Should every person on Apolyton feel extremely guilty?

[JohnT]

I think tying together suffering and altruism (as done by the early Christians) has been a huge bane to the idea of altruism in the modern world, and the desperation in which people cling to the need to suffer (as evidenced in this thread, especially in the OP) makes me despair of their acceptance of any alternatives to the improvement of human lives other than those that pre-suppose life and wealth as a zero-sum game.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by skywalker:
No, you aren't responsible. When someone got shot last night (I'm sure it happened, somewhere in the world) I didn't call the police. Am I responsible?

No because you didn't know anything about it. Witnessing something and doing nothing is one thing, but not even knowing about it is another thing. We know exactly where there's poverty and with a little research we could find out where to donate moneyor how we can help, and we'd save many lives.

John C. McLeod, what if I could demonstrate to you that we could permanently help the poor in the Third World by improving their governments against their will and if necessary by overthrowing them? Would this justify such a foreign-policy?

Well if they don't want their government to be overthrown, then you are taking away what a whole lot of people want and making them unhappy. This would not be making the world a better place. And if they don't want it why would it be better for them?

Also, this would be one nation of rich people deciding the fate of everyone else. We would be making the laws and pushing everyone else around. It wouldn't be democratic at all. This is pretty much an authoritarian regime with the United States being the dictator and the other countries being the subjects.

And, if such a policy was existent it might make the world a worse place because this would mean the US can do whatever it wants and it would justify the US invading countries for their own selfish reasons because they could say "we were doing it to help those people."

And do you seriously think the US is going to actually go around helping other countries for altruistic reasons? All the US thinks of is itself. All superpowers are like that, we're just arrogant enough to believe that we're different.

originally posted by Gatekeeper:
With that in mind, I have a simple motto: Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

If you were a starving child in India, would you want someone to donate their time and energy to save your life, time and energy that would've been wasted on something pointless?

originally posted by skywalker:
WRONG is committing an act that harms another person (or their property).

What about when you lie and it doesn't hurt another person? What if you commit adultery without letting your spouse know? What they don't know doesn't hurt them. Wrong has to be something more than hurting others.

originally posted by skywalker:
Yes, but it that law is WRONG. It is WRONG to punish someone for not doing something RIGHT.

I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morality. My question is should we feel guilt or not.

originally posted by Gatekeeper:
People don't have to help *all* the time to be of assistance to others. If they help just some of the time, that's better than never. Ideally, all the time would be nice, but then we begin running into the very nature of what it is to be human. And that debate is one that's been going for thousands of years ...

It is also human to lie, steal, and cheat. Does that make it morally right?

originally posted byDavid Floyd:
The moral course of action is to act in one's own self interest, without violating the rights of another.

So, the quick answer is "Absolutely not", followed by the very reasonable question of "why should I help others at the expense of my own interests?".

This philosophy wouldn't make the world a better place. What if you were a person that was suffering, and all you needed was simply a helping hand from a better off person? This philisophy wouldn't help you. It is fine for the better off, but for the majority it isn't. And if we took your philosophy, we would help no one. With my philosophy (well it's not mine I just brought it up) we'd all help one another and make the world a better place.

And many would disagree with your idea of a 'moral course of action.' Of course it is difficult to agree on what's moral and what's not but the philosophy I stated seems better than yours. It seems like it would be taking a more moral course of action.

[Dis]

**** guilt!

guilt is for liberals.

[JohnT]

And many would disagree with your idea of a 'moral course of action.' Of course it is difficult to agree on what's moral and what's not but the philosophy I stated seems better than yours.

No, it's worse. Far worse. Monsterous even.

Your "philosophy" is the typical clap trap that has been used to keep down the masses of society since the dawn of Civilization and, as one of those masses, we're getting damned tired of it and have been increasingly so for 400+ years. "Think of others, not yourself." "It is right to deny yourself for the sake of others." "It is selfish and wrong to achieve, to succeed." "Any benefit that you bring to humanity can be discounted inversely to the profit you made off that benefit - even if billions of people are living better because of you."

Bullshiite. Bullshiite. Bullshiite. Bullshiite! Bullshiite! BULLSHIITE!!!!!

In my two posts I hinted that there is an alternative, but an alternative that is (metaphorical) death to those who wish to inflict denial and suffering upon others, a freakin disaster to all those who wish to organize society according to their whim or their morality with little regard to the desires of others. This alternative is simple in concept but hard in execution: creating wealth.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Throwing in the complete opposite to this sentiment - the imperative to survive and prosper as an individual rather than as a species.

We should do what benefits us best, and anything that benefits our interests and immediate family/friends. Anything beyond that is immaterial to us and in most circumstances cannot affect us. Furthermore, looking at WHY we like to help the less fortunate, it is either out of the need to aid the species' survival or as a selfish enjoyment/sense of duty to charity. If this is the case, then, we are being selfish by helping others.

This point of view, if taken to heart as a life philosophy, would lead to that person being called callous or monstrous. Why is that? If that philosophy was the norm (and there is no reason it couldn't be, hypothetically), then what we believe to be "right" would be the extreme view, the "over-sensitive" view. We could even attribute a lot of our modern sense of right and wrong to religious messages pervading society over history and leaving their indelible prints even in modern secular societies. Should we then all go and embrace religion?

Don't go all crazy on me about this as it's just something else to think about. I am not advocating anything here at all.

[Dr Strangelove]

Some of us are not guilty because we actually DO help the world's needy.

[Dis]

bull****

you can never give enough. Do you eat every scrap of food on your plate?

You should be giving away every dollar except what you need to maintain a roof over your head (and not some oversized typical american house), food, water, and clothing. Everything else is a luxery.

How can you have thing like computers when people are starving in the world?

I say **** guilt. I'm tired of feeling guilty. I cannot help it if people weren't born in the most ideal of conditions.

And unlike liberal lefties, I'm not going to allow the goverment to take advantage of my guilt and steal my money and give it to poor people.

It's a cruel, cruel world. I cannot help it if I was born smart and in a great country. And I'm not going to donate a lot of money to charities (I do donate small amounts). Something may happen, I may get in a car accident and become disabled. I need that money to survive in case something bad happens. I'm well on my way to getting a quarter of a million dollars in assets, and I'm not going to let guilt stand in my way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I cannot help it if I was born smart and in a great country.

Smart?

(hehehe)