poverty

[The Stranger]

Do people have any moral imperative to help other people in the world escape poverty, and if so, to what extent?

[rvg]

Charity is good as long as it's voluntary.

[Idaho]

Africa is far too charitable to Europe and the US. They only get back $1 in poorly targetted aid for every $10 they pay out to US and European multinationals.

[Fragony]

I am aiding two families in Africa, adopted them, what is nothing to me is a lot there. Doesn't feel well.

[Idaho]

I am aiding two families in Africa, adopted them, what is nothing to me is a lot there. Doesn't feel well.

What do you make them do for you Frag?!

;) Nice one. I need to sort out something like that.

[HoreTore]

Charity is nonsense.

Making poor people richer benefits everyone, however.

[rvg]

Charity is nonsense.

Charity is better than nothing

Making poor people richer benefits everyone, however.

An admirable goal, but extremely difficult to achieve on a global scale.

[Idaho]

An admirable goal, but extremely difficult to achieve on a global scale.

The richer people tend to stress how difficult, nay impossible, this is. I don't think the view is shared by the poorer.

[HoreTore]

Charity is better than nothing.

...collected through taxation and organized by the state.

[The Stranger]

can we please stick to a moral point of view :D Does it matter if you help someone on the other side of the globe, or someone nearer. If we do have to help people overcome their poverty, does that count only for our neighbours/fellow citizens or people in the country, or on the globe?

What the best way to help is, is an interesting discussion but not one I want discuss here. Allthough like someone said before, you can argue that the scale is too big for individuals to make a difference and that it has to be organised on a bigger scale. Its something I believe as well.

[Idaho]

Your question assumes that we should give something for people to overcome poverty, when what we really need to do is stop taking and making ourselves richer. Our wealth is the product of people's poverty.

[Major Robert Dump]

Charity is fine, but it is unfortunate that the many charities are nothing more than a front to pay the upper staff over-the-top salaries.
Foreign aid is fine as long as it is administered properly, which in most cases it is not.
I provide financial support to the families of several prostitutes in a developing nation where I go to play Scrabble. I think this is very fine.

What is not fine, however, is this notion that people somehow have a right not to be poor, particularly when it comes from people who believe in evolution. I am not just talking about welfare within ones own country, I am talking about international welfare as well. The idea that people in Papa New Guniea innately DESERVE the same quality of life as people in Germany is flawed.

[Idaho]

The idea that people in Papa New Guniea innately DESERVE the same quality of life as people in Germany is flawed.

Not as flawed as the belief that they innately deserve to not have the same quality of life.

[The Stranger]

Charity is fine, but it is unfortunate that the many charities are nothing more than a front to pay the upper staff over-the-top salaries.
Foreign aid is fine as long as it is administered properly, which in most cases it is not.
I provide financial support to the families of several prostitutes in a developing nation where I go to play Scrabble. I think this is very fine.

What is not fine, however, is this notion that people somehow have a right not to be poor, particularly when it comes from people who believe in evolution. I am not just talking about welfare within ones own country, I am talking about international welfare as well. The idea that people in Papa New Guniea innately DESERVE the same quality of life as people in Germany is flawed.

based on what justification? you say it is flawed but not why. Also if they do not deserve the same quality of life why bother with charity?

[The Stranger]

Your question assumes that we should give something for people to overcome poverty, when what we really need to do is stop taking and making ourselves richer. Our wealth is the product of people's poverty.

No it doesnt, i'm not asking for solutions, just asking if we have an obligation. And if it is established that we do have that obligation then we can discuss how best to fullfill it. Whether that is by stop getting richer or making other people richer that is for then for that discussion. (although i do agree with you, we can only be as rich in the west because other people are as poor somewhere else)

[rory_20_uk]

I'd go with no.

Enlightened self interest is the best place to start. Sure, it doesn't work in all cases, but it is a good place to start.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Charity is fine, but it is unfortunate that the many charities are nothing more than a front to pay the upper staff over-the-top salaries.
Foreign aid is fine as long as it is administered properly, which in most cases it is not.
I provide financial support to the families of several prostitutes in a developing nation where I go to play Scrabble. I think this is very fine.

What is not fine, however, is this notion that people somehow have a right not to be poor.

With you so far.

Not as flawed as the belief that they innately deserve to not have the same quality of life.

That's the inverse of the argument. I don't think anyone actually argues for that (well except a few Neo Nazi's perhaps): rather the point is the whole "innate" thing is a red herring. People do not have a right to be lucky, either. There is no such thing as innate wealth or poverty.

There is the (from the recipient's point of view) accidental good fortune of being born "into" wealth, perhaps. Which is neither here nor there, just fortunate for the recipient. If he squanders it he does not automatically have a right to have it back.

There is abuse in the market by which poor people/corporations/countries are effectively excluded from competition or forced to accept unethical conditions, which is another thing entirely. That is morally wrong, from the do unto another line of reasoning.

