Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

While yes, many would say that human beings are self-interested (but not necessarily evil) creatures, your statement regarding the "Social Contract" does not entirely apply to the given topic. People do sacrifice certain rights towards some sort of government, but not all of them. Depending on what type of government that may be; the people, elected officials, or ruling powers decide upon a set of laws that everyone lives by. However, this does not mean they make decisions on the moral values of the individuals that make up the lands within their power, and for the most part many people are granted certain freedoms in their countries. Moral obligation is not decided upon by the ruling powers that govern the nation one lives in, by definition morals are a person's standards or beliefs regarding what is right and wrong based on personal experience. Now how can you claim that because governments do not institute punishments for lack of altruism leads to no moral obligation, when moral obligation is different for each individual and is not controlled at all by the government? Your first contention could not be more true, we simply cannot blame individuals who fail to assist. Everybody's lifestyles vary significantly across the globe, and who are we to say that it is wrong for them to not assist others when in fact it is they that need the helping? Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Driving on your own property on the other hand, is perfectly legal. If you are involved in an accident, whether or not it is your fault, you should be morally obligated to get out of the car and discuss the situation with the other driver whether or not it is required by law. That is where the failure in your argument lies. Yes there is a law requiring the driver to provide some sort of aid, but by definition moral obligations are based on personal experiences. If you were hurt in an accident and the other driver sped off, that would be an experience you had regarding accidents. Now what if you were the driver that sped off? That day would haunt you for the rest of your life, because your morals (what is right and what is wrong) tell you that you should have helped that person. Never mind the fact that you broke the law already, you would feel morally obligated to have helped that person. The same example could be used in your choking scenario. If you were choking and everyone around you simply stared at you as you choked to death, everyone that witnessed this would be haunted by that day because their morals tell them that it was wrong not to help. If you saw someone choking, would you just sit and watch as their face turned purple and they gasped for air? Even the simple act of saying, "Someone help, this man/woman is choking! " would be considered assistance and you could have saved their life. If you do everything in your power to help the people involved in these scenarios, you did not defy your morals, but simply it was not within your power to save/help them. The obligation to assist is over demanding. Before I analyze what you have said regarding this I would like to make a statement of my own concerning this. The obligation to assist is not over demanding for all, this statement is so generalized that it simply cannot apply to every single personal scenario around the globe. For some, the obligation to assist is non-existent. For others, the obligation to assist is their life. It is unfortunate that many people in this world that need assistance don't get it, and many that don't need it all get too much, but it is simply a result of the society we live in. If every single person on the face of the Earth was more concerned about the well-being of others rather than themselves, we would truly live in a utopia. Now to speak on your points regarding this matter, you simply cannot make these generalized statements that claim that every person's happiness depend on how well the economy is functioning. Utilitarianism is a theory that states the proper course of action is one that maximizes happiness. Your statement is simply too bold, too generic to be applied worldwide. We do not depend on the government for happiness, and if that is the case for you then I truly do feel sorry for you. Government does have an increasing role in our lives. I could go extremely in-depth on how the automobile industry bailout and the stimulus package actually prevented an even worse economic situation than we are in now, but that would be going off the topic that we are currently debating. I wholeheartedly agree that a majority in the up-and-coming generations are being "baby-sat". It is extremely unfortunate, but it is not just a result of increased government. It is a different generation that is for sure, seeing as I am part of this generation I am witnessing it first-hand. "The federal government does, and rightfully so, provide for the common good of the country and, thereby, her citizens. However, there is a huge distinction between providing for the common good, so that all citizens may freely seek to achieve it for themselves, and attempting to provide the common good itself. "I could not have said that better myself my friend. However, you are veering off-topic slightly. Now you are going into increased role of government and the effects it has on the economy, "helicopter parents", and social reforms. We are entering a globalized era, and there needs to be changes made to adapt to the times. While I don't agree with everything that has happened in the past few years, I don't believe that this entirely pertains to the topic. It sounds as if you are trying to use these examples to explain how future generations are becoming complacent with being pushed along by higher powers instead of rising to the occasion and becoming their own individual person. I will drive back to the original topic and make some points of my own. “A character is defined by the kinds of challenges he cannot walk away from. And by those he has walked away from that cause him remorse. ” -Arthur MillerNow some people are simply without the power to help in certain situations. But there are some things that almost every single person feels morally obligated to do. If you see someone is walking towards the elevator you are standing in or the door you just opened, do you simply ignore them or make the small amount of effort required to hold the door? If you see someone has dropped something and needs help picking it up, do you help them or walk by? I have always been told by my father that your character is defined by your morals, and your morals are defined by your actions. Morals are unique to each individual, and if they walk away from a situation that they know they could have assisted in they would feel remorse. However, if they took the time to perform this simple task to assist another human being it would not only make them feel better about themselves, but it would also change the personal experiences of the person being helped. This may cause them to assist others in this way, and this network could spread across the globe. Ideally, this would be how the world works. As of right now it is not, but hopefully we, the human race, are moving closer towards a society where this is the case. Fundamentally, your argument is flawed simply because you believe morality is something that is decided upon by higher powers when in fact it is uniquely tailored from the events that make up our lives. If every person had the mindset that their morals were pre-determined by some higher power we would live in a dystopia. Everyone makes their own choices, defines their own characters, by living their life and making decisions on their own. Government may be increasing its presence in our everyday lives, but they do not control our minds.