Is there a moral obligation...

@of-ants-and-imps said
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 requir ...[text shortened]... can fix or promise anything to solve these people's crises except the message of the Savior's cross.

What could cause an obligation towards someone who another didn't feel compelled to help without some heartfelt connection? We have seen that when a culture turns against specific portions of its norms, it doesn't take much research to see genocide in all types of societies those with religious conviction and atheistic notions as well, and what is seen is that the common man will step up and work in the prisons, gas chambers, killing fields, self-preservation over one's neighbor has a better chance of having someone act but not in a positive way when one thinks the culture has enemies real or imagined. The 20th century has been one of the bloodiest in Russia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, I'd even add the US to that mix. Survival of the fittest has its winners and losers.

@of-ants-and-imps said
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 requir ...[text shortened]... can fix or promise anything to solve these people's crises except the message of the Savior's cross.

Are you PettyTalk too!

@fmf said
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?

Yes, of course.

Cain asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

As we learned in the Gospels, the answer is yes, of course you are.

@kellyjay said
What could cause an obligation towards someone who another didn't feel compelled to help without some heartfelt connection?

I didn't say "someone"; I said "to contribute to solving the problems of your fellow citizens in your shared environment".There's a difference.

What could cause an obligation towards [...others?]"

Morality / conscience / a sense of communal membership.

...compelled to help without some heartfelt connection.

For you, must morally sound behaviour towards others always be founded on a "heartfelt connection"?

@kellyjay said
We have seen that when a culture turns against specific portions of its norms, it doesn't take much research to see genocide in all types of societies those with religious conviction and atheistic notions as well, and what is seen is that the common man will step up and work in the prisons, gas chambers, killing fields, self-preservation over one's neighbor has a better chan ...[text shortened]... ia, and Rwanda, I'd even add the US to that mix. Survival of the fittest has its winners and losers.

What stance of yours is all this an excuse for?

@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?

Dificult one. Paying taxes for sure, though it seems that the more wealth involved the less this obligation is taken seriously, hence the provision for tax loopholes for the rich. Complying with regulations/restrictions may seem to fit the OP but if in fact if the regulation (which will often be political) is actually contrary to the good of the populace, should not one should refrain? I think that Moonbus's example of conscription is fair.

@fmf said
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.

Hang on, what about no wars in the first place? How many wars can you name FMF that were actually necessary or justified?

@medullah said
Hang on, what about no wars in the first place? How many wars can you name FMF that were actually necessary or justified?

I stated that I think pacifism is a morally sound stance. Why are you asking me to condone or justify wars?

@medullah said
Complying with regulations/restrictions may seem to fit the OP but if in fact if the regulation (which will often be political) is actually contrary to the good of the populace, should not one should refrain?

As I said, I am not talking about the legality of contributing, I am talking about the morality of contributing. I am sure a moral argument could frequently be made for not endorsing, complying with, or participating in the implementation of certain laws.

@of-ants-and-imps said
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 requir ...[text shortened]... can fix or promise anything to solve these people's crises except the message of the Savior's cross.

Lovely word salad @of-ant-and-thumbs.

Gooster, hope your day is going well! 🙂

-VR