[HoreTore]

I'd go with no.

Enlightened self interest is the best place to start. Sure, it doesn't work in all cases, but it is a good place to start.

And as it is in our own self-interest to get people out of poverty, we should.

The richer they become, the richer we become.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a Catholic, I believe that I have a moral obligation to help others in need. Scripture suggests this, and I view such good works as an expression of faith.

I personally prefer to focus most of my charitable efforts locally -- it is good for myself and my children to help out others in our own region (and the reminder that other's have it worse than I and that I should be thankful isn't a bad thing to remember either).

I disagree more or less completely with the means suggested explicitly above by Horetore and implicitly by Idaho.



There are approximately 114,500,000 households in the USA; with a total wealth of roughly $58 trillion. By household that would be a robust average of a little over $506k.

Per person, however, that's $186,500 or so. Such a per person nest egg would generate an annuitized income of 17,471.09 per person per annum from age 62 to 87 presuming an 8% return on the principal during the annuity payout. This is sufficient for one person to survive at about the 19th income percentile.

Full wealth distribution should allow everyone to subsist at a lifestyle equivalent to the highest rungs of the lower class/lowest rungs of the middle class by current definitions.

These numbers are, of course, for the relatively wealthy United States. Figures such as these would vary around the world, as would the poverty "line."

[Major Robert Dump]

Not as flawed as the belief that they innately deserve to not have the same quality of life.

Thats not what I said at all and you know it.

I was talking about bringing poor people up to the same level as everyone else. Many factors go into a persons quality of life, some their fault and most not their fault.

Let me put it like this: a town needs ditch diggers and unskilled laborers. So does a country. So does a planet. The notion that every country and community on the planet be on equal prosperity footing is a farce. It completely ignores climate, geopolitical, religous, education level, culture, natural resources and a whole slew of other but-fors.

I do not want to see people suffer, nor do I want people to live in abject poverty.

What I am saying is that when approaching charitable giving, the idea that the people you are giving to DESERVE it is flawed.

[Major Robert Dump]

based on what justification? you say it is flawed but not why. Also if they do not deserve the same quality of life why bother with charity?

Because if they deserve it, its not charity.

[HoreTore]

Poverty is a violation of human rights, and we've all agreed to follow those.

The human rights declaration specifies a certain level. That's a first goal, and that's the responsibility of the state, not the individual.

Once that's taken care of, we can discuss higher levels if we want.

[Major Robert Dump]

Poverty is a violation of human rights, and we've all agreed to follow those.

The human rights declaration specifies a certain level. That's a first goal, and that's the responsibility of the state, not the individual.

Once that's taken care of, we can discuss higher levels if we want.

So if you have a neighbor who won't get a job, keeps having children, has some bad habits and as a result of all of these lives in poverty, then you are violating his/her human rights when you don't bail them out? If you have a third world government that spends its countries wealth on palaces and golden filled chocolate bars, instead of taking care of its own people, their neighboring countries are violating human rights by not intervening? IS YOU GEORGE BUSH???

Your statement also means that Amish Americans are violating their own human rights.

[rory_20_uk]

And as it is in our own self-interest to get people out of poverty, we should.

The richer they become, the richer we become.

Based upon what exactly?

[Vladimir]

Based upon what exactly?

Ideology.

[Papewaio]

Define: Poverty
Define: not-poverty
Define: middle class, rich and wealthy.

Then you can debate the morality once you are in agreement of the definitions.

For starters are we debating absolute or relative poverty. Is that inter or intra country relative poverty.

In short your question needs to decide is it an African or European Swallow.

[Idaho]

So if you have a neighbor who won't get a job, keeps having children, has some bad habits and as a result of all of these lives in poverty, then you are violating his/her human rights when you don't bail them out? If you have a third world government that spends its countries wealth on palaces and golden filled chocolate bars, instead of taking care of its own people, their neighboring countries are violating human rights by not intervening? IS YOU GEORGE BUSH???

Your statement also means that Amish Americans are violating their own human rights.

There was me thinking our countries pissed all our money away bailing out banks.

[rvg]

Poverty is a violation of human rights, and we've all agreed to follow those.

The human rights declaration specifies a certain level. That's a first goal, and that's the responsibility of the state, not the individual.

Once that's taken care of, we can discuss higher levels if we want.

[Montmorency]

I think some of you may be misunderstanding Horetore...

[HoreTore]

Your statement also means that Amish Americans are violating their own human rights.

Human rights can only be violated by the State, not individual citizens. Human rights 101.

I know conservatives love to focus on the first half of the declaration and ignore the second half. Sorry guys, it doesn't work like that.

Things like education, healthcare and a roof over your head are part of the human rights. The states who cannot provide that for their citizens violate the human rights charter, just like the Chinese do.

Have a look at article 25. Poverty below that standard is a human rights abuse.