Welcome to the official blog of Eric Alexander Crawford.

Sign up below with your email address to receive new posts via email:

Get the Book

Teaching Kids Life IS Good Book Preview! (Click Here)

Teaching Kids Life IS Good  continues to be a consistent seller on Amazon . We are excited that for a time it was among the top 100k glob...

Get Eric's Email Newsletter

Sunday

Do we have a moral obligation to help those in need?


oskar schindler i could have done more ring
Many of us have wondered at one point or another how much we should be doing to help those in need, and whether or not there's some kind of "moral obligation" to do so. It can be anything from an occasional $50 donation after a natural disaster, or getting formally trained to work professionally in a field that directly helps others. We may also wonder if we earn a decent income, how much of that should go to help others before we can allow ourselves to spend on luxuries guilt free?



Over the centuries, some of the major religious traditions have sought to make this moral decision easier. Jews and Christians typically consider 10% of one’s income as the magic number (plus an additional degree of gifts and offerings if one is able).  Muslims set a minimum of 2.5%, but encourage more if one is able. Some of the world’s wealthiest folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett amass great wealth and live in great luxury, but are also very generous in the amount of total money that they give - and both have stated that they are planning to give away most of the money they’ve earned to charitable causes. 
  
Ultimately the answers to these questions of moral obligation are extremely important because they greatly influence the way we build our lives and our society. And it doesn’t matter if we’re religious or not, this applies to every human alive, because we’re all more inter-dependent then we even think. So let’s start off with a hypothetical circumstance to set the stage:

Let’s say that you had just spent $800 on a new suit for a special wedding occasion... you may not even like suits, and $800 may be A LOT of money for you. There were similar suits that cost less, but you needed a nice suit, and this one you have to admit looked stunning on you (if you do say so yourself), so you splurged! Upon your first time wearing this new suit you were walking along the sidewalk to the beach wedding, and the walk to the ceremony was flanked by the ocean to one side. You then notice in the distance a child struggling to swim and gasping for breaths about 20 yards out in the water, you look left and right and notice that nobody is with this kid, and he’s in danger of drowning. You realize that the only chance this kid has to survive is if you bolt straight-away into the water to save him. Although in doing that, it becomes immediately apparent that your new suit will be ruined by the experience of jumping in the salt water. But there is simply no time to strip down to your skivvies - you have to act immediately! What do you do? Would you take immediate action and sacrifice your new suit to save the child? Most people would say yes, of course they would!

Now imagine that defying the most unbelievable odds, you’re again walking down that same beachside to another wedding a month later, and again had to buy a new suit because the one you purchased a year earlier had been ruined, and again this suit cost around $800 (and again it looks dashing on you). You again look at the shore recalling the wild experience from last year, and in the midst of doing that, to your absolute amazement, again you see a child in the water drowning and gasping for air. Would you ruin another new suit to save the kid, or would you say “nope, one time was enough of that, I’m not ruining another brand new suit?” Again, most people would say of course they would do it again, despite it being terribly inconvenient! 

Now we could continue with this analogy all day.  Studies show that in an imminently life threatening situation, most humans would sacrifice material possessions, and even personal comfort or security to save another human life. At the same time though, in our modern society most people tend to value the ideal of splurging on themselves from time to time - while knowing full well that at the same time it’s a fact that a child somewhere else in the world is dying of hunger or a treatable disease (i.e., drowning) and that money we just used on a luxury could have saved them. 
You may recall that incredible scene from Schindler’s List when Oscar Schindler was realizing that he had lived in luxury most of his life, and that same money he was spending on himself for luxuries could have been used to pay for the release of more Jews from the concentration camps. In other words, he realized that he "could have done more."  He realized that everything he owned could have been used to save precious lives from that horrible and tragic death, even his car and his clothes could have been ransomed. He then begins to despise his possessions and feel a world of regret and shame.

The answer to this question is very individual, and probably comes from whether we are in a place of connection to source, and pure inspiration. If we are meditating, practicing gratitude, and attentive to our emotions, those answers should just come to each of us in our own way, in each individual situation. Most times, the most amazingly self-connected and inspired people begin to develop a heart for others, and a need for less personal possessions. There should be no guilt or pressure though, but instead every one of us can strive to get into the flow. When we do, the answers become pretty clear.


One step you can take right now to inspire others is to share this on facebook>>
---

Get new EACOLOGY posts is via email which you can do by simply entering your email address in the box below. 


Get Eric's Email Newsletter