Moral Obligation For Extreme Poverty?

[Kakyoin]

The majority of people in the western world are aware of the extreme poverty faced by the billion+ people in underdeveloped countries. If you check a few sources, you'll usually find that the listed statistic for average % income given away by people in the western world is between 0.5 and 4%.

My question is this; is it possible to be moral and still buy comparatively trivial things for ourselves (ie iPods, nice cars, big houses, other luxuries)
when we could be giving our money to help innocent people end the cycle of struggling for necessities?

If not, are we obligated to do nothing less than absolutely everything that we can, if we are to really be good people? Is our society morally repugnant?

If there is a middle ground, at what point can a person be absolved, and why?

Discuss.

[Aibbie]

People work for what they get so can you truly call it fair to give away to others what you worked hard to get? Of course there are people who are undeserving of what they possess, like Paris Hilton. However majority of people do not get a fortune dumped into their lap, is it also moral to tell them to give it up simply because they struggled in a different environment?

[The Man]

I think it's only unfair to buy things when one is doing so at a ridiculous rate. I dislike consumerism as much as the next guy, if not even more, but giving stuff to charities doesn't always help, especially because many of them have absolutely the wrong idea. Sending food to Africa may help them in the short run but it is not going to do anything for them in the long run, and in fact it is going to wreck the efforts to make a living of those who produce food for profit. What really needs to be done in terms of charity is that every effort needs to be made to create a self-sufficient economy for them, whereby they can rely on their own internal products rather than contributing to a flow of money that, generally speaking, goes outward despite the immense amount of Western charities feeding money into Africa (most of which goes to corrupt governments that give almost none of it to their people, but I digress)

I would say the only people who have a vast responsibility to the people of Africa are those who make gigantic amounts of money. If you're not a millionaire, I wouldn't feel terribly guilty. That said, it is worth noting that in buying things one is supporting the corporate system, which is often the same one that has created many of these conditions in postcolonial Africa in the first place (though of course, colonialism itself is responsible for a lot of the region's woes as well)

sorry if I'm incoherent right now, I'm sleep deprived.

[Sibia]

Hm, an good question to ask kakyoin. Can a person really claim to be moral by living a comfortable lifestyle whislt remaining neglegent of the starving?

For some people the answer is a right out NO! You CANNOT be moral if you LET this happen! However, I find the people who say such things are usually doing just as little to resolve the problem as anyone else. Why? Because I really don't think anyone knows how to solve it.

The moral question of the extreme poor this one is infact one of the greyest moral question out there. Do poor people deserve money and effort being given to them freely simply becuase they are poor? What if the man you would feel good about giving money to has murderd 10, 15 or 50 other people in order to steal their food? Is that morally justifiable? Who decides this and how?

Now i'm not saying that all poor people are murderous anarchists, far from it, but lets not forget why a lot of these people are so poor to begin with. Anyone from Africa can confirm this for you. Two words: Corrupt Government.

You could spend all your life working and giving everything you got to releave world poverty, but I can promise you that every dollar/pound/yen/cent you give to the poor in these countries will eventually wind up in the hands of the local chief or head of government. This money will then typically dissapear into the black market and potentially fuel torture, war and genocide.
It may sound simple, but corrupt governments really do hold the world back from actually helping people. There have been countless incidents of milita or even government troops attacking and confinscating aid shipments. If you can remember the great humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia back in the 90's, the world responded with mountains of aid to help the starving. Since then instead of being starving most ethiopians are armed and dealing with attrocity and religious percecution.


With things as they stand it may be moral to do all you can to help in the short term, but in the long term those moral gestrues run a very real risk of turning into dark tithes that serve selfish and immoral goals.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sibia

murderous anarchists

hey, I resent that. Not all of us are murderous. (in fact, most of us aren't)

Other than that, though, good post; you raise some valid points. Corrupt governments are a cause of far too much suffering in the world.

[My Final Heaven]

Totally agree with The Man (as per normal I guess).

Giving money to charity is handing a man a fish. Unless it's one of the few charities that actually teach to fish, or fund those that do, it's a waste of money and probably is worse than doing nothing. Now there are a few things people could boycott because they have a negative influence on the 3rd world. I won't ever pay money for a diamond because of what's happened in the ivory coast. (Diamond bladed saws are different and they use diamonds that are manufactured)

The thing about giving away stuff is this, that it makes the recipients dependant upon in. What should really be done is nothing. And I mean real nothing, not this corporate intrest garbage. THAT's the worst stuff, but really do nothing, let them sink or swim. The thing about people is that they are very boyant, and if we stop weighing them down, they'll do just fine.