Individuals have a moral obligation to help someone in need

I do like ethical debates, and this one looked fun so I really couldn't resist. I will debate that whether an individual or party has a moral obligation to help another individual or party is entirely situational and in some cases you have a moral obligation to not help. It's nice to be able to think of this world in absolutes because it makes our job as humans easier. However, sometimes the world isn't so black and white. For example, when someone, let's call him "Individual A," knows that his actions or help will likely result in worse conditions for the needy party, himself, a party to himself, or anyone the needy party is likely to come across, then Individual A may have a moral obligation to do nothing to help Individual B. I maintain the dilemma should instead be judged like this: Whether or whether not Individual A has a moral obligation to help or not help Individual B or Party B is based on, among other things, Individual A's knowledge of Individual B or Party B, the subject Individual B or Party B needs help with and Individual A's knowledge and skills in said subject and whether Individual A is likely putting himself, Party A or any other individuals in danger through his actions. Let's do some examples to illustrate my point: Example 1 shows that knowledge of Individual B should be a large determiner of whether you have a moral obligation to help Individual B. You're on a hike walking back, many miles from your hotel in freezing conditions. You have no cell phone service in this area. You notice a man bleeding out. Upon closer inspection you become 90% sure that that particular man is a serial killer you saw on the news earlier at your hotel. You're pretty sure the man will continue to bleed out and die if you do nothing, but not entirely sure. You're also thinking maybe you could kill him to make sure he doesn't harm any more people, but he's probably a dangerous killer. In this particular case your best option is to do nothing/ leave and not risk your own safety/ the safety of others in town, and most likely just let the man die. In this case you have a moral obligation to yourself and not to this individual. Example 2 shows whether Individual A has any obligation towards Individual B is highly dependent of Individual A's knowledge of the subject with which Individual B needs help. 2. You're out swimming in the lake with your good swimming buddy, Michael Phelps. You two are alone. Phelps is way further out than you are and he looks like he hurt his arm. He's struggling to get to the other side of the lake, but he looks like he'll probably make it. You still judge that he might need help. In this case you know Phelps is a good guy, not a danger to yourself or others if you help him, so your knowledge of him does not make it to where you don't have a moral obligation to help him. However, this time you only have a moral obligation to help Phelps if your knowledge and skills in swimming are adequate to not get in his way. Yelling at him that you can't help could only confuse him further and take away time and concentration he desperately needs to get to the other side. In other words if you're actually capable of helping Phelps without being a detriment to him or yourself you have a moral obligation to help him, otherwise you have a moral obligation to do nothing. Example 3 shows that even when Individual A has no knowledge of Individual B or Party B he still doesn't necessarily have a moral obligation to help Individual B or Party B. 3. A man and woman whom you've never met approach you and claim they are in need of having a baby together and really want one and need you to provide the sperm. You know nothing about the individuals at all. However, you do know how to make a baby. In this case, without knowing how this action would effect your creation you should know that it would be morally irresponsible to play Russian roulette with a baby's life. You have no moral obligation to these individuals and your best action might be ignoring them and leaving, quickly. Telling them you can't help (which I don't personally believe is a form of help anyways as pro maintains) might further allow these strangers to acknowledge you, engage you in conversation and attempt to further manipulate you into putting the fate of an infant in the hands of two strangers you've never met. You therefore have no moral obligation to engage them in this conversation when it involves the fate of another's life or potential life. This one of course would be different if you knew Party B and knew with certainty that they would take good care of a child, if you aren't certain of the probable path of your creation then you're morally irresponsible and not much different than Victor Frankenstein with his creation. 4. If you think your help is depriving an individual's ability to help himself such as bringing them food when they're hungry or in need of food when they could go get it themselves then you have a moral obligation not to help. So I have demonstrated that whether or whether not you have a moral obligation to help someone is entirely situational just as whether you have a moral obligation to not help someone is situational. The resolution is negated.