This is more of a statement than a question. But I'll throw it out because I welcome your input. We can't solve all the problems of the world, or even where we live. There may be thousands of homeless people in your city. And perhaps if you gave away your life savings, you could help them. But then you'd be homeless. However, if a homeless person passes out on your front lawn you do have special obligations to that one homeless person. Even if it wasn't your fault, and even if he is just one homeless person out of the thousands. That's called moral engagement Moral engagement is interesting, because it goes against some systems. What if a poor man comes up to you on the street? And he asks for the last dollar in your wallet? And there's a rich man across the street? Utilitarian: the rich man should do it. Communist: the money should be evenly redistributed. Democrat: the govt. should do it. Republican: neither. But if a homeless man asks you for your dollar. He asked you. So you should give him the dollar! See how that works?
I would go with the Utilitarian, the rich man should provide for the homeless man. There is an interesting teaching by the enlightened sage Meher Baba, which substantiates this step.
If you are personally asked for help, whether you help or not, you are karmically responsible for your actions.
Also, Shakespeare deals with this subject. In "Timon of Athens", Timon says : "'Tis not enough, To help the feeble up, but to support them after." -Act I, Scene 2. Timon is not talking about the "feeble". Actually he's talking about paying his friend's ransom in debtors' prison. Meaning, true human kindness, unlike animals (who leave their lame and injured behind when they are being chased by predators), goes further than just being kind to the unfortunate. You have to support them indefinitely. Timon takes this even further in the next scene in when he says: "'Tis not enough to give." -Act I, Scene 2.
I wanted to add this too. I was thinking about this quote in 1991, when I was drunk. But it still made me think of a good point: "All around the cathedral, the saints and apostles, Look down as she sells her wares, Although you can't see it, you know they are smiling, Each time someone shows that he cares." -Feed the Birds (1964), Song by Julie Andrews. When she says the "saints and apostles" around the cathedral, she means the statues, of course. Statues can't see. But her point is that doesn't mean it doesn't still matter, when you're kind to someone, like the little old bird lady.
More On Moral Engagement. They knew of moral engagement even in Biblical times. We even had it in Sr. Rose's HS morality class, I think. It comes more from the human heart, than head. Unlike utilitarianism. In Genesis 19: 9 Lot offers his daughters to men of Sodom because the angels are his guests. Guests. That was moral engagement taken to the wrong extreme. And if a drunk passes out on your lawn, you should put down your coffee to see if he's all right. But nothing more important than coffee. And if the drunk has a knife? Well, if he's totally passed out, you'd be safe. Just semi-lucid? Play it by ear. And if he passes out two inches to the left on the public side walk, it's the city's responsibility. Property lines. But once you ask him if he's all right, then you can call 911. And finish your coffee.
Without metaethics, morality is the Three Stooges deciding what is morality. What you are struggling to make more sense out of, is metaethics, not moral engagement. If someone threatens to blow up the entire world, teaching them morality is unlikely to be the solution. Liars are a dime a dozen, and metaethics are the solution, which is why they're heavily censored by academia and the mainstream. Money talks, which is why the bullshit flies in every damn direction, and nobody can even use a fucking dictionary.
What is the consensus on the best metaethical theory? Some people say nihilism. But others say they just throw that word out, to make thinking people think, and scare away people who still think witchcraft is real. And what is the normative ethical theory then that seems most valid? J.J.C. Smart in "Utilitarianism: For And Against" seems to say utilitarianism. But the book is written on a low academic level. And it is obviously tongue-in-cheek, just again trying to make it's readers think. What moral system do most scientists subscribe to? What did Stephen Hawking? He told people he was a humanist. Is that a moral system? Or a quasi-religion (like the Supreme Court says).
It will make me wonder about all of those charitable donations worth millions that our government grants to wealthy people, instead of collecting the tax. I wonder about those charities and non-profits, some owned by our politicians, filled with family employees. I wonder about Build Back Better , or The Inflation Reduction Act and all of the money our government has borrowed to provide a social salve as much as anything else. The preening, preachy, back patting government has dispached this sturdy beggar as an avatar to hold me up for even more and more taxes. I wonder about job killing regulations, anti growth policies anti housing policies. A passive response to street crime. Narcotics coming through our open border.
Yeah, just to add, moral engagement. (I think we covered it in my Catholic HS class. We called it "moral involvement", I seem to recall.) It can seem arbitrary at times. And perhaps even a little silly. But it says you still have no choice. For example, when a friend asks you to loan him your car, even if he can easily afford to fix his, moral engagement says you should loan it. But that complicates that matter with issues of friendship, lack of importance, laziness on your friend's part, etc.
Also, to round off this thread more, there are other concepts in normative ethics. I don't know all their names though. Adherence to the rules and social norms is always important, but not if the rules are unfair. Like with the Witch Hunts or with Apartheid in South Africa 1948 to 1994. And exigent circumstances can make the rules not apply to every circumstance, like in cases of entrapment, or when someone steals food because they're hungry, and so people agree they should not be prosecuted. And affirmative defenses can conflict, like justification verses duress. During the Nuremberg trials the Nazi officers claimed they were under duress to kill people and they were just following orders, or they'd be tortured or killed themselves. But most people agreed their actions were still not justified. As I said, I took a morality class in HS in 1985 or 6 where we were taught these concepts and more, and learned how to use logical moral reasoning to make our moral choices. I wonder if they still have morality classes in high schools. They really should.
There's also the issue of lying, and if it's ever justified. I remember as a young child, my mother told me there were two types of lies. A lie and a fib. Fibs she said weren't as bad. Our atheist philosophy teacher at community college told us in 2000, sometimes lying is justified. If it saves lives. He told us the Pentagon said Y2K knocked out their computers for a day. It was a lot longer, he said. If our enemies knew, he pointed out, we'd be vulnerable. Some people say situations like when the police lie to extract a confession are justified. I don't know. If they lie by saying that all your friends ratted on you that is very different. Different than for example saying that they have overwhelming evidence on you. People do lie, so maybe your friends did say you did it, if you were innocent. But if you were innocent, and they said they had overwhelming evidence on you, you might feel compelled to confess to something you didn't even do. Plus they say it's to protect the public. But how likely is it that an offender would reoffend even if he was guilty? I wonder about that now. But clearly, lying should only be a last resort. As they say, honestly is always the best policy.
The consensus is that the human brain is self-organizing, our conscious and unconscious minds are self-organizing, flipping the bird at the principle of the excluded middle, and requiring fuzzy logic. Likewise, a study by the French discovered evidence that the causal world all around us, violates causality in subtle ways. In other words, the consensus is that modern academia could not find their ass with both hands if they tried. All the evidence for over half a century has strongly indicated we occupy a Goldilocks Universe, and academia is living in denial. A Goldilocks Universe implies Karma, which means metaethics can be broken down by simply applying linguistic analysis, that's taboo in academia. The Rules Of The Playground! Descartes had it backwards, its more like, "I can still think, therefore, I must still be capable of feeling something!" Without a sense of humor, you might as well ask academics for advice on sex, when they also have the lowest reproductive rates!
