|
|
Post by vardhamana on Dec 6, 2012 14:00:40 GMT -5
Do we have an obligation to aid others in "absolute poverty" (those who are two pore to afford even the most basic needs of life) in order to remain ethical people, assuming or course that "ethical" in this case refers to helping people if they need it.
To clarify, should we send any extra money we might have that we don't need to remain above that "absolute poverty" standard to help those who can't? or should we be allowed to use some on luxuries?
|
|
|
|
Post by JellyFisk on Dec 6, 2012 14:11:24 GMT -5
We should rather let them earn money by actually paying them a reasonable price for the wares we import from poor countries. You can donate all you want, wont fix the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Revan on Dec 6, 2012 14:35:26 GMT -5
Depends on your moral codes, personally I would not. Giving help simple breeds an attitude to rely on help and never do anything yourself which is possibly crippling to society in general, much less any 1 individual. However saying this in theory is necessarily easier than staring a starving child in the face and telling him you cant feed him...=/ To be honest, never been in that particular situation, on either side, so Im not sure what I would do.
Also, I agree with Jelly, donating to feed children simply feeds the underlaying problems of corrupt governments and other such things that provide the environment that causes them to be starving. If they know outsiders will provide for their citizens, they will neglect them with their own resources. Much better to remove the problem than to treat the symptoms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldmage162 on Dec 7, 2012 13:13:27 GMT -5
Yes, but as long as you can't remove the problem, might it be better to treat the symptom in the meanwhile? We do it with viruses-often, you can't cure the virus itself (have to let your body's natural immune response do it for you) but you can treat the symptoms which are making you miserable in the meanwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Revan on Dec 7, 2012 16:13:37 GMT -5
I agree on the medical reasoning there, however every problem we have on a societal level that causes this type of poverty is completely fixable. Restyling governments, getting corrupt officials out of office all are easy simple solutions that no one acts on because it means putting themselves on the line over something that most people just ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldmage162 on Dec 9, 2012 0:43:55 GMT -5
Are they that simple? In most cases, attempting to do something like that causes wars, which generally cause more problems. And it's not always the corrupt officials or governments that are causing the problem. Like you said, people don't generally "put themselves over the line about something most just ignore." Unfortunately, poverty is one of these things. Most people ignore the plight of those they don't directly interact with constantly. Governments aren't preventing people from sending more money to charity (or at least, not in the United States).
And it's not always the governments fault in the stricken nations either. Especially nowadays, when a government tries to get more involved in directly helping its citizenry, people tend to complain (though usually not the ones being helped, true). And, of course, people complain when they don't get enough.
But in the end, the problem has remained a problem for years already-how many people would have to die in order to fix it, if the cure is to leave it alone? And if the cure isn't to leave it alone, but it isn't to send more help either, what should be done (assuming we actually care about the issue, obviously)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Revan on Dec 9, 2012 0:52:05 GMT -5
Our government doesnt prevent us from sending the money, but the destinations can and do divert such money into personal pockets and other such things... very rarely does aid make it to where it is going without some of it going into an officials pocket.
As for people complaining, I agree. People will always complain. To quote a card player I know, "if the company started put $100 bills in the packs, people would complain about how they were folded in the pack"
do-do just happens. You will NEVER please everyone, You have to settle with the majority in some cases or even the minority if thats how things work in your particular country. However basic issues like this should transcend politics and such, yet they never do. Everything is too divisive anymore for people to agree to work towards a common good without it being an outside threat. maybe we should just arm the starving people and have them threaten us? ;p
|
|
|
|
Post by JellyFisk on Dec 9, 2012 4:36:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldmage162 on Dec 9, 2012 5:44:10 GMT -5
Oh yes, I agree that some (most) rulers/governments probably don't help, but I think to say all the problems are their fault is a bit of an overstatement.
I quite like Revans idea-at the very least, it will provoke us into putting them out of their misery.
|
|
|
|
Post by JellyFisk on Dec 10, 2012 19:10:29 GMT -5
|
|
