Obligations

This conversation came up in my family today as a philosophical thought. Do you believe that people have an obligation to society as a whole, to the downtrodden among us, or to anyone at all? Do you believe that society has an obligation to people? Should people help others if they can, or pick up litter instead of stepping over it, or stop to help someone who's injured? And if so, from what does the obligation arise?

I have mixed feelings. I am against, for example, schools requiring students to perform X number of hours of "community service" or volunteer work (unpaid work) in order to graduate.

Originally posted by Sahuaro
This conversation came up in my family today as a philosophical thought. Do you believe that people have an obligation to society as a whole, to the downtrodden among us, or to anyone at all? Do you believe that society has an obligation to people? Should people help others if they can, or pick up litter instead of stepping over it, or stop to help someon ...[text shortened]... number of hours of "community service" or volunteer work (unpaid work) in order to graduate.

I think that we all have an inner nudge to help those in need.

That is why those that give are mostly faithbased operations. They actually try to listen to these inner voices and take time and money of their own to help.

Atheists tend to support dumping it all on the state to handle things. They cannot bring themselves to donate their time and money to the poor, so they support government forcefully taking it from them to help ease their conscience while not lifting a finger to help in any way.

Originally posted by whodey

That is why those that give are mostly faithbased operations. They actually try to listen to these inner voices and take time and money of their own to help.

Atheists tend to support dumping it all on the state to handle things. They cannot bring themselves to donate their time and money to the poor, so they support government forcefully taking it from them to help ease their conscience while not lifting a finger to help in any way.[/b]

There are lots of secular charities. Listening to inner voices is a human trait.

Theists are charitable because they selfishly want to get to heaven. Secularists are charitable for much more noble reasons. 😛

Originally posted by Sahuaro
This conversation came up in my family today as a philosophical thought. Do you believe that people have an obligation to society as a whole, to the downtrodden among us, or to anyone at all? Do you believe that society has an obligation to people? Should people help others if they can, or pick up litter instead of stepping over it, or stop to help someon ...[text shortened]... number of hours of "community service" or volunteer work (unpaid work) in order to graduate.

yes and yes. it goes both ways.

what people fail to realize is that society IS the people. screwing over society is screwing ourselves.

we give to society so that in turn society would give to us. and no matter how republican one is, how hardcore capitalist one is, everyone is a socialist in some areas, maybe without even realizing.

there are lots of rednecks that scream against free healthcare, on their way to pick up their farm subsidies.

Originally posted by whodey
Atheists tend to support dumping it all on the state to handle things. They cannot bring themselves to donate their time and money to the poor, so they support government forcefully taking it from them to help ease their conscience while not lifting a finger to help in any way.

Not true for me whodey. I always give the the homeless person (or the guy at the street corner) a cigarette, or a shot of whiskey, or $5 so they can go buy a half-pint of whiskey.

Private charities including faith-based charities can no way address the the massive needs. Moreover, it is perfectly fine for us, as we do now, to pool our resources (tax dollars), some of which is used to help the poor. Efficient and needed.

For those of us who enough income, we all give through our tax dollars, and further all atheists I know donate to charity.

I will agree that some theists do charitable works to make up for horrendous business practices (such as stories of mafioso donating heavily to the church while killing people off), but not everyone. Some people give because they have experienced being needy and want to help others, whether they're theists or not (I'm in this bunch). Some do not give "extra" because our tax dollars are already include charitable donations and tax breaks for organizations that are "non-profit" and help those who need it. Some people hold the theory that "no one helped me, so I'm not helping anyone."

Society: I know people who resent paying school taxes as part of their property tax, because they have no children or no school-aged children. They don't understand that if our population isn't educated, you're still paying -- in crimes and jail cells. I personally wouldn't look forward to a future in which we no longer had dentists and doctors because no one was educated enough or smart enough.

Originally posted by Sahuaro
This conversation came up in my family today as a philosophical thought. Do you believe that people have an obligation to society as a whole, to the downtrodden among us, or to anyone at all? Do you believe that society has an obligation to people? Should people help others if they can, or pick up litter instead of stepping over it, or stop to help someon ...[text shortened]... number of hours of "community service" or volunteer work (unpaid work) in order to graduate.

Society as a whole is a fictional creation. There are unfortunate individuals, who may need help. We have obligations to take care of ourselves, and those closely related to us, our families. These are obligations we choose to take on by marrying and having children.

Since no modern society is an autarky, we help our fellow humans by serving them, and by them serving us, the exchanges of service and goods may be bartered or paid for with money.

As you can see, the personal evaluation of who is meritorious of assistance differs with individuals, but almost everyone agrees that some people need help at some time. That helping if a duty is not praiseworthy, but an obligation. I prefer to think it should be voluntary, and therefore praiseworthy, but based on individual standards, and definitely not by government fiat, and not in any sense a duty or obligation.

