Philosophy Now Forum

Do I have a moral obligation to give money to charity? If so, how much, how often and to which charitable causes? Is there a formula?

On a national level, should the governments of countries which are heavily in debt still give overseas aid money?

Do we have a moral 'obligation' to do anything? I could argue for why you should give money to charity; I could probably argue for why you should not. At what point do you become bound to do something? Even if you make a promise, you can still choose not to (and what if, after making such a promise, it occurs to you that the keeping of the promise will bring about harm rather than good?).

I could argue that you should give money to charity because there might come a time when you will need it to be given to you. I could argue that your upbringing - at least in the UK - is largely as a result of public funding and that you have an obligation to give back to society for what it has provided for you. All of these things I could argue but I don't think that I could oblige you to be charitable unless you desire to do so.




We could take a Kantian perspective on this and argue that no, they should not; this is because they do not have the money to give and that if 'ought implies can' then they 'cannot' so it follows that they 'ought not'. However, perhaps if they have entered into a charitable relationship with another country then they must factor this into the money they accrue from borrowing.

Also, we can ask what would happen if they did not give aid money if they were in debt - given that many of the richer countries have only been able to keep themselves afloat (and often barely) with financial assistance it follows that they would cease to give such aid and many peoples dependent on such charity would die. This might be contradictory, insofar as the reason for the richer countries borrowing money is to keep the economy afloat for the well-being of their citizens - however, alongside this their unwillingness to give aid could result in a greater share of the total world population suffering even more greatly. This is, essentially, a display of double standards.

However, a government is always under scrutiny from the citizens it purports to govern and it is in their interests to remain in power (and maintain a more general confidence in political institutions) in order to enact policies which will, hopefully, lead to a better quality of life for these citizens; as such, it needs to show that it puts them before citizens from other nations.

We do, if we decide we wish to be part of a family, a community, a civilized society.

The obligation is taken on voluntarily, the price tag of joining the group, because we can of course choose instead to go live out in the woods solely upon our own abilities.

What form does this obligation take? Perhaps it makes sense for us not to act in such a way as to jeopardize the group we wish to be part of but I don't agree that this is necessarily a 'moral obligation'. Such an 'obligation' is a rhetorical device used to maintain a group, a set of institutions or traditions.

I suppose a 'moral obligation' could be hypothetic insofar as it would take the form "if I wish x to be the case, it makes sense for me to do y". However, we see this being interpreted in many different ways. Modern liberal capitalism provides the grounds for people to claim that selfish activity, when enacted en masse, ultimately benefits society in general. Socialism, on the other hand, sees such selfish behaviour as detrimental and attempts to regulate it as much as possible. So, put simply, the 'y' in the second part of the earlier sentence is not set in stone and depends upon what the context allows and how agents interpret their own place in society.

My point, basically, is that any supposed 'moral obligation' would be vague and inapplicable. I don't wish to claim that it does not, or even that it cannot, exist; I am, in fact, claiming that what we believe it to be might actually be something different.

If my parents supported me in the first 20 years of my life, I incur an obligation to return the favor when they need it.

If I want a family.

Morality is a set of socially reinforced guidelines like the above, that make it easier for all of us to stay on course (remaining a welcome part of the social group almost all of us need to survive) amidst the ongoing confusion and muddle that comes along with living.

Morality is guidance from the group, instructing us on the conditions of membership.

I agree the word obligation is sloppy, if it is taken to mean a universal commandment built in to the fabric of reality etc.

It's more a choice, like choosing to be married. That usually involves an obligation to stop screwing around. A price tag, accepted and paid, or not.

Morality is just a business deal. If we want membership in the club, morality is the bill we must pay.

Again, not necessarily, insofar as you don't necessarily 'incur' this obligation. You can take it up or reject it; even if you feel 'obliged' it does not follow from this that you are bound to act in accordance with it. This is not to say that such a returning of a favour is 'wrong' or cannot be justified - just that it is not binding. It could be argued that they - the parents - have an equal obligation not to burden the child that they raised to be independent with their own troubles - this might seem an 'immoral' stance to take but it can still be argued (and there are cultures that look at old age in this way). As such, there can be multiple 'obligaitons' at any one time, cancelling each other out.

Morality is something we practise daily for our own peace of mind and wellbeing. How guilty do we feel when we have hurt someone we love? And how bad do we feel when we know we have done something wrong? It’s more than a decision to be made. Morality is built in, it all depends on the degree of morality we are capable of.

Being a charitable person is more important than giving to charity. Giving to charity is like attending church on Sunday and doing whatever you want for the rest of the week. Many people feel so good because they give a little to charity from time to time. The real challenge is being a charitable person and performing small acts of kindness every day for your fellow man.

If you want to give to charity then don’t talk about it just do it. Don’t look for recognition or a reward. Just do it - daily.

Yes, I agree, in theory.

In practice, the reality is that few of us can survive entirely separate from the social environment.

Thus, if we choose to not accept any obligations to anyone, the group will choose to reject us as a member.

Thus, if we wish to survive...

We have the choice to accept or decline particular obligations, but we don't really have the option to opt out of the overall morality system.

Imho, morality is not imposed upon us by some ultimate cosmic authority, but by the practical reality of human survival.

Just as the need to eat can not be altered by analytical philosophy, neither can the necessity of morality be swept aside by sophisticated concepts.

I like to donate to the red cross because locally, I can see that they are working, that they are changing things, you get a heart attack their ambulance arrives in seconds (well at least where I am from) I like to donate to families that were doing well, but some disaster occurred and the breadwinner of the family became unable to work(could happen to anyone)

any charity that has a plan of action and that can display results I support. I do not support most of the charities that go to Africa "feed the Africans feed the Africans" sorry, but nooo, I find it extremely hard to pity or try to help those who give birth to 5+ children per woman, they are digging their own graves(not just africans, it goes to any family with 5+ childrens and asking for money) 2 kids is a lot these days...