The morality of not helping others

[Jamie_L]

Almost no one does everything they can for people who need help. Any time we choose to buy something for our own benefit rather than using that money to help someone less fortunate, we have made a choice not to help someone we could have helped. Likewise when we spend time having fun when we could be volunteering our time to help provide community services.

How does morality enter into these kinds of situations?

What is the morality of not helping other people when you have the capability? In some situations, it seems clearly immoral: if I see a child bleeding on the sidewalk, and I ignore the child and don't even call 911 on my cell phone, that seems quite an immoral act. If I see a child who needs a good home, however, and I have a good home, but I don't want to provide my services as an adoptive parent, am I also immoral? Why or why not?

Is one obligated to give everything one is able to give to help others? If not, when does the obligation to help become a moral imperative?

Jamie

[Alonzo Fyfe]

First, I would like to mention The Altruist Paradox

Assume you and I were the only people in the universe. Furthermore, we were both full altruists. I want only one thing -- to give you what you want. And you want only one thing; to ensure that I get what I want. What do we do?

It only makes sense to help somebody if that person wants something else. So, there have to be at least a few "something elses" on the want queue.

And if I am sacrificing my time and effort for somebody else to get what they want, then it seems that some allowance must be made for me getting what I want.


Second, we have a few wants that are hard wired; aversion to pain, desire for pleasure, comfort, good-tasting food, etc.

Morality is concerned with choices; ought implies can. A morality that says that a person ought to have swimmed down to the titanic and freed the people inside as it was sinking is an absurdity.

Our desires are modifyable by our experiences -- and to this degree there are moral questions to ask about what we should and should not want. But nature does provide limits, and it is irrational for morality to prescribe behavior outside of the limits imposed by nature.

Along these lines, nature seems to have provided us with a preference for helping others. We go to greater sacrifices for our kin than for a stranger.


Third: morality seems to impose greater demands on us for what we do than for what we do not do generally. The prohibition against killing is stronger than the prohibition against preventing you from being killed. Part of the reason for the acts/ommissions doctrine is grounded on the simple fact that acts are better to mark off and recognize than ommissions.


Fourth: When does helping people actually do any good? There is a body of thought that says that we benefit a great deal by forcing some level of self-reliance. If nobody needs to do anything -- if we are all to be waited on by others -- we would find that we do nothing, and we are all worse off as a result. On the other hand, telling people, "If you produce, then you get the benefits of that production" tends to increase production, and make people generally better off.


Fifth, insurance plays a part. In order to protect myself from danger I need some resources saved up. In order to help friends and neighbors I need the resources handy to deal with whatever emergencies may arrive. This may seem selfish, but if the reserves are available to others in dire need (e.g., a willingness to take in another's kids and the reserves that make it possible to do so) the appearance may be incorrect.

In spite of all of this, I think there should be more charity than there is in fact. But it also suggests that complete selfless devotion is not the best of all possible virtues.

[meritocrat]

Is one obligated to give everything one is able to give to help others? If not, when does the obligation to help become a moral imperative?

No one should be 'obligated' to 'give' to others.

[winstonjen]

This seems to be an 'acts vs omissions' discussion, at least in part. If there is no risk to helping, such as calling 911, then yes, I would say that there is an obligation.

[truelies]

First a question- Exactly who is in a position to declare the actions/inactions of another either immoral or moral? Why should I listen to the edicts of anyone who lacks the power/will to force compliance? Is morality anymore than the Strong doing what they will and the Weak enduring what they must?

[Adrian Selby]

Some egoists I've argued with contend that we never do anything out of anything other than self interest. In that respect, we never actually help others, because to say that one's reason for helping others is because of a desire to help others means one is only fulfilling one's desire, and therefore one is acting self interestedly.

I don't buy it, but as regards the topic title, not helping others is something we apparently do by accident, insofar as it accords with what we desire for ourselves.

[Jack Kamm]

Some egoists I've argued with contend that we never do anything out of anything other than self interest. In that respect, we never actually help others, because to say that one's reason for helping others is because of a desire to help others means one is only fulfilling one's desire, and therefore one is acting self interestedly.

Can you actually do anything without first having a desire to do it? I think that, by definition, any voluntary action requires one to first have a desire. A nonvoluntary action, such as the beating of your heart or blinking your eyes, does not.

But I don't see why just because you help others because you have the desire to help others changes anything.

As for whether it is wrong to not help others...

To say something is wrong is to say we should not do it. Is there any reason why we ought to always help others? Why is helping others something we ought to do? Where does this ethical obligation come from?

I help others because it is in my own self-interest (it encourages others to do nice things for me) and because it makes me feel good...it pleases me to see others pleased. I don't see why there is any reason I "ought" to do it.

[echidna]

Originally posted by Adrian Selby
Some egoists I've argued with contend that we never do anything out of anything other than self interest. In that respect, we never actually help others, because to say that one's reason for helping others is because of a desire to help others means one is only fulfilling one's desire, and therefore one is acting self interestedly. Yes, this is a pretty common argument and pretty futile at the same time. When we act consciously, by definition we act selfishly, our actions are driven by the self, by whatever motivates our self.

At the same time that doesn’t mean that those motivations driving ourselves can’t be driven out of consideration for others.

[three4jump]

Like the previous two posters, I think one could help people just because he or she likes being helpful. Recently, my trouble has been that my attempts to help people have completely backfired, turning into a waste of everyone's time.

