Is there a moral obligation...

Is there a moral obligation to use your skills and capacities, and some of your time, to contribute to solving the problems of your fellow citizens in your shared environment?

@FMF

J. S. Mill would probably have answered “yes,” as this would contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. (I don’t happen to agree with that, but that’s a matter of opinion.)

@moonbus said
J. S. Mill would probably have answered “yes,” as this would contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. (I don’t happen to agree with that, but that’s a matter of opinion.)

So, your answer is "no"?

@fmf said
So, your answer is "no"?

Correct. It might be a nice or even a noble thing to do, but I cannot be justly reproached if I don’t (solve other people’s problems), hence not an obligation.

@moonbus said
Correct. It might be a nice or even a noble thing to do, but I cannot be justly reproached if I don’t (solve other people’s problems), hence not an obligation.

The question isn't about you personally solving problems in society; you have shifted the meaning of the question which was carefully worded. The OP asks about contributing to solving the problems of society a.k.a. your fellow citizens in your shared environment. Such a contribution could take on numerous forms: paying taxes, complying with restrictions and regulations, refraining from discrimination, donating to/supporting community activities, and so on and so forth. No moral obligation at all?

@fmf said
The question isn't about you personally solving problems in society; you have shifted the meaning of the question which was carefully worded. The OP asks about contributing to solving the problems of society a.k.a. your fellow citizens in your shared environment. Such a contribution could take on numerous forms: paying taxes, complying with restrictions and regulations, re ...[text shortened]... on, donating to/supporting community activities, and so on and so forth. No moral obligation at all?

Your examples are all legal, not moral. No, I am not morally obligated to pay taxes. “complying with restrictions and regulations”?? That’s by definition obligatory, by the laws of the society where you live, but not morally.

EDIT:

An example should make this clear. In a society with conscription, one is legally obligated to join the military, and, once inducted, may be required to kill people. This is a legal obligation, but not a moral one. A pacifist citizen of said society may consider that he has a moral obligation not to kill people, even in self-defence, and therefore refuse military service. In this case, he must be prepared to submit to legal sanctions, such as imprisonment or obligatory community or non-lethal military service. Certainly, the state would try to argue that military service contributes to the security of the whole society, but I would still counter that a pacifist's position, to refuse to join the military for moral reasons, is intellectually tenable.

@moonbus said
Your examples are all legal, not moral. No, I am not morally obligated to pay taxes. “complying with restrictions and regulations”?? That’s by definition obligatory, by the laws of the society where you live, but not morally.

Your examples are all legal, not moral.

Well I am not talking about their legality, I am talking about the morality of contributing in those ways.

@moonbus said
No, I am not morally obligated to pay taxes. “complying with restrictions and regulations”?? That’s by definition obligatory, by the laws of the society where you live, but not morally.

I am not concerned with the legal aspect. I think there is a moral obligation to comply and contribute that is separate from the legal dimension.

@moonbus said
An example should make this clear. In a society with conscription, one is legally obligated to join the military, and, once inducted, may be required to kill people. This is a legal obligation, but not a moral one. A pacifist citizen of said society may consider that he has a moral obligation not to kill people, even in self-defence, and therefore refuse military service. In ...[text shortened]... a pacifist's position, to refuse to join the military for moral reasons, is intellectually tenable.

Yes, I think pacifism is a morally sound stance. I think conscripting and reskilling pacifists as medical workers - for example - is a reasonable step, legally speaking, for authorities to take. I think tending for the wounded on a battlefield at considerable personal risk is a morally sound thing to do: saving lives invariably is.

@moonbus said
Your examples are all legal, not moral. No, I am not morally obligated to pay taxes. “complying with restrictions and regulations”?? That’s by definition obligatory, by the laws of the society where you live, but not morally.

EDIT:

An example should make this clear. In a society with conscription, one is legally obligated to join the military, and, once inducted, may be ...[text shortened]... a pacifist's position, to refuse to join the military for moral reasons, is intellectually tenable.

Certainly, the state would try to argue that military service contributes to the security of the whole society

This argument ~ compelling people to kill ~ would not be morally persuasive to me. I doubt that the state would argue that compelling citizens to kill is a moral idea: they would argue the legal validity of it.

@fmf said
Certainly, the state would try to argue that military service contributes to the security of the whole society

This argument ~ compelling people to kill ~ would not be morally persuasive to me. I doubt that the state would argue that compelling citizens to kill is a moral idea: they would argue the legal validity of it.

That's why I say there is no moral obligation to, as you put it, "contribute to solving the problems of society a.k.a. your fellow citizens in your shared environment. Such as ... paying taxes, complying with restrictions and regulations, refraining from discrimination, donating to/supporting community activities, and so on and so forth." Your examples are legal obligations, not moral ones. Hence, my denial of such moral obligation.

Another example: Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Given that he was speaking as a spiritual leader, not a political one, I assume he meant that there is some extra-legal obligation to pay one's taxes. I disagree, here's why:

The philosopher Henry David Thoreau was imprisoned for refusing to pay his taxes, on the grounds that the money would be used by the state to wage war, which Thoreau considered immoral. His friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, came to visit him in prison, and the following terse dialog ensued:

Emerson (to Thoreau): Why are you here?

Thoreau (to Emerson): Why are you not here?

I conclude that in some cases, philosophy trumps both religion and politics.

@moonbus said
That's why I say there is no moral obligation to, as you put it, "contribute to solving the problems of society a.k.a. your fellow citizens in your shared environment. Such as ... paying taxes, complying with restrictions and regulations, refraining from discrimination, donating to/supporting community activities, and so on and so forth." Your examples are legal obligations, not moral ones. Hence, my denial of such moral obligation.

I think that people who don't contribute are not behaving in a morally sound way, regardless of what the law does or doesn't compel them to do

@moonbus said
Another example: Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Given that he was speaking as a spiritual leader, not a political one, I assume he meant that there is some extra-legal obligation to pay one's taxes. I disagree, here's why:

The philosopher Henry David Thoreau was imprisoned for refusing to pay his taxes, on the grounds that the money would be used by the ...[text shortened]... hy are you not here?

I conclude that in some cases, philosophy trumps both religion and politics.

Unless paying taxes would cause harm or deprivation for one's family, like they would go hungry or have no shelter, I think trying to avoid and/or evade paying them is not morally sound.

I can understand the argument from a libertarian perspective that as a matter of qualitative means the best is being free to love and coming to acceptable terms. Yet so often it boils down to a material issue or a relational issue. The obligation also is from a spirit of fear and while this varies for each individual soul based on their means I think we're all required to give discretion. You hear the render unto Cesar what is his, but Rom. 13:7 says this toll that is due should include respect and honor, or fear to whom fear is owed.

On another note, I watched the Jesus Revolution and the guy who plays looking for Jesus in the hippie session asks the important point from God's word, that it burdens us with making a decision. We can hope and trust in the promises all we want, provided we can decide whether one's going to make faith and commit. A lot of us have to go back to remember it yet what does the world promise instead? For the mother of Laurie she had a bankrupt relationship which caused her son's fallout, and without God intervening, would have probably had a tragic end. There are those who may say, `oh well, they can always remarry or get a new job, restore or get back some bed space on their own accounts.' The movie calls out the lies of the drug dealers. No one can fix or promise anything to solve these people's crises except the message of the Savior's cross.