The Responsibility for the Welfare of Others

A speech spoken by Obama before he became president says:

This ties into my something I've been pondering - Do we have to be responsible for the welfare of others? What does it mean to be a brother's/sister's keeper? Why or why not must we feel obligated to each other?

In the upcoming month I have a class that is having a Socratic Seminar where we intelligently discuss on the topic of "Am I My Brother's Keeper?" We must use examples from Of Mice And men, the story of Cain and Abel, Obama's speech, or personal experiences.

Personally, I am unsure of whether or not it is important to really love/care for one another. Should we be obligated to? I used to think not, but I've had many people disagree with me (maybe because it's the more politically correct answer to say we should love and respect each other?). I honestly think that people would only go so far for each other, and even then, it may only be out of self-interest.

What are your thoughts on this matter? What does it really mean to love care for each other? What are your thoughts to the meaning of "Am I My Brother's Keeper?" Are we supposed to always be kind to each other, or should we only look out for ourselves? Why or why not?

 

I think the speech he's said has a tone of responsibility to follow.

 

I am uncertain as to what you mean. Could you please clarify on this?

 

As humans it's in our nature to be kind for the most part, however when the right circumstances arises we will abandon it and tread on each other for personal success.

"that makes this country work."

What part of America is working or going according to plan?

Unemployment?
Inflation?
War?
Debt?
Homeless?
Immigration debacle?
Education?
Obesity?


If you consider that Americas plan then either the Government has screwed up, or has put its own personal ideologies ahead of the people. Lets just remember the government are comprised of public servants. The former and the latter are both unacceptable and IDK how OBama can say America works when it has flaws coming out of its arse.

As for Of Mice of Men. This book from what I remember is a nice example of empathy, I did forget the ending however I know that the gist of the novel was that it was set during The Great Depression, and a mentally handicapped man was being looked after on a farm by his friend.

Personally I would answer No, as so many people will answer Yes and it will make your debate more worthy.

 

I don't think we should be robbed at gunpoint for the welfare of others.

 

in an ideal society, yes.

out individualistic culture stresses taking care of oneself and competing against others. i see this as self-destructive.

i would much rather live in a collectivist culture, where the needs of the many are put before the needs of the few,

 

You think?

It's scary to me that our government is so easily described as "a bunch of rich people working together to become richer." That sounds more like the goal of a corporation, not the governing body for an enormous country.

 

If Obama wants to help a kid on the South side of Chicago learn to read, then he can do it on his own damn time or pay someone to teach him with his own money. If he wants to help a women who is financially struggling, then he can help her by taking money out of his own wallet.

But when I'm robbed at gunpoint to pay for somebody else's education I don't want to pay for, then we're going to have a problem.

Nobody has any responsibilities to anybody, but yourself, even family members.

 

Society holds the government or leader of the country to up hold certain responsibilities, job creation and employment being one of the key factors. When unemployment and job security is still an issue, someone is bound to get angry.

 

The government is here to provide the basics...Security, Infrastructure, order etc.. Not for health care, Extra money for job layoffs etc...

Im not against people helping each other but it shouldn't be forced.
The poor and middle class complain about the rich yet the rich pay 70% of their taxes.

Do those rich people get 70% better treatment from the government...NO

 

i guess you would be in favor of toll highways, where only the very rich can afford to drive


taxing the rich more is done to lessen disparity and to provide state funds.
would you rather have a poor government with a populace wherein 99% of the money is in control of 1% of the population?

 

Taxing the rich extra is a form of socialism which is great in an ideal society; But we don't live in one...

The government is inefficient its been proving that taxing everyone just 5% equally and spending money efficiently instead of wasting it on Pork Bills etc.. would be more than enough to provide for the country and have extra left over.

 

I'd rather not provide my hard earned money to people in need.

 

I would rather have a government that taxes everyone only 10% and provides everyone only what it was originally supposed to, and let private enterprise run the rest.
You say people making ends meet won't afford it.
People making ends meet get close to half their money back.

All the government does is squander our money away, telling us we know what to do with your money, and that is why we have all these piling issues with a deficit.

 

all i will say is free trade does not work. it encourages slavery apartheid etc


watch the movie inside job. compare the before and after of deregulation of the stock market and see what has happened to MOST free trade societies

 

this is a joke right?
have you checked americas debt?

 

Free market societies do not encourage slavery, you cannot force anyone to do anything.

And you just said a movie... Name a a free market society without coercive government that has lead to the increase in slavery.

The fact is that a free market creates incentive for people to work, people will work harder for more.

 

american slavery
they sold cotton at much cheaper prices than other places and made huge profits because of it. they got africans to work in the fields picking cotton
that is the govt taking advantage of no regulations on the market

nike, wallmart ect. these all benefit from almost slave labor that creates cheap items.

also, for the first sentence, please notice the difference between encourage and force


people will work harder for more
people do not get more money for working harder. they get it for working more hours.
as it is, north americans work longer work days than the majority of the other inhabitants of this planet
some of us are made to work two jobs on minimum wage to just scrape by, it does not matter how hard they work, just as long as they put in the hours.

 

That is government intervention, hence not a true free market.

And also, did the 'slaves' choose themselves to do the work, and where not forced by anyone to do it?

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html

Yes, people will work harder for more.
If you work more hours that means your working harder.

The current market and system of government has failed miserably.

Unemployment is exceptionally high.
The value of the US, and in turn all the worlds currencies have dropped by 95%.
People can barely make enough to live, due to the stupid taxes they pay.
The more and more governments try to control the market by creating money, thus reducing its value, the more and more market failures will occur.

 

if you are asking for evidence of free trade encouraging slavery WITHOUT HAVING HAD ANY INTERACTION WITH ANY GOVERNMENT, I simply can not present you with one, as all areas have some form of government.

well then i will change slavery to work coerced with extreme force or threat of force.

i do not know what your example is supposed to prove. america was once dependent upon slave labor. your link only gives evidence that slavery was abolished because "Britain no longer needed slave-based goods".

also, that whole page has barely any citations. the point you cited has none.
i doubt that the ppl who wrote this information received it first hand, lol.