Originally posted by apathist
There are lots of secular charities. Listening to inner voices is a human trait.

Theists are charitable because they selfishly want to get to heaven. Secularists are charitable for much more noble reasons. 😛

I never said that there were no secular charities. I merely say that they pale in comparison to the number of faith based charities.

Face it, you are all a bunch of slackers.

Originally posted by Sahuaro
I will agree that some theists do charitable works to make up for horrendous business practices (such as stories of mafioso donating heavily to the church while killing people off), but not everyone. Some people give because they have experienced being needy and want to help others, whether they're theists or not (I'm in this bunch). Some do not give "extr longer had dentists and doctors because no one was educated enough or smart enough.

The public education system has become the tool to ensure segregation.

Let me splain.

If you are poor, then you can only afford to live in a poor school district. Those living in a poor school district cannot afford schools that the rich folk have due to decreased revenue in that district. Then these children are then forced to attend these poor school districts. These poor school districts are full of violence, teen pregancies, and crime. Most teachers are subpar. And guess what, most of these poor school districts are predominately minority students. If they somehow overcome the odds and graduate from a poor school district, they are in no position to compete with their rich counterparts who they may attend college with.

Originally posted by moon1969
Not true for me whodey. I always give the the homeless person (or the guy at the street corner) a cigarette, or a shot of whiskey, or $5 so they can go buy a half-pint of whiskey.

Private charities including faith-based charities can no way address the the massive needs. Moreover, it is perfectly fine for us, as we do now, to pool our resources (tax do ...[text shortened]... income, we all give through our tax dollars, and further all atheists I know donate to charity.

So you give a homeless man money to go buy whiskey, the very stuff that probably made him homeless to begin with?

The massive need remains despite the combined efforts of faith based organizations AND the nanny state. It is simply the human condition. I much prefer faith based because they are more frugal. When you give your tax dollars, only pennies on the dollar go towards the poor for which the money is intended. The rest is government overhead. Also, the faith based organizations tend to give food and shelter as opposed to money they can use to continue the vices that help put them in that situation to begin with.

Originally posted by whodey
I never said that there were no secular charities. I merely say that they pale in comparison to the number of faith based charities.

Face it, you are all a bunch of slackers.

But that is a mis-leading comparison. Compare percentages of population.

Originally posted by apathist
But that is a mis-leading comparison. Compare percentages of population.

There are kinds of studies about this sort of thing. Here is one.

http://rationaldreaming.com/2010/04/19/are-religious-people-more-charitable-than-non-believers/

Religous people are 25% more likely to give to the poor than secularists.

It's OK to admit the truth every now and then, even though you may not like the results.

Now repeat after me. "Religion does have a positive effect on society". "I'm a slacker". "All I do is bitch and moan about how destructive religion is but don't raise a finger to help my fellow man in need like those who are religious do."

Now was that so hard?

Originally posted by Sahuaro
This conversation came up in my family today as a philosophical thought. Do you believe that people have an obligation to society as a whole, to the downtrodden among us, or to anyone at all? Do you believe that society has an obligation to people? Should people help others if they can, or pick up litter instead of stepping over it, or stop to help someon ...[text shortened]... number of hours of "community service" or volunteer work (unpaid work) in order to graduate.

Mutual obligations between the individual and society are created by overt or tacit agreement, although to be fair the tacit agreements should be spelled out when the individual is of defined age, and in an ideal world anyone not abiding by them should be subject to enforcement. Outlaws, that is. IOW all individuals should be in effect, naturalized, and take an oath of allegiance, not native born citizens.

Originally posted by whodey
So you give a homeless man money to go buy whiskey, the very stuff that probably made him homeless to begin with?

The massive need remains despite the combined efforts of faith based organizations AND the nanny state. It is simply the human condition. I much prefer faith based because they are more frugal. When you give your tax dollars, only pennies on ...[text shortened]... to money they can use to continue the vices that help put them in that situation to begin with.

Whiskey doesnt make people homeless. Landlords and police make people homeless.

Originally posted by moon1969
Not true for me whodey. I always give the the homeless person (or the guy at the street corner) a cigarette, or a shot of whiskey, or $5 so they can go buy a half-pint of whiskey.

Private charities including faith-based charities can no way address the the massive needs. Moreover, it is perfectly fine for us, as we do now, to pool our resources (tax do ...[text shortened]... income, we all give through our tax dollars, and further all atheists I know donate to charity.

I believe every word of your first paragraph. You seem like exactly the type to enable someone's self-destructive behaviors. It's perfectly logical that you would engage in this form of evil. You lost me, though, when you called government efficient. That I find somewhat less credible.