poverty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Because if they deserve it, its not charity.

---

no, it can still be charity, they might deserve it/have a right to it, but you may not have the obligation to give it.

there is a difference between having a right to something and someone else having an obligation to give you what you have a right to. for example if you have a right to life, that does not mean that a doctor has to fly across the globe to save your life would it be in jeopardy. if that doctor did however, it would be charity from his side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

we may have to define poverty, but inter or intra country that is up for debate. but in general i mean all the poor even tho a poor person in europe may be a rich man somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

That's what the Klan said.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Tell that to the Black folk of the Jim Crow era who wanted to vote.

Quote:

---

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

---

Thankfully, most governments don't care what it says or proclaims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That's what the Klan said.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Tell that to the Black folk of the Jim Crow era who wanted to vote.

---

Sigh...

Voting and universal suffrage is article 21. If a state does not actively enable all citizens to vote, then they are violating human rights. How is that hard to understand?

Individuals, on the other hand, cannot break human rights, as the declaration does not apply to them(as opposed to the genocide conventionm for example, which individuals can break). In short, repeat after me:

Individuals have to follow the laws of the state. The states have to follow the human rights declaration.

Quote:

---

Thankfully, most governments don't care what it says or proclaims.

---

Thankfully, that assessment is completely detached from actual reality.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from a conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Based upon what exactly?

~:smoking:

---

Well once people get to have a little disposable income and surplus time to kill all sorts of profitable avenues open up. You can't have much of an economy if nobody can afford to spend time to figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Ideology.

---

Not really, if for no other reason that poverty creates its own specific kind of problems which tend to come at a cost for a wider society. (I.e. the cost of extreme poverty in Africa is millions of immigrants for some regions and an active slave trade in the world...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well once people get to have a little disposable income and surplus time to kill all sorts of profitable avenues open up. You can't have much of an economy if nobody can afford to spend time to figure it out.

---

I can expand on that. Our level of wealth is the sum of the total prduce of land and labour. A poor man is basically an inactive man. It's a wasted resource, just like letting a fertile field lie barren instead of being used to grow things useful to us.

A barren field taken into use will not only increase the wealth of the owner, it will increase the wealth of all those who are part of the market the produce of the field enters. So it is with the idle worker: put to use, he will not only increase his own wealth, but also all the wealth of all those who are part of the market.

Thanks to globalization, the entire world is now essentially one big market. Thus, a barren field in Indonesia which is put into use will cause an inrease in wealth in the rest of the world. Ditto for the indonesian worker. The more produced by the field and the worker, the more our wealth increases.

The economy is not a zero-sum game.

And all that is before you factor in things like crime, of course.

but certain profits can only be made because some people are exploited and due to that exploitation kept in poverty. im not sure how much truth is in what idaho said, but it seems compelling that the west can only bith THIS rich because the rest of the world is THAT poor.

most poor people in the world also work their asses off, they are in no way unproductive. they are not at all inactive or a wasted rescource, in fact they are the most exploited recourse in many cases.

So would we, as a forum, approve of a world-wide tax on the non-povertics which would in turn fund the implementation of a food purchasing debit card and free UNPhones for the poor?

BUT HOW DO WE DRUGZ TEST THE WHOLE WORLD???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

As regards international poverty, I think the answer is simple: Stop supporting interests (be they corporations or matters of state) that exploit parts of the world that can't mount a defense. That's pretty easy, and only requires moral fiber, not money.

---

That's not easy at all. The overwhelming majority of the countries that recieve massive international aid have very serious issues of corruption, graft and human rights abuses, none of which fit into your nice definition of interests that expolit, but all of which will make life more miserable for everyone (or they say) if the money stops, all of which carry and project some sort of political interest for them and us, and not to mention that the politicians sending the money (hello Senator) are just as bad as the people they are sending the money to.

