"Americans are blessed with great plenty; we are a generous people and we have a moral obligation to assist those who are suffering from poverty, disease, war and famine."
_Adam Schiff, US Representative
Are we really morally obligated to assist those who are suffering? What a question. In the next few posts (hopefully to conclude by Friday) I'd like to think about this question, using Scripture, conscience, philosophy, and whatever other threads strike my fancy. My goal is to avoid heresy. Yes, ambitious. More ambitiously, my goal is to do the hard work of searching, praying, and thinking through this and come to some conclusions about how to respond to this sort of statement.
To be considered:
Is great plenty always a blessing? Are we a generous people? What does true generosity mean? Are we morally obligated to give? What is moral obligation? Does such an obligation, if it exists, come with qualifications? If so, what are they? Perhaps most crucially, what sort of assistance are we obligated to give?
2 comments:
Glad to hear you will be aiming to avoid heresy. :)
Are you particularly going to examine the moral obligation of personal humanitarian aid or national aid.
For example, the question "Am I morally bound to give money to those in need" is different than "Are we morally bound to tax U.S. citizens and take a portion of those taxes to give to those in need?" They could have the same answer, but they are different questions.
Just a clarifying question. Looking forward to your insights.
-mike
i was sort of hoping not to have to answer that question just yet. haha.
i've not quite decided yet, actually. either question (personal or national) is a huge one to tackle; but perhaps you can't fully answer one without the other. right now it looks like i may integrate both and focus more fully on one or the other.
but it'll have to wait until tomorrow, because there's no way i'm going to have time tonight!
Post a Comment