Are we morally obligated to help poor people?

 

For me, the answer is absolutely. I think almsgiving is our duty.

 

acemona has got me thinking about helping the poor and its relation to taxes, but I can't get over the fact that businesses that pay taxes (private businesses) tremendously outperform business that receive (and/or don't pay) taxes (government). I find the gross mismanagement of money by government to be, in fact, a boon to the poor rather than a benefit.

 

When we give taxes in the name of welfare programs, we are taking what could be used effectively to help poor people and giving it to an institution that regularly fails us in many ways. I feel this is a tremendous failure in our judgment- if we cared about the well-being of the poor, we would begin to do more ourselves instead of throwing our money away.

 

The government certainly has some role in regulating in economies, but I can't ever think of a justification for giving them more money.

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

Well put, HHSDad.

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

I agree.

 

I also believe that we do a disservice to people who refuse to help themselves when we give them help simply for the asking. In most cases, we also doom their children and grandchildren to the same sort of life when we provide unwarranted help to the voluntarily needy.

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

 

Couldn't have said it better. :thumb:

We have a moral obligation but no where, no how, is it a constitutional obligation, we have to keep that in mind.

Edited November 20, 200817 yr by Mr.Fundamental
correcting grammar

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

I voted no basically because of this. I don't think the answer can be simply yes or no to "Are we obligated to help the poor".

So it basically comes down to where we draw the line between who can and can not help themselves?

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

I think everyone has moral obligations to do a LOT more than simply help the poor (like giving blood for example). The problem is that you cannot legislate morality.

And I too agree 100% with HHS

We have a moral obligation to help those who are unable to help themselves. We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

So it basically comes down to where we draw the line between who can and can not help themselves?

 

I think it depends? If we go by the Constitution we don't have to worry about that line as an American people, but if we do not go by the constitution (which we don't) then yes we have to be able to draw that line somewhere.

 

 

Thoughts?

I voted no basically because of this. I don't think the answer can be simply yes or no to "Are we obligated to help the poor".

 

I agree: For an example are Christians morally obligated; yes. Are Americans? No, but this is just a simple opinion

.We have no obligation to those who refuse to help themselves.[/QUOTE]

 

 

I agree, but what if you are a victim of bad teachings? Example what if I was a person who was raised by someone who refused to help themselves. So all I have been taught is to allow for someone to take care of me. Who is responsible for teaching me to become "Someone who wants to help themselves"?