Nopw if you are talking about personal boycotts, that is easy enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

What do you make them do for you Frag?! :whip:

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

---

You should, it's just 40 euro a family so it costs me 80 euro per month, world of difference to them though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You should, it's just 40 euro a family so it costs me 80 euro per month, world of difference to them though.

---

i havent gotten a dime from you yet...=_=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

but certain profits can only be made because some people are exploited and due to that exploitation kept in poverty. [...] but it seems compelling that the west can only bith THIS rich because the rest of the world is THAT poor.

---

First, we will need to define "poverty" first, as others have said. A starving somalian isn't making anyone any money, for example.

The second sentence is not something I agree with at all. Yes, we are making a profit by exploiting people. But that does not automatically mean that we are making maximum profit. Take slavery. It was profitable, but everyone and their mom agrees that free workers are more profitable than slaves.

Slavery is convenient and easy, however. The same goes for a poor world; it's convenient for us.

I think most people are on the wrong path here. Papewaio was the closest when he asked for some common meaning behind the language people are throwing out, but he asked for the wrong definitions.

First it is obvious we need to ask, "What is the purpose of charity?" This is the question that everyone here is arguing around in my opinion. There are those that claim that charity is to alleviate pain or suffering, other people like HoreTore are claiming that the purpose of charity is to uphold more or less our obligations to the larger community (the largest [Earth] it would seem) who are having their human rights violated by being in poverty (whether it is relative or absolute makes no difference to HoreTore's argument). A few people in here obviously think that the purpose of charity is to help those that have the intent but not the means to help themselves, to fill in the cracks of an imperfect meritocratic society. Maybe someone will come along and make the case that the purpose of charity is in following God's will.

Ya'll need to sort out what the purpose of charity is if you are going to get the heart of whether we have a moral obligation towards the impoverished groups that The Stranger asks about.

You've misread me, ACIN. I'm not arguing in favour of charity at all.

Workers rights have nothing to do with charity.

And what is specified by the HR is absolute, not relative, poverty.

The rich don't need the poor. This is happening all over the world, but it's particularly accute in the US.

There are a clique of multi-billionaires in the US who have no interest in helping anyone. They spend millions on political campaigning to reduce their own (already tiny) tax burden. They talk about America being crushed by a huge state apparatus, when what they mean is that government has the impertinence to try and limit their power. They talk about equality of opportunity, when they are attacking the provision of education that gives people a chance at employment.

The scale of the media campaign to divide and rule you in the US is staggering. This clique of billionaires has led most Americans to accept the idea that it's perfectly legitimate to let billionaires mould the country in their own image. That these people have your best interests at heart. That ordinary Americans working in the private sector should attack their fellow citizens working in the public sector. That the cause of all the countries problems aren't caused by the people who have been calling the shots for the last 30 years - but those evil people living on $3 a day of food stamps.

I'm partly horrified, and partly fascinated to see how far it will go. At some point the media campaign won't be enough to mask the reality. When more and more Americans are unemployed and begging for food. When the tax burden on the middle and poorest is taking the weight that the richest and the corporations have dodged. You are being sold some idea of the good old days of America - when men were men, and women were women - and everyone worked hard. Now there are all these people not working - how dare they! No mention that corporations are, to the core, obsessed with reducing headcount. Poor people aren't needed other than to be a surplus labour pool to keep the costs down. Corporations don't pay them wages, and they sure as hell don't want to pay out to keep them alive when they aren't working. Let's just tell everyone they are lazy.

I suppose this paradigm can probably go pretty far. But the further it goes, the sharper the snap when it breaks.

I feel no moral obligation as it's not my fault that they are poor, I wire directly so no NGO can pay their fat COE's, if the EU would stop dumping surpluss in Africa things would improve very fast, but France would never allow an end to EU-farming handouts because they are allready broke and can't do without it. Ending poverty, well read Dembiso Moyo's excellent 'Dead Aid'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You've misread me, ACIN. I'm not arguing in favour of charity at all.

