a global nation whose fates are inextricably linked or are we all just strangers who only need to be concerned with individual affairs? any constructive comments would be terrrific!
2007-02-10 08:54:27 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Very nice Q....To make a long story short, It is obvious to me that this life is not just about me or anybody in particular, but about the whole.
A very obvious example of that is this very same thing that we're doing here Q & A.
Well, you can always live in an island by yourself and never ask anything, not even to yourself, that way you would never have to answer anything either, in other words, you'd be like any other animal just hanging around, hunting, eating, sleeping, and hum...no sex....!0!
OR you could try this thingy that we call society and have some fun in the meantime.!0!
Understanding others is actually very simple. What is it that you want? Do you want it all and you want it now? Well, so does everyone else!0!
If you know what you want, then you'll know what they all want, and if you give it to them, then you're IT.
And that's how you become You, by giving to others. Do you want the best? Well, what's the best you've got?
2007-02-10 09:27:10 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sneaky. This is a political question rather than a philosophical one.
If you look at the logic behind Maslaw's hierarchy of needs, first you take care of your own, then you expand your reach as your capacity grows.
The problem with your question--politically speaking--is that the world is not a vacuum. And in this world, Israel is the buffer between evil and the rest of the world. (If Israel falls, the rest of the world will follow.) So we are more than morally obligated to support Israel. The survival of the free world depends on Israel's survival. If Israel falls, so do we all.
Hence, supporting democracy in the Middle East is our obligation. Not even a moral obligation, but a common sense one--if we want to continue being a democracy.
2007-02-10 09:04:08 · answer #2 · answered by maî 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, your not morally obligated to help the less, but if you have too much of a good thing, why not share it? I mean, when you actually DO SOMETHING from the kindness of your heart to a stranger, it feels good. To know that your deed stuck with this person for days, even weeks. (I.E. maybe it helped them out of a jam.) And who can honestly say that they DON'T FEEL compassion in some way when we see someone in need? Sometimes I think our society has become "Hard assed" meaning everybody is a toughguy, making it hard to trust people out of your circle. We should lighten up a bit and start trying to look out for each other.
2007-02-10 12:10:32 · answer #3 · answered by Da Mick 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Think globally, Act locally?" hmmm, i would say that any contribution on the local level, no matter how small, will impact the world globally. To think otherwise is not recognizing the fact that we're dooming our collective 'selves.' The best example, of course is global warming.
By not helping those in third world countries is spelling our ultimate doom. Consider this: in 50 years this planet will be at 10 billion souls, with zero fossil fuels, zero coal and other natural resources. The third world population will be burgeoning and the chasm between the 'haves' and 'have nots' will be nightmarish. What will happen.
It's clear that a train wreck is approaching and only some form of cataclysmic event is bound to happen. Most likely wars, plagues or pandemics, but whatever it is, we'll be forced back down to 3 billion people...a more sustainable population.
Can technology help, maybe. Can the small things you do in your community help, possibly. My bet is a train wreck because no one cares....unless its at their doorsteps...
2007-02-10 11:06:16 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a combination of both.
Our individual affairs inextricably linked to the individual affairs of others through the principle of six degrees of separation (being six contacts away from anyone in the world), causes unforseen ripple affects throughout the world.
9/11/01 is such an example.
2007-02-10 09:01:51 · answer #5 · answered by Q 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I think what goes around comes around. As a country we need to first consider ourselves but that does not mean we should ignore the problems of others. These people have just as much right to life as us and shouldn't get cheated of it just because of where they were born.
Also if you're someone who doesn't care about stuff like that, its not like we are complete strangers. Many of the countries you might consider to be " less fortunate " are our allies and trading partners.
This topic, like so many others, is just opinions, but I think the benefits of helping others greatly out way what little we would have to give up to help them, especially considering the consequences of not helping them.
2007-02-10 09:13:49 · answer #6 · answered by Kat 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm more for family first then local community. On a world level let's take our invasion of Iraq as an example. I don't think we can export democracy to a culture that cannot sustain it. Anyway, big business interests and politics seem to also diminish the good intentions of one country to another. Most families, cities, and countries should first focus within.
2007-02-10 09:32:56 · answer #7 · answered by quidproquo888 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The punishment could be desperate by using the action; even however, punishments for purely the effect of alcohol making use of around the board are too lite. someone who is usual with of the effect IE making use of below the effect of alcohol is an impairment and nevertheless drives below the effect of alcohol is an severe criminal. they'll consistently repeat the crime till they are caught. with any luck they are caught at a end and not killing or destroying something. because of the fact they are below their very own judgment of right and incorrect taking this danger they could get the optimum punishment because of the fact others with pay the cost of their crime. My purely help in punishment and it could nevertheless be a severe priced punishment is that with a usual time criminal the decide could be waiting to grant help if he believes the action is surely no longer repeated.
2016-10-01 22:30:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
heavy question. as they say think globally, act locally.
personally, i think everyone identifies with a cause. mine is environmentalism. so my aims are more global in focus. because i would like to see all nations put emissions caps. but you could act very locally and advocate for your town hall to use renewable energy.
on the other hand, if inner city poverty is your thing. it may be a supremely local focus. poverty in africa would probably be more global (depending where you live of course!)
i think if you help out in any way, you'll be benefiting all of mankind, even if it is just working in your backyard. as simply as inspiring your neighbor to get off their butt and help someone is huge in of itself.
2007-02-10 09:00:40 · answer #9 · answered by plant a tree 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Many problems facing us is international in scope. So, like it or not, we must think and act globally.
2007-02-10 10:21:19 · answer #10 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