There is a moral responsibility to provide for the unfortunate

[Foxfyre]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

The question should go further. Is it a moral responsibility to provide for the most unfortunate by the community or by the government? I say by the community.

Yes, in the LOCAL community though. Much beyond that it becomes much less compassion /moral imperative and much more another means to manipulate and control the people.

In our former city I held a couple of positions in which we dealt with a lot of the local 'needy' and transients. And all of us agencies and religious organizations providing relief and help to the 'needy' realized there were lots of people who just worked the system and used it to support themselves and we were too often enabling people in a bad way. So we got together and joined forces to deal with the problem.

The city helped us out by providing space in a city building and providing a small amount of funding to hire and train a small staff to manage a central clearing house. (The rest of us provided the rest of that funding as well as the food, clothing, cash etc. that was distributed.)

So when the needy or the transients began making their rounds, they were transported or sent to that central clearing location where they were required to undergo a police background check, be photographed, and be screened for available work. That took care of our local 'needy', many of whom we were able to get back to work and adequately supporting themselves again.

As for the transients passing through, few were going to have any part of a background check or any other exposure to the law. So to ensure that nobody would be turned away hungry, we gave them a map to the local shelter. For our part, I printed up vouchers for 5 gallons of gas (for those who claimed to be stranded) and for a meal at a nearby restaurant for those who 'hadn't eaten in days'. I arranged with a local gas station and restaurant to accept the vouchers that we would furnish the cash to reimburse them.

I kept track of the redeemed vouchers for one year. I gave out a couple of dozen gasoline vouchers and three of those were redeemed. I gave out a couple of hundred food vouchers to all those 'starving people', One--count it one--of those vouchers was redeemed.

But the bottom line is that we as individuals should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and visit those in prison. Otherwise, it might make us feel righteous, but it is not compassion nor charity to encourage people to be irresponsible, to become comfortable in poverty, or to encourage them to avoid getting the help or doing what they need to do to help themselves.

 

[Liability]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I kinda think there is such a moral imperative.

That does not translate into the proposition that it is the job of government..

 

[Katzndogz]

What's unfortunate? Who is it that's considered unfortunate? Need has been wholly replaced by want.

 

[Againsheila]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I kinda think there is such a moral imperative.

That does not translate into the proposition that it is the job of government..

There are two reasons why we have what amounts to welfare today. 1) to subside corporations like Walmart without looking like our government is subsidizing them. 2) to keep the people who are hungry from rebelling as they did during the French revolution.

Go ahead, end it. I've been waiting for that. I want our country back on track and it's not going to happen until the people are hungry enough. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. Unless of course, they feed the masses.

 

[onecut39]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I think that ignoring human suffering is universally considered to be immoral. I simply ask you the same question. Who are you to try and foist your immorality on others who simply wish to use government as a vehicle of their morality.

You have been outvoted. Get over it.

 

[Liability]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I kinda think there is such a moral imperative.

That does not translate into the proposition that it is the job of government..

There are two reasons why we have what amounts to welfare today. 1) to subside corporations like Walmart without looking like our government is subsidizing them. 2) to keep the people who are hungry from rebelling as they did during the French revolution.

Go ahead, end it. I've been waiting for that. I want our country back on track and it's not going to happen until the people are hungry enough. No country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. Unless of course, they feed the masses.

A shallow and erroneous analysis.

No.

The reason we have what IS welfare, today, is that we decided to create a kind of safety net for all the people (especially children) in our land. The individual moral imperative to take care of those in need of help GOT translated long ago into the notion that it is, somehow, the "duty" of government.

Recognizing that the premise is false is not even marginally like your silly supposition that I (or anybody else) is calling for a universal end to welfare.

Instead, I think we need to means test it and impose work requirements on it. And for those who refuse to work, but who have children, we need to adapt and find a way to assist hungry children rather than the slug parents of those poor kids. At least, as long as we continue to make it a government matter, we should do it more responsibly.

