At the root of all left-wing ideas is the belief that everybody has a duty to care for their fellow man. One can see this belief in action upon listening to leftists speak. For example, all of their arguments regarding health care revolve around this basic idea.
If you watched the Ben Shapiro vs. Cenk Uygur debate, then probably heard Cenk Uygur make the argument that in a “civilized society” we will care for each other. Basically, leftists believe that an individual has a big moral responsibility to his fellow man, but upon closer inspection, one can see that this idea just doesn’t hold.
To test this idea, we must first inspect what an obligation is in philosophical terms. An obligation is a duty that an individual must act on because they are morally bound to it. For example, parents have an obligation to care for their offspring because their children are helpless and need their guidance and love to succeed in this world. If parents break their obligation, they would have committed a moral atrocity. This is why cases of child neglect and abuse are seen as incomprehensible and punishable by law.
So to truly understand moral obligations, we must not look at them in practice, but look at them when they are not being practiced, because if you break your moral obligation, you have committed a moral crime.
That being said, I must ask why is my fellow man of so much importance, that I have a moral obligation to him, and if I break that “obligation,” am I guilty of a moral atrocity? The reason why a child is more important than the fellow man is because a child is another person that I willingly choose to have and nurture. By bringing the child into this world, it has become my responsibility that I cannot shirk.
Like all choices individuals make, we have an obligation to endure all the consequences of our decisions. But the fellow man is different because I did not make the choice to bring him into this world, nor am I responsible for the consequences of his actions.
When leftists proclaim that we have an obligation to help the poor, I always demand why. This is because I am not solely responsible for the reason why poor people are underprivileged, and they would not be responsible for me if I was poor similarly. Furthermore, no one who refuses to help the poor is guilty of a moral atrocity. If leftists say we have an obligation to the poor, then why shouldn’t everyone who actively lives their life everyday not helping the poor be considered a horrible person? The conclusions of this line of thinking are ridiculous.
Now, I must say that if anyone feels the need to help others, let it be a choice an individual makes out of the kindness of their own hearts. Don’t let them be pressured into doing good by sanctimonious liberals. I will certainly concede that helping others is honorable, but I am not making an argument regarding what’s good and what’s evil. I’m arguing that providing no help to others is not evil, but rather an act of neutrality.
That is why I am in disgust when leftists make moral arguments. Most of the time they just make up rights and obligations and use them as an excuse to label everyone who disagrees with them an evil person. So just like the fictional rights to healthcare and abortions that leftists have devised, the moral obligation we have to others does not exist.
Lets see Slavery is an involuntary obligation to another. It is a duty not an obligation because obligation means you can be compelled. A free society is where those are non-existent or minimize. A civilized society is where people fill their moral duties by their own will and choice.
What happens when the need of others increases to the left where other are capable to take care of them…
The only moral obligation anyone has for any other person is to not cause them or their property harm. There is no duty I have to fulfill to anyone else just as they have none to me.