Committing to obligations without genuine inclination has always been an inevitable social standard. Individuals often feel forced to accept trivial invitations, attend unnecessary events and carry out tasks simply because they were asked. As a result, people must give up their valuable time, money and energy for things that offer little to no personal benefit. Furthermore, someone can be forced to risk the health of both themselves and others when peer pressured into engaging in dangerous or even illegal activities, such as shoplifting, excessive alcohol consumption, drug use or reckless driving. I strongly argue that if saying “no” to these kinds of unanticipated requests were kindly accepted and understood as justified, society would become more wholeheartedly generous, intentional and compassionate, while not compromising well-being or enabling harmful behavior.
I have often found myself subconsciously pressured into agreeing to what feels like an underlying demand. In fact, just this past week I reluctantly complied to drive an acquaintance to the airport at midnight the day prior to my midterm exam, simply to avoid a sense of guilt if I had turned down their call for help. This alternative outcome, not to be labeled as an inconsiderate friend, had overridden my own desire. In hindsight, I acknowledge the benefit that my support provided. Nevertheless, this — along with similar selfless deeds — should stem from personal willingness and not social coercion. I am by no means claiming that seeking assistance is wrong, but rather that refusal should not be judged or criticized. Accordingly, participation in such acts will be exercised out of internal inclination, as a true reflection of one’s character.
Philosophers and academic scholars have long wrestled with how to appropriately measure our moral responsibilities. Joel Feinberg offers a clear framework in the chapter “Civil Disobedience in the Modern World” from his book “Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays.” He outlines 11 key duties known as “prima facie obligations” (PFOs), defining them as the basic innate rules that humans must follow when no other situation of greater importance arises. These notably include fidelity, veracity, fair play, gratitude and beneficence, among others.
That said, even this comprehensive outline fails to clearly resolve the moral dilemma described previously. On one hand, placing someone in the uncomfortable position of having to comply with a disguised demand violates the principle of “fair play.” Contrarily, declining such a plea undermines “beneficence.” This tension reveals the ambiguity in determining the morally superior course of action. From my perspective, if society were structured in such a way that similarly unsolicited favors were rarely made in the first place, no PFO would be infringed upon, as neither the request nor the refusal would ever need to occur.
I try to root my life by following the Golden Rule — do to others what you would have them do to you. As such, whenever I am asked for help, I offer my support with sincerity and a genuine willingness to contribute. Having said that, I find it both rude and indecorous to be cornered into delegating time to something that, in my view, should have never been inquired of me in the first place. I firmly believe that there is a clear distinction between requesting a candid favor and entrapping someone into agreeing to an excessive obligation.
In other words, I — like most people — am always willing to say yes to a favor I would expect to be returned. However, when asked to take on something disproportionately demanding, I would never expect someone else to do the same for me.
Naturally, many people find ways to avoid confronting solicited pressure by inventing exaggerated or entirely fabricated excuses. Inevitably, this leads to a cycle of dishonesty that can weaken a relationship’s base of trust. By sidestepping the discomfort of rejection and concealing the reality of our feelings, we compromise the authenticity of our communities.
Of course, philanthropic acts — such as donating money or volunteering — are undeniably good deeds. Nonetheless, these actions should stem from pure willingness and not from being cornered into an obligation without just cause. Both are sourced from inexorably leading demands that are camouflaged as friendly requests, yet result in completely different outcomes. If saying “no” to an unsolicited commitment were seen as socially admissible, then saying “yes” could be understood as a truly generous choice, rather than merely a product of social pressure.
