It is not the communities responsibility to save those who failed at life. That's what charity is for. Amirite?
Now i already expect that this will get massively downvoted because i know how society trends on this matter. I'm curious how many will agree. Won't be surprised if it's a big fat ZERO.
if charity was enough
no one would be homeless or starving
That doesn't make it anyone elses responsible. Some may feel morally or ethically responsible but those are only ideas. There is no hard pressed responsibility to save someone who isn't benefitting society
they are benefiting society
everyone fails
but we all still have a contribution
There are very few non expendables in society in terms of their benefit to society. I along with at least 99% of everyone else is expendable. Put up a job opening and there will be a long long line of qualified people with resumes. I only see the cost outweighing the benefit of saving each and every person who fails more and more.
community isn't saving each and every person
It's what the system is doing it's best to accomplish. Of course nothing's 100% effective
Taking care of the less fortunate is something that separates civilized societies from uncivilized societies. I would much rather live in one that attempts to help all.
even people in uncivilized societies attempt to help
But what is a civilized society anyways? There are no standards set in stone. One society may deem another to be uncivilized while the other sees itself as highly civilized, it's only based on what the individual sees as morally or ethically right and wrong. I for one don't see it as uncivilized to deny help someone who shows that they make decisions that lead them to fail in life so miserably that they have no place to turn. Life takes preparation, everyone should know that. And if you fail then it's on you to find a way out. There's always a way out.
Merriam Webster defines civilized as: marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other. I was also thinking it meant taking care of each other, but it doesn't.
Anyway, you talk about the subjectivity of things like morals and ethics. I agree, but determining whether someone's failure is because of poor decisions is also subjective.
True, so leave it up to the individual to decide whether to start a charity if they are convinced the subject is deserving. That way no one is cheated. These days you don't need to make much of a case to get a hand out
I disagreed because I see charity as the community helping people who failed at life. Most charity is giving to organizations who take your donation and then help the flops. I don't see a lot of direct donor-to-failure transactions.
You may have read the op in a different way than i intended, or maybe not, but what i meant is responsibility through mandatory taxes. What is charity if it's not givin willingly? Stealing from the rich to feed the poor? Or in this more than just the rich. The barely scraping by are being stolen from to feed the dead brokes.
I agree that it's not their "responsibility" but it's certainly a good thing to do and I believe most people do feel that's enough reason to do it.
I agree that it's not their "responsibility" but it's certainly a good thing to do and I believe most people do feel that's enough reason to do it.