Have we the moral obligation NOT to help the people, that r starving, in 3rd world countries?

Question

Don't Answer right away... Think deeply!

Answer 1

we need to focus on our own country theres millions here that starve everyday but ppl seem to over look that nd want to help 3rd world countries theres so much poverty here already the rich need to step out side of thier sheltered lives and come to my side of the neighborhood instead of donating to other counties yes they need help too but theres alot of problems in america ppl seem to forget

like homeless-ness starving families unemployment kids that are being shifted around in the foster system poor schools etc and especially the way our economy is now we as americans need to help eachother not other countries

Answer 2

This is actually a very good question... and one that not too many people would even consider.  But taking your advice and thinking about this idea it seems you might be right.

It seems that over the decades our "help" has done nothing to stop the disease, poverty, hunger, etc. of the third world.  How could this be, one might ask.... well, its because noone is solving the underlying cause of these issues.  It is like putting a band aid over a shotgun wound. Frankly, we are unable to really solve their underlying issues so failing that should we even give them a band-aid?  When that band-aid may in fact be preventing them from solving the issues themselves?

If you are deathly ill, and I try to help by giving you an aspirin that would seem more moral then not trying.  However, if you then decide that you will not go to hospital because of this aspirin and I see this pattern then my choice was the morally incorrect one.  I assuaged my own guilt at your ultimate expense.  Had I done nothing you would have been forced to either get your wound fixed or die.... but if I know that helping you will not really help you then I have only served myself and my ego.

I would agree that a starving man should be fed.  However a starving nation should feed itself.  Just like in a war their should be a plan for victory... if no plan is ever so much as introduced then no problems will be fixed.  At the end of the day we will create a nation of people that are diseased, hungry, poor and reliant... adding a new horror to their already horrible lives.

How many years have you seen the fundraisers for starving nations?  How many different charities "help" these nations and its peoples?  How many billions of dollars have gone toward this type of aid over the decades?  What has actually changed in that time?  Frankly, I don't see a single difference in these areas... they are still struggling despite (or maybe because of) the billions in aid.  One would think that something would have progressed.... that farming would have been started.... that some internal programs would have been develop to allow the people of these countries to help themselves.  Teach a person to fish and all that.  

Answer 3

We shouldn't let people starve, but " moral obligation " should first be utilized in our own country.  The small percentage of our citizens and companies who have money, just keep getting richer and more in charge.  Look at the people in our country who are starving, and it just isn't in the cities anymore.  If some of those countries who get, and expect our help, would quite blowing everything to h**l, they could help themselves more.  Most of this aid is financially beneficial to some idiots, before it ever gets where it was intended, with little left.  If some of it stayed at home, they wouldn't need news reporters and crews circling the globe for a photo of Mr. or Mrs. Dumb-*** making a speech at a $1,000-or-more-a-plate in the most expensive motel/hotel in the area, then handing out a check minus all "necessary" fees, salaries, luxury travel, meals and accommodations, clothing allowances, entertainment, and souveniers for everyone they know, down to the rabied dog that was put to sleep ten years ago!!!  Some of the poor people in this country, who collect and send ' care packages ' can't even feed their own families.  But they are good-hearted, want to help, and are made to feel " guilty " by some ' group ' that is going to profit, and get their name in the paper or on some ballot!!!  If our Congress ( we don't have anyone else to count on ) would get off their *** and bring our soldiers home from everywhere, we could start rebuilding our own country!!!  Let them keep on blowing each other, and their homes, up.  They don't understand, want or care about democracy, a roof, a bath tub or a soft mattress!!!  What good is it doing us to build, feed, clothe, and die for those idiots?  They are even killing our soldiers and civilians that are helping them!!!

Answer 4

I think you have this backwards - we DO have the moral obligation to help starving people.

We have the resources to prevent the deaths of the thousands of people who die from malnutrition every day - and yet, we don't. We have the military power to make sure that the right people get the food - and yet, we refuse to excercise that power, because it comes as a cost to us.

Our country, we - as a people - are too cheap, too lazy, and far too selfish to comply with this obligation. And is it any wonder why? If you suggested that we could feed say, a thousand people with a small tax increase (I'm not sure that's feasible, it's just an example) - people would still freak out.

It's hard for most Americans to sit there and imagine that there are people, of all ages dying - and we have the potential save them. We -  one of the most obese countries on the face of the earth, if not THE most obsese - cannot fathom going more than a day without food, in most cases, let alone going weeks or longer.

And thus, we push these issues to the back of our minds. "No big deal, oh well. It's not effecting ME."

Most people would say - we have to protect ourselves first. We have to feed our hungry. And I agree. But, there is no law that says we cannot do both at the same time. There is so much we could do, both within our country and in other countries as well.

Hey! Maybe if we stopped spending billions of dollars on this petty war that we had no business getting into - we'd be able to feed some people, and save some lives.

In any case, there is no justifiable reason why we would NOT have such a moral obligation. We cal ourselves a Super Power - and I see no proof.

Here's my advice: Man up, America. Where it counts.

Answer 5

i think its an outrage how people with loads of money that's practically falling out their asses cant seem to be able to spare a meal ot two a day for people who are in true need i think there should be some sort of way to deduct at least 2 meals a day from their over stuffed bank accounts to help 3rd world poverty we are in the 2000 this shouldn't even be an issue anymore it obviously doesn't make sense it would be like chump change to them like throwing pennies in the street

Answer 6

It's not about a "moral" obligation.

It's about what's best for both countries involved.

Answer 7

...to each his/her own...

...to work by a homeless person and offer a disgusting word...

Answer 8

Ya and all they do is multiply steal and murder and multiply some more and the rest of the world must feed them, what a way to go.