When does something that is morally exceptable become morally obligatory? From a religious view, if you fail to do an act that is morally obligatory do you believe the punishment is damnation?

I think James 4:17 answers your question from the Christian standpoint. If you know what is right to do, then by not doing it you have -chosen- not to do right.

So all that is morally acceptable is morally obligatory, atleast it is in a Christian viewpoint, right? What about from other perspectives?

p.s. I accidently used the wrong word in my question. I meant acceptable, not exceptable.

No, I don't think so. Just because you can doesn't mean you must.
1 Corinthians 6:12 makes a similar point, saying that there are things you 'can' do that aren't good.

As you said "I think James 4:17 answers your question from the Christian standpoint. If you know what is right to do, then by not doing it you have -chosen- not to do right."

If you have chosen not to do right you have chosen to do wrong. Can doing wrong be morally acceptable? "There are things that you can do that aren't good." Of course there are, from a Christian viewpoint, we have free will, just because we do it does not make it morally acceptable. This has been documented numerous times throughout the bible, starting with Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Is that true? If I choose not to donate to a charity, have I chosen to do wrong? That definitely wouldn't be the right thing to do, but if I did not exist, the outcome would be the same, I hadn't really made an active change at all.

That's true, as an individual you have remained neutral, but when do individuals have an obligation to make a difference? If an individual was about to murder another individual would you feel obligated to stop it, or atleast attempt to make a difference? If you stood idle and didn't stop/attempt to stop them can you not be held responsible to some degree? Now I personally feel an obligation to make a difference. Yes, this is just one stipulation that I have added to a hypothetical situation, but if there is one exception there are probably others.

However, if all believe that way, then no money would be donated.

Not true just because someone feels something isn't morally obligatory doesn't mean they do not do something.

It becomes morally obligatory when you must react to a situation you are in. Donating money to a charity is very different from noticing the blind guy next to you crossing the street during a green light and yanking him back before he becomes a hood ornament. Not that it isn't good to do both. You're just very obligated when it's someone you know or someone in the general vicinity (yourself included) in the situation in question.

But why is preventing someone from getting hit any different from donating money to a charity. Is it because the blind man would die, or is it because the blind man would die in your sight? It can be argued that donating money saves more individuals than preventing a blind man from walking across the street, you just don't see the starving children saved. If that is the case, and the only reason something becomes morally obligatory is when we see the actual death, or wronging, of an individual is this sense of moral just a way to clense our conscience?

First: a question. Are we thinking about this from a religious or secular point of view?

Any viewpoint is acceptable, just explain your view.