When is it morally wrong to refuse help to those in need?

Look at this scenario:

1.      A philosophy lecturer who was born without limb was approached by a beautiful YOUNG LAD for financial assistance. He refused to give, citing reason as: “God was not fair to him; so he doesn’t have to be fair with people.” What is your take on this?

2.      Do you think God was not charitable or fair with him?

3.      Do you believe “giving” is an act of God?

            Before proceeding to state my position on the above questions, it is important for me to begin with a definition of terms to enable the reader understand the perspective the writer argues from and the object of our discussion. This is because, for space and time constraints, this easy cannot treat the above questions on a wider scope. I will now proceed.

Firstly, like every phenomena or concept, there exists no single definition of the concept or term “Philosophy”. What confront a researcher are myriads of definitions ranging from moderate to complex ones as it were. Philosophy is defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as “the critical examination of the grounds for fundamental beliefs and an analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs.” But, for the scope of this essay, we will define philosophy as a branch of knowledge and a vocation etc thus: that Philosophy is the rational and critical inquiry into the fundamental reasons underlying “Reality” or “Being” with the aim of understanding all that is in existence – the phenomenon of life for example. Hence, a philosopher is one who engages in the activity described above.

Having a working definition, I now come to stating my position on the above raised questions. Because our philosopher friend asserts the “partiality” of God with respect to his physical challenge of having no limbs, I assume in this essay that he believes in the existence of a supreme being, God – this is a fundamental assumption because most philosophers are atheists. Lets go ahead to see my take on the questions.

First, on the attitude expressed by the “philosopher”, I believe his negative response towards assisting the YOUNG LAD and helping people negates or contradicts his training as a philosopher – one that exposes scholars to studies on morality and what constitutes “Goodness” or “The Good Life”; morality etc. I say this because having been exposed to knowledge via philosophy (the mother of all disciplines) the lecturer ought to have had a mental revolution and a balanced outlook to life, since he now understands that life is not based upon accidents, but “causes and effects” – God being the first cause.

Our philosopher friend’s action therefore presents him as an illiterate – for illiteracy is not limited to a lack of education but includes, also, one who has knowledge but refuses to be civil or to let his wealth of knowledge influence his actions in life (i.e. refusing to live like a refined human person). In fact, he does not qualify to teach others as it were.

Now, away from his personality, lets look at the reasons he cited as the basis for his position of refusing the YOUNG LAD and humanity assistance using his resources so as to answer the second question above. I strongly believe his state of being limbless is not an act of God – though the question does not suggest such evidence either. Certain lifestyles according, to scientific researches, have shown positive relationship between deformities in foetuses and smoking, drug abuse and sexually transmitted diseases amongst couples. Thus, it might have been possible that our philosopher friend might have been a victim of such a lifestyle. Probably speaking with his parents or doctor would do. Forensic investigation has developed to the extent that death cases have been solved just by examining the bone remains of the dead to determine cause of death and objects employed if it were a murder case. Thus, our friend can benefit from such investigation.

 

Further still, though God is believed to be good, most phenomena that confront us daily are not his making. Take pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer for instance. Are they the acts of a benevolent and good God or the seeming reckless acts of humankind not being able to strike a balance in nature? Hence, to my mind, the philosophy needs more reorientation or counselling for he has no reasons to justify his action of withholding help from others.

As a Christian, my faith charges us to owe no man nothing but love; I believe other religions do teach such too. Thus, the wealth and the very life he has and “enjoys” are all a blessing from God – in spite of his deformity or challenge. I believe his helping people even with his challenge will go a long way to teach people that in spite of challenges in our lives we can still make a big difference in life. Sadly, our philosopher friend sees his situation as a curse and not a blessing in disguise. As a final note on this part of our discussion, I believe his wealth and knowledge, like every other person, isn’t his alone to enjoy alone. God bestowed upon him intelligence and the capacity to build a future that guarantees his survival and others he meets. Thus, God made him a custodian of wealth to impact others – putting a smile on the faces of the “have nots”.

I now come to the second question. I believe that, in spite of his state – God was charitable and fair to the philosopher. He bestowed on him a sound mind and the intelligence he needed to succeed in his career and life. Think about this, what about those who were born dead and not having the opportunity to use the lungs? He should be counting himself as lucky to have been given life by God.

Lastly, I will proceed to answer the last question. According to the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Charity is defined respectively as: “benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity” and as “generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering”. Also describing charity in the context of Christian Thought, the Encyclopaedia

Britannica states Charity to be “the highest form of love, signifying the reciprocal love between God and man that is made manifest in unselfish love of one's fellow men”. Hence, I believe “Charity” is an act of God. Charity or Love gives. Thus to love is to give or share our God-given resources with those in need.

God shows man love by giving us all life and the ability to succeed; and for those who have challenges he has endowed some with the resources to help them – like our philosopher friend. Hence, because giving is an act of God, if we lay claim to worshipping or obeying him we ought to obey him to the latter by emulating his act of love (or giving) by touching the lives of those we meet daily in any way we can. This is because we are custodians (or managers) of wealth and not owners; vessels through which God comes closet to meeting the needs of the poor and vulnerable of society. Just

To conclude, my advice to our philosopher friend and to society is that each one of us should strive to be “Love Personified” – sharing our God given resources and love with those who are not as privileged as we are. Just as I spoke of the iron law of cause and effect in one of the paragraphs above it’s a fact that the philosopher (and this applies to us) refusing to help can cause a negative effects on the victims of such “heartless” disposition. A great mind puts it this way, that “hurting people hurts people”. This is true. Take for instance a man who batters his wife might end up influencing his male children into becoming women abusers thereby hurting their wives. We should stop whining of not having shoes when there are those who are limbless and those who never had the life to live not to talk of walking on legs. With love (charity), the world will be a better place.

References:

"philosophy." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Student and Home Edition.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010.

"charity." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Student and Home Edition.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010.

“Charity.” Merriam-Webster's. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate(r) Dictionary. Eleventh Edition, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

If you enjoyed this post, why don't you share? Join us on facebook too.