I think we do have a moral obligation to help the poor. However, there are times when these contributions can have little or no effect – for example, when the government relief programs that would distribute these donations are themselves corrupt.
I say that VERY guardedly, since many people would use this as a cheap excuse for not helping at all. I’ve known too many people who refused to give, arguing “Well, the charity workers will just pocket those funds” or “The poor will just spend the money on booze anyway.” Shame on those people for thinking that way!
I think the level of sophistication of the argument depends on how this duty attached to “us”.
If it is based on our religious convictions, so be it. There really isn’t much to argue about there. This is where most of the moral obligations go.
If it is based on our own gratuitousness, not religious, you have to find other reasons for it, such as it is good relations and helps us with non-poverty related interests we may have with respect to those peoples, or makes us feel good.
If it is based on contractual relationship, is it a written, oral or implied by conduct contract. And did both sides have a capacity to enter into such a contract, or undertake the assignment of the earlier parties. Does the contract meet the requirements of conscionability and fair consideration, etc.
It may be a combination of all of the above, as I would argue.
Why “shame on them” for thinking like that? Simply giving someone money, food, or goods isn’t going to help them in the long run. They have to be taught how to grow their own food, how to produce goods, and even how to spend money. Unless you take these steps you’re just pissing your money away.
No! What seems to happen in poor countries is that people breed out of control. They do not deserve our money, they need education. And that is not usually available to the poor. For some reason the governing elite of each poor country is only interested in becoming richer,as far as they are concerned the poor are not human. If we give money to these people, the poor will not benefit at all. Remember Somalia and payments to the warlords for allowing aid to go through. In the end they stole the food anyway. To heck with them, no money from me. Famine is the nature’s way of saying you’re breeding out of control!
Are you saying that long-term goals are the only ones that matter? Sometimes you must provide the poor with short-term relief so that they CAN be taught how to grow their own food, and so forth.
Also, the point is that we should not resort to cop-outs like “Well, someone’s just going to pocket whatever money I donate.” If that’s a concern to you, then look for a reputable charity with a solid track record, and which keeps its books open to the public. Don’t assume that all charities will just squander your money.
And finally, there are MANY charities which do just as you describe – helping people grown their own foods, helping them get education, and so forth. Yes, we do need to help people in the long term, but that’s no excuse for not giving. There are charitable organizations which seek to accomplish that very same goal.
Unfortunately, not enough people feel that way. Many feel as you describe – that their money would just be squandered. I think these people take a myopic view of Third World charities, as though they’ve never bothered to research the topic. To them I say: OPEN YOUR EYES!
In truth, I am tempted to ascribe to the notion that charity is in the best interest of the “haves”, based on the notion that the poor will rise up and etc. In truth, I doubt it. The rich don’t need to be soldiers, they can hire soldiers. They always have.
As to the argument that encouraging 3rd world economies will provide future markets: may well be true, but preaching to the advantage offered 50 years down the road tends to the futile.
No, simply have to admit it: I can offer no rational reason to share, if rational is defined by self-interest
Nope. Not a one.
Which is why it’s not known as “The Algorithm on the Mount”.
Out of enlightened self-interest, yes, we have a duty to ourselves to take practical measures to raise living standards and quality of life in poor countries.
A wealthier 3rd World means bigger markets for our own producers, and fewer breeding grounds for drug trafficking, illegal migration, child prostitution, terrorism and other evils that hurt us in the rich world.
Of course, there might come a stage where the costs of developing the 3rd World outweight the benefits. From that point, the only duty is a purely moral one - a requirement from God if you’re a Christian, or an irrational sacrifice if you’re a Libertarian.
(FWIW, IMO the best development assistance comes in the form of trade and investment, not handouts for some dictator to put into Swiss bank accounts. Thanks to jobs at foreign-owned factories, millions of rural people in China, Indonesia etc eat properly, educate their kids, have a TV and a little motor bike, etc. If the US and Europe stopped protecting their food and textiles industries, millions more impoverished people in the 3rd world would move a similar step up.)
