Are humans morally obligated to be kind and charitable to humans who are less fortunate?

Question

Less fortunate as in financially poorer, not in good health, etc.

Answer 1

Can I answer a question with another question?

The word "human" was originally spelled "humane" - the two were (at one time) synonymous.

IMHO, I think that in the past this would not have even been a question; the answer would have been an obvious, "yes". But unfortunately, I'm afraid that many people today would answer this question with a quick "no" with plenty of reasons (excuses) to back themselves up.

I wonder, does that mean that we, as a species, are moving away from our "humane-ness" (human-ness)? ((I see so much "inhumanity" all around me any more.)) If so, what are we turning into then?

Answer 2

Well, most people arent, but we were probably made to be. I've seen so many higher class people just ignore and stick their noses up to lower class people that I am starting to believe no one has morals anymore.

Answer 3

morally obligated = yes (at least i think so)

Answer 4

I believe yes.

I once read an article - can't remember who wrote it etc... but it says something to the effect of -> helping the less fortunate is not the monopoly of human beings, some animals do it too. It's part of the "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" arrangement. How? It's like this - I help you keeping your tummy full and happy, you don't riot etc, so everyone is happy.