 

[flacaltenn]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

The question should go further. Is it a moral responsibility to provide for the most unfortunate by the community or by the government? I say by the community.

The 3rd question touches on this.

Alll good questions -- but you've biased the answers you want by interjecting that part about "use of force".. Government (only legitimize institution licensed to use force) does not play a role of moral cop. They are not even good at charity, redistribution or altruism.

NO one gets FORCED to help the unfortunate -- unless they are getting marching orders from their god and their god is a vengengful character.

But YES -- After our PRIMARY OBLIGATION (which is a greedy one) to sustain ourselves and our immediate families, we HAVE an obligation to share. But NOT without getting something in return.

TRUE charity is a contract. Where you know the reciepient eye to eye and you can JUDGE that your HELP would make a difference in their lives. There is an IMPLIED CONTRACT that if I feed you or pay your electric bills -- YOU will do something productive for society.

NONE of that happens when we give up the responsibility to care for the unfortunate to govt. Govt will make DEMANDS of these folks, but not in a way where the contract can or should be enforced. For example --- I'm in favor of tying public benefits to keeping kids in school. Don't sign your kid's report card or they drop out of school --- Contract gets modified. You don't get as much cheese or whatever.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think we have a moral responsibility to provide a climate of opportunity that is far better than we have now. There is a dignity in work, even minimum wage work; earning a paycheck is so much better than getting a gov't handout in some form. Sure, those who cannot provide for themselves should be helped, but not necessarily by the gov't. And those who could provide for themselves should have the chance to do so; if they don't then I don't think society owes them a living.

 

[saveliberty]

The unfortunate usually recover quickly, the lazy not so much.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I kinda think there is such a moral imperative.

That does not translate into the proposition that it is the job of government.."

A reasonable statement. It seems that as the population became much larger and more mobile and community became less important, the job devolved to government, but it doesn't necessarily have to be part of it.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Need has been wholly replaced by want."

This is even more true of the consumer society in general.

Today, it is almost impossible to re-set priorities because desire trumps realistic proportions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

No, there is no ‘moral responsibility,’ as ‘morality’ is subjective and capricious.

Consider the public health issue. People without access to health care can contract communicable diseases which when left untreated they can help to spread to the entire population. So what may look to be charity (society providing health care to the poor ) is really a form of enlightened self interest.

True, however this is predicated on a legitimate governmental interest and objective evidence, not subjective ‘morality.’

 

[there4eyeM]

What are the serious alternatives for alleviating avoidable suffering?

 

[Wiseacre]

" others who simply wish to use government as a vehicle of their morality "

There are those who use gov't and politics as a means of avoiding any responsibility for the disadvantaged. They want higher taxes paid by someone else to pay for the social safety net, or else borrow money that future generations will have to pay for; in achieving that end they satisfy their obligation to do anything else. It is another way to promote the nanny state as well as avoid any personal responsibility.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

I think that ignoring human suffering is universally considered to be immoral. I simply ask you the same question. Who are you to try and foist your immorality on others who simply wish to use government as a vehicle of their morality.

You have been outvoted. Get over it.

Using the force of government to either enforce your morality or to punish the perceived immorality of others is disingenuous and dangerous and is an immoral act itself.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Using the force of government to either enforce your morality or to punish the perceived immorality of others is disingenuous and dangerous and is an immoral act itself."

So, what is ignoring the needlessly suffering? Not immoral? Not dangerous?

 

[Katzndogz]

Helping the sick, old, lame, is inherent in Christianity.

Maintaining the strong, healthy and young as if they were sick, old or lame is contemptible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Helping the sick, old, lame, is inherent in Christianity.

Should this tenet of Christianity be forced upon others?

 

[notatallanti]

"Helping the sick, old, lame, is inherent in Christianity."

"Should this tenet of Christianity be forced upon others?"

No, it should not be forced. It should be and is natural, to any compassionate person.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Helping the sick, old, lame, is inherent in Christianity."

"Should this tenet of Christianity be forced upon others?"

No, it should not be forced. It should be and is natural, to any compassionate person.

One would think.