I must say, perhaps unsurprisingly, an emphatic “No.” The word “duty” belongs nowhere in my vocabulary except in matters of explicit contract (even informal contracts like, “Sure, I’ll pick up those forms for you on my way home”). To me, then, deontological systems fo morality completely fail to grasp the nuances of coexistence, flat-out, and I say without reservation that such systems which immediately compell someone to do something with no justification other than a call to duty are short-sighted and highly suspect.
However, that is not to say, in fact, that we shouldn’t help them; rather it is merely my long-winded method of picking a nit. There are several compelling reasons to assist other peoples and nations in their time of need, not all of which need to be motivated in selfishness.
In cases where people are starving, however, there are several things to question. One, to me, is whether aiding these peoples has a side-effect of aiding the regime which enabled this starvation in the first place. If this hypothetical government didn’t help its own people, and we do, that is one less thing for it to worry about, more or less. So of course flat-out aid isn’t asctuaqlly helping these people do anything other than live in a dusty prison without bars. IMO, not exactly a compelling human interest case. Other questions might be of the “fisherman” sort; do they simply not have the wherewithal to produce their own food/factories/schools/etc? Is it their social organization (ie- government/economy)?
Because I recognize no duty, these questions become increasingly important as they seek to resolve the ultimate question, “I don’t want people to suffer; given that, what would I be willing to do about it?” And, of course, “What can I do about it?”
As a nation founded on principles of inherent rights, and a government founded not only to protect those rights but to actively promote growth and security of its citizens, we must ask ourselves each time e deny someone else those rights why we do such a thing. Because they live 100 miles away? 250 miles away? Because they don’t have a piece of paper? Because they don’t have oil? As an individual there are many “rights” I completely fail to recognize, but as a citizen of a nation which does, in fact, recognize such rights, I must ask myself why we wouldn’t attempt to what we think is right everywhere.
Even Rand must admit, without democracy and capitalism nothing can fix itself, so why we would simply let people waste away because we have no duty… well, hell, like I said, we don’t have a duty to do anything. The question is not, then, “Why should we?” but rather, “Why shouldn’t we?” If we would help any class of people which live like them inside our own borders, what is so special about these borders? Etc, etc [insert astute dialogue between two persons much more educated than I trading wit and insight].
No, we don’t have to help them. I still think there are good reasons to help them. We should help them. This is the hidden cost of being a powerful, large nation whose economy spreads into seamy cracks everywhere.
Moebius, I guess what I am trying to say is that the method with which one has acquired a state of prosperity is more or less irrelevent to helping someone else achieve their prosperity.