Yes, is the short answer. However, the examples of misplaced help are many, the often made quote of 'give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, give him a net and he will feed himself for life' is mostly true. Giving the poor of the world the resources to help themselves is by far the better option, giving help and a chance to gain pride in ones self is the goal.
We are answerable of our actions. We need to do our duty with honesty. We must help the poor nations and poor people as much as we have the power and wealth. Yes it is our moral obligation to help poor people in poor nations survive but first we should start from our family, friends, native area, city and country then you should look to save other people.
Of course it is our moral obligation to help poor people to survive, but more importantly we should help them to lead an independent life by the best utilization of their own resources. We should help them in a such a way that they should not always look at us for help but we should guide in such a way that they could come out of their so called eternal faith.
I think that we need to look here at home first. There are homeless people here in the USA. The sad truth is that money donated for a cause half way around the world isn't worth anything after the cost of logistics. If we concentrate close to home then the money and effort will go further and get more done.
The government needs to address foreign issues with plans and aide that will help other countries to become self sufficient over time. Sending plane loads of food is like putting a bandaide on a severed limb.
We are the sum total of our actions. And if we help those less fortunate, then we are living according to our highest nature. We have a duty as good citizens to help those who we can help. To be less than generous to nations that are impoverished or struggling for basic necessities is the beginning of narcissism, crass egoism and disregard for our fellow man. We are expressing the best of our nature when we help and care for those without expecting anything in return.
Such generous and compassionate people! But resources are finite, at least in the foreseeable future. Are we not creating more and bigger problems and needs by helping more people survive, rather than letting things be, no matter how heart-wrenching that may be?
Should we not look for the root causes of their misery rather than trying, in vain, to patch the visible symptoms?
You sir or mam deserve a job as a senator. You see, as a world superpower we feel the need to but in and change things. Now, no one really can argue with the fact that we should help with world starvation and disease, but we can't go around chasing every dictatorship, tyrannical leaders, and such. On your statement that in fact we will [[not]] be able to support other countries in their struggles in the future, I thinks that our goal is to help them reach a point of stability so that we can move on and say, well, (mission accomplished) and I don't mean to be funny. Still you have a great point and it has been fun giving my view, -Trey
All I know is that...life has its own purpose...and that is not to live for yourself...I live for other people as other people live for me...I gain satisfaction with the thought that I try my very best to share my life to other people.regardless if they take notice or not...as long as I did my part...my happiness is boundless
You answered the question yourself when you asked if you were wrong. Why ponder such.....if you didn't know "Much" is gained by helping others. The Bible says "There will always be poor amongst us". It also says to "Love one another as you love yourself"; with that said, do you love yourself enough that you can lay your head down on a soft pillow at night knowing that you, I, we, our country,any country didn't lift a finger to help someone, somewhere in need. The world isn't over yet..this country, our country may be in need one day. Remember this if you take away nothing else from this...Some of the poor countries like Africa (which has both) have OIL and or DIAMONDS...what country do you think can't live without either of those....When our country give; believe me they have something to gain from it. Some people are born into dictatorship and they have no control over their surroundings...don't be so hard on the less fortunate. Thanks for listening!
The first people to help them should be the fortunate in their own community/country. How often do we see reports of poor people in African countries where their Leaders drive around in top-end cars, mansions, fat and happy? It makes me angry that they seem to lack any moral obligation themselves. I feel that we are already at the point where we cannot help everyone and we should remember that they do not all want our "help" either. Perhaps we should concentrate on those that ask for help?
I think you have to first ask two questions: (1) how are you defining 'poor' and (2) how did the people in the specific country you are thinking of, get to be 'poor'.
I think there is no moral responsibility to the rich to help poor the conditions and circumstances which made them poor are responsible for there proverty not a rich man.
Having said that I think there is tax system in which more tax will deducted from the rich income when a rich man is doing such thing then why there is a some kind of responsibility to help the poor so I think that there is no moral responsibility to help poor people the poor people have to work hard to change there circumstances they live at or change the system that made them poor.
Depends on whether you accept the lifeboat theory or not. If you do it is a moral obligation not to help if you don't it is a moral obligation to help.
Um no. Our priority is to support our own. If we neglect our own country, how can we help others. We have homeless people on the streets (though most are too lazy to find jobs).
We can help other countries a little bit if we can... But our country always comes FIRST.