[Adrian Selby]

I don't see why there is any reason I "ought" to do it.

A utilitarian might argue that it increases the sum of happiness generally, regardless of one's own particular increase.

------------
the incorrigible analytics' club (http://incorrigible.adrianselby.com)

[Vandrare]

just a question regarding this that some people on this board may be able to help with:

has there been any research done into wether or not helping others is an innate human impulse or one which is learnt? it would be something really difficult to study, but i think very interesting.

Thanks in advance for responses...

[MollyMac]

I googled your question, Vandrare, and found this (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/1361.php) FWIW.

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Almost no one does everything they can for people who need help. Any time we choose to buy something for our own benefit rather than using that money to help someone less fortunate, we have made a choice not to help someone we could have helped. Likewise when we spend time having fun when we could be volunteering our time to help provide community services.

How does morality enter into these kinds of situations?
Why would someone do everything they can to help others? Presumably if such a person exists, they expect to be rewarded in another life. Those of us who believe that this is the only life we will ever have are strongly motivated to seek personal happiness (if I can use the word to cover a range of positive feelings such as fulfilment, emotional well-being, satisfaction, contentment) first and foremost.

To state the obvious: We all seek personal happiness and find it in different ways. Buying non essential items is as important to some people’s personal happiness as helping those in need is to others. But for many of us a combination of both will contribute most to our personal happiness

Helping to provide a community service can be a vile and traumatic experience which can lead to burn out. Is there a person alive who would genuinely prefer to spend a cold night on a suicide helpline or staffing a mobile soup kitchen for the homeless than (say) having a fun time with friends or tucked up in bed with the person they love? On the other hand, giving up free time to help someone in distress and knowing one has made a difference brings its own rewards that can’t be measured, which is why people are motivated to do it and keep on doing it. At the very least their humanist conscience doesn’t allow them to find total happiness living totally selfish lives.

As I count myself as one of these people, I admit that I am contemptuous of people who are both extremely rich and totally self-indulgent. Yes I do think (to myself) that they are immoral. It would make no difference to them to give some of the money they spend on designer clothes, or whatever, to a charity instead. I have similar thoughts when I see ridiculous amounts of money thrown away on moronic TV game shows etc.
What is the morality of not helping other people when you have the capability? In some situations, it seems clearly immoral: if I see a child bleeding on the sidewalk, and I ignore the child and don't even call 911 on my cell phone, that seems quite an immoral act.
You’re right and I guess the reason is that it requires no real personal sacrifice to help a child in these circumstances and doesn’t affect your personal happiness one way or the other. That, to me, is definitely a moral imperative. The difficulty is when an act of doing something involves at least some personal cost. Like you didn't have a cell phone and were hurrying to your mother's death bed. Then it becomes a moral dilemma.
If I see a child who needs a good home, however, and I have a good home, but I don't want to provide my services as an adoptive parent, am I also immoral? Why or why not?
No you're not. Adopting a child would require tremendous personal sacrifice. You might be sacrificing your own personal happiness for the sake of the child so the end result is still one happy human being and one unhappy one – what’s the point of that? Or – assuming that if you don’t want to adopt a child you will not make a good adoptive parent – you might even be condemning the both of you to an unhappy life together. Is a home without love really a ‘good’ home? The more I think about this one, the more it seems that morality doesn’t come into it. It’s just a damn silly idea.

[Jack Kamm]

A utilitarian might argue that it increases the sum of happiness generally, regardless of one's own particular increase.

But why should I care about the sum of happiness generally? I can't feel it. I can only feel my own happiness.

[Adrian Selby]

Depends how you use the word feel, after all, if everyone is happy around you, this must affect how you feel.

[Jamie_L]

Well, a lot of people are hitting on the extremes. Certainly it may not makes sense to destroy your own life to help others. But as MollyMac mentions, the other extreme does seem to carry moral implications. If someone has billions of dollars in excess resources, it seems like there is some moral line being crossed if that person doesn't offer anything to help the larger community.

I have not much explored the moral topic of action vs. inaction. If anyone has more to say on that topic, I'd be interested to hear it. Again, it seems like in some situations, inaction does not carry a moral component, but in other situations it does. Where is the dividing line?

Thanks all for your posts.

Jamie

[echidna]

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Well, a lot of people are hitting on the extremes. Yeah, I didn’t offer a direct answer to the OP, mainly because it’s such a tricky question. I really have no idea where to draw the line between selfishness and selflessness.

There are different types of motivation. Why does one help people anyway ?

1. Because I get paid to
2. Because I have to
3. Because I like to be seen to be helping people
4. Because I like it when they thank me
5. Because I enjoy seeing their lives easier
6. Because I dislike seeing hardship in others
7. Because I find the experience enjoyable

Ideally one can combine selflessness with selfishness. Personally I joke that my volunteer work is entirely out of self interest, but there’s quite a grain of truth to it. People can have a tendency to view a volunteer somewhat as a martyr, but as far as my disabled group is concerned, I find the experience immensely rewarding, a great deal of fun and it’s probably taught me more than I would have ever imagined.

Still no straight answer, but I figured I’d chuck it in anyway.

[meritocrat]

If I see a child who needs a good home, however, and I have a good home, but I don't want to provide my services as an adoptive parent, am I also immoral? Why or why not?


No. The child has to learn their are hardships in life. Luck's a beggar and luck's a king.....