For centuries, people have wondered how much responsibility they have for the welfare of others. Religious leaders preach the moral obligation to help those in need, but this immediately raises another need -- to define "need." In addition, this raises the need to establish how much responsibility the needy have to help themselves, or at least try.
In this way, the issue becomes political as well as social, moral and philosophical. And all these can vary according to theological beliefs.
Many cultures will acknowledge that people should help others, and this can be established on moral grounds, regardless of religious or theological beliefs.
But even these systems must deal with the issue of how to help those who do not help themselves. This is, of course, a separate issue from the question of how to deal with those who refuse to help themselves -- those who are not willing to make any effort to help themselves. Some may be willing, but are not able, and these certainly qualify to be among those who deserve and should be provided with as much help as may be needed.
In all, many will find excuses for not helping those in need. They maintain their allegiance to religious or theological systems, yet they are selective in how or whether they assist those in need.
The problem of how and whether to help those in need is certainly social and economic. The how can be a social and economic issue, and the whether can be a religious or theological issue.
Meanwhile, the moral issue crosses all boundaries and must be dealt with in every segment of any society. The problem remains that there are those in need, and some who are capable of helping rely on economic excuses to justify their refusal to follow their own moral or religious teachings.
Weaving through all these is the thread of hypocrisy.
In this way, the issue becomes political as well as social, moral and philosophical. And all these can vary according to theological beliefs.
Many cultures will acknowledge that people should help others, and this can be established on moral grounds, regardless of religious or theological beliefs.
But even these systems must deal with the issue of how to help those who do not help themselves. This is, of course, a separate issue from the question of how to deal with those who refuse to help themselves -- those who are not willing to make any effort to help themselves. Some may be willing, but are not able, and these certainly qualify to be among those who deserve and should be provided with as much help as may be needed.
In all, many will find excuses for not helping those in need. They maintain their allegiance to religious or theological systems, yet they are selective in how or whether they assist those in need.
The problem of how and whether to help those in need is certainly social and economic. The how can be a social and economic issue, and the whether can be a religious or theological issue.
Meanwhile, the moral issue crosses all boundaries and must be dealt with in every segment of any society. The problem remains that there are those in need, and some who are capable of helping rely on economic excuses to justify their refusal to follow their own moral or religious teachings.
Weaving through all these is the thread of hypocrisy.
I hope society will devote itself to building and maintaining positive, healthy, expansive relationships for the individuals who compromise the community. In such devotion, maybe society can support the needs of those willing to help themselves whom need help to help!
ReplyDelete