Prompt #2

Martin Luther King Jr. discussed the elimination of the idea of an "outside agitator," arguing that we ar all bound by common destiny and mutual fate. Perhaps this is true for our nation, and I doubt anyone would disagree with his idea that anyone who lives within the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. However, some people take this idea further, arguing that we are duty bound to give whatever aid we can globally. Why is it that we owe these people? It makes sense that we pay taxes to support our own country; our government protects us and gives us services, and we in turn are dutiful citizens. But what links us to the rest of the human race? That line of thinking is paritally responsible for wars such as Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. Both of these conflicts also had ulterior political motives, but what was their selling point to the public? That we are helping to liberate the oppressed people. These are extreme examples, but they show how thinking that are somehow obligated to help everyone who we deem in need of it can be dangerous to our national well-being. On a smaller scale, many people feel that we are morally bound to help those in need in our own country. In some cases, such as Katrina, yes we should feel an obligation to our countrymen, and also to help revive one of our nation's major cities. But in other cases, such as giving money to the homeless, there is no mutual benefit. Of course its not really a sacrifice to give whatever spare change you have to a vagrant, and I do it too occasionally, but my argument is more against those who say we should or we have to give to the poor. We owe to the community only what it gives to us, and vice versa. As individuals, we cannot expect handouts or free rides to fall into our laps without putting forth any effort, and at the same time, we have no extra obligations to the community. This may seem cold and selfish, but all too often moral obligation is used as a weapon, to guilt us into sacrificing or giving when there really is no obligation. And to those who say we have to sacrifice because as humans we all share some bond, why not then give everything you have to charity and live as simply as possible? Some people do this, and I admire them, but I do not wish to emulate them, and the rest are hypocrites who think that giving a couple hundred dollars to charity somehow gives them a moral high ground.