Unless this is philosophy 101, and even then it is risky, you need to use more substantive references and examples than an old TV show. Even using contemporary celebrities like Sting, Bill Gates, the Clinton Foundation, Leonardo diCaprio, or Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie would be better if you feel you must.

In India, many sadhu (holy men and women) live without "church, temple or masjid", without house or shelter, without seeking and even without begging. Some, the "sky clad", own no material possession, not even clothing.
Temples, cathedrals, synagogues, shrines, etc., can not contain the god/gods and serve to glorify man more than the god/gods.
If those in said buildings truly loved the god they profess faith in they would fill the buildings with the homeless, the poor, the naked, the hungry, the sick and those in need so as to provide them with shelter, compassion and kindness sharing the blessings they have received with all others....
Wakariamsu, tomodachi?

how do u write this in greek whenever you feel blue i will be there for you whenever your are sad i will stay by your side whenever you need someone to love i will always be there for u to have?

Just ask the humans who are here for their second or third time how it is. They will just say calm down and don't worry about it. It is going to happen whether we want it to or not. Other than that? I have little or no proof whatsoever.

Wikipedia says "A meme 1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas,"

"[Dawkins argued that] a certain culture may develop unique designs and methods of tool-making that give it a competitive advantage over another culture. Each tool-design thus acts somewhat similarly to a biological gene in that some populations have it and others do not, and the meme's function directly affects the presence of the design in future generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Sure, who can't believe that? I remember when people didn't speak by putting question marks at the end of their statements. Now it's done by even the most educated of people younger than me.

"There is a psychological element to this, though I don't know what it is, unless it's simply that people younger than me don't have the certainty of what they speak. That would be "meme like".

It was Kant who argued that only intentions matter in judging human behavior.

"An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.)

"Those who accept any part of Kant's philosophy—metaphysical, epistemological or moral—deserve it."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_...

As for the moral part, Kant's ethics were purely based on his idea of duty, as mentioned above. This is called 'deontological ethics", which others also preach.

But if one is doing something with "intentions", it can only be for one of two reasons: because it makes him happy to help others out of his love of them as individuals or because they are human. The other reason is "duty" to humanity.

If you love an individual and you cause harm, you are going to take responsibility for it. If you harm someone while doing your "moral duty" (which is different form something like a professional duty), you are going to feel like an ant under the shoe of a society that you think required your duty, whether that's true or not.

So why not fight taking responsibility? Who wouldn't fight it under those circumstance. "Duty" is the very crux of the real meaning, the ontological meaning, of "altruism":

"the discipline and eradication of self-centered desire, and a life devoted to the good of others; more particularly, selfless love and devotion to Society. In brief, it involved the self-abnegating love of Catholic Christianity redirected towards Humanity conceived as an ideal unity. As thus understood, altruism involves a conscious opposition not only to egoism (whether understood as excessive or moderate self-love), but also to the formal or theological pursuit of charity......."
http://www.ditext.com/runes/a.html

Do you see there that even charity is not altruism using the real definition? You put money in the Salvation Army kettle because it makes you feel good. That isn't duty, and it isn't charity because if it makes you feel good it cannot by definition be "altruism".

But if you do something that doesn't make you feel good, yet is considered the thing you "ought" to do, you won't want to take responsibility. You will claim, "But I didn't mean it! I didn't mean to hurt anyone!"

But you did hurt someone. Therefore, your good intentions don't "sanitize" bad impact. It's simply that if you were acting because it made you feel good, you will most likely feel bad and take responsibility. If you were acting out of altruistic duty, you won't want to take responsibility, because you "didn't mean it!"