Well, if you say so… but that really doesn’t jibe within the context of our discussion. Let us review:
Note that no reference was made to focusing exclusively on “short term problems.” So maybe you were just talking about short term solutions – but I really don’t think that matches the context.
Actually if you take it from nature’s point of view, then Finnie is absolutely correct. When animals compete for limited resources only the strong survive. Why should humans be any different? Barring religious arguments it is a little presumptious of us to think that we’re “different” and immune to natural selection.
That being said, I support charities and charity work. BUT, if you’ll read my prior posts you can see why I have a problem with “moral imperatives.”
Thanks,LiquidLobotomy. I do support some charities like World Vision who educate children and provide medical and nutritional assistance to them. What burns my butt is the poverty that I see in my own country among the aboriginals. I have worked in some of the remote reservations, and I can tell that those people would work if they could. But there is no infrastructure in place, no job creation, and no hope for the future. There is definite mismanagement of funds allocated to the bands ie. the Chief and Council often pads their own hand. The regular folks accept this as a matter of course. Items like this should be put to rights before going abroad, IMHO. Then, let’s kick ass and straighten out the world, but only then. First look after your brother, then attempt to help the rest of the kin! And, be kind to Nature!
Animals – even primates – have been known to commit rape and cannibalism. If animals engage in such behavior, and if humans are to be treated no differently from animals, then what does that tell us?
So you claim now… but let’s examine your very next remark.
And yet your defense of that argument focused exclusively on short-term problems. In your own words, “Why “shame on them” for thinking like that? Simply giving someone money, food, or goods isn’t going to help them in the long run.”
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t present an argument against short-term solutions, and then use this to support your claim that “Short or long term I have no obligation to donate time or money to the third world” (sic).
While it may be important to help a people solve their problems, to argue that the only way to do so is to keep them poor and starving is nonsensical. Moral hazard is one thing, but if someone is starving, they can’t do anything. (Including the detailed governmental reforms that some here appear to argue is conditional to charity; you can’t get everything you want in your government, why should they be expected to do everything you want in theirs?).
Personally, I say “yes”. Not because they deserve it or have a claim to it, but because we need to do it for our own moral, ethical, and pragmatic reasons. What is done is probably best done as a little bit of column “a” and a little bit of column “b”; trade is the best long-term solution, but trade won’t cope with the short-term fundamental problems of the people. Aid and trade… they even rhyme.
And yes, we are more than “just” animals. If we weren’t, then you would have no right to the property that you “own”. You would have no right to anything excepting by the force that you could keep it with, and the government’s permission to keep it. Whether we become more than animals because we choose to be, because we have the choice to be, or whether it’s granted by God is immaterial. The very moral system you depend on to establish your right to your own property and not to have those five billion simply kill you and take it is based on the concept that you are not merely an animal.
Demosthenesian raised an excellent point. The appeal to natural selection is self-refuting.
If you argue that we have no obligation to help the poor, thanks to (ahem) “natural selection,” then please don’t whine if someone bigger, stronger or more powerful decides to steal your life savings. After all, that’s just natural selection at work… and that’s a good thing, right?
You can’t have it both ways… not if you want to remain consistent in your convictions.
I believe that natural selection has to do with the ability to survive, and doesn’t necessarily mean that the animal in question is bigger, stronger or more powerful. Look at mammals. Were they bigger then reptiles 100+ million years ago? Were they stronger? More powerful? Nope. They were tiny rat like things.
Natural selection has to do with the ability to survive. In our current climate we have a social contract where we allow each other to live without the worries of physical brutality. I maintain that natural selection is at play here. Those who survive have adapted to the environment better than those who have not.
Okay. Don’t help anyone, because it will only prolong the inevitable?
Then the next time your child is sick, don’t take him to a doctor, or get him antibiotics. If you have a toothache, don’t go to the dentist. Hey, it’s nature!