Workers rights have nothing to do with charity.

And what is specified by the HR is absolute, not relative, poverty.

---

Enacting government policy to provide services or wealth in some form to those less off is just organized, collectivized charity. There is no real difference in taking a dollar out of your pocket and giving it to a poor person and having that dollar go through the government as a middleman who organizes large amounts of dollars for a great impact per dollar on the same poor person.

Your second statement is but one view on the question I asked.

The Human Rights Declaration is written towards absolute poverty, but the logic it uses carries to relative poverty as well.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

We can look at those who have nothing right now and clearly say it is not adequate. But where does the cut off for adequate get drawn? Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need. Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need.

---

Well, in the case of the USA when you say "first world" you have to qualify it a bit. There's a huge difference between first world countries when it comes to human rights and poverty in particular. Simply put, by North Western European standards the USA is 1st world in some aspects and very, very, much a developing country 3rd world in others.

Quote:

---

Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?

---

No the declaration doesn't stipulate how you implement the necessary provisions, just that you should do so. Americans would be in violation of human rights were they to categorically deny people access to health care based on some criterion (e.g. no insurance). As I understand it, fortunately for you things are not quite that bad yet in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

We can look at those who have nothing right now and clearly say it is not adequate. But where does the cut off for adequate get drawn? Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need. Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?

---

As time progresses, wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. 50 years ago, being rich meant earning 20 times the average wage. You had a few cars, big house, great holidays. Your kids went to an expensive school. You owned a yacht, etc. You had a bit more influence, but no great power over elected officials. On the flip side, most people had a job that paid ok, and they had some collective bargaining power in the workplace, they had healthcare, and their wages were increasing most years.

Now being rich is earning 300 times the average wage. You can do all of the above x 1,000. You pay less tax, you have channels into the centres of power. Large numbers of people don't have a job, most don't have healthcare, and those who are working have seen their living standards decline over 20 years.

Americans seem to act as if these facts are abstract and removed from the reality that people are now much lazier and just want free tvs.

One person donates 500 dollars to charity, of which a small amount provides a bunch of rice to hungry poor people in africa. They live instead of dying, and have more kids who are still hungry.

Another person is a douchebag early adopter of the cell phone, spends his 500 dollars on that the latest tech gadgets and shows off to people. Years later medical researchers develop a method involving a cell phone that can be used to cheaply diagnose diseases by people in africa with minimal training. The suffering of millions is alleviated.

whether or not we should help the poor is a different discussion than how we should help the poor... its really not that hard to make the distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

whether or not we should help the poor is a different discussion than how we should help the poor... its really not that hard to make the distinction.

---

Yes, many people make that distinction, that's how they end up ignoring all questions of "how". But the "how" question is infinitely more important.

When someone is sick the important question is not "should we help him?" but "how should we help him?" or "can we help him?" or "what would helping him involve?".

There's a saying: "where there's a will there's a way" but with poverty and diseases it's "where there's a way there's a will".

Philosophers focus on the "should we?" and "moral imperitive" blah bla out of vanity. As if they are more important than the people working on actual solutions.

If people weren't caring and compassionate by nature then philosophers would never have asked if there was a moral imperitive to help the poor, they would have asked "is it in our self interest to help the poor?".

Outside of criticizing bad philosophy there is nothing philosophical to discuss about this.

If you were actually canvassing for money, trying to get people to donate, you would simply tell them what is happening and tell them what their money would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yes, many people make that distinction, that's how they end up ignoring all questions of "how". But the "how" question is infinitely more important.

---

that may be so, I also agree with you actually, but I started this discussion because I wanted to hear some arguments about if we should help people. It derailed very quick and the reason why I was interested to hear some arguments about this topic has already passed. I know you don't like philosophy but even if many people are caring and compassionate for their immediate surrounding, many do not feel called upon to help people on the other side of the globe, there is very much room for philosophical discussion.

Ofcourse feel free to continue the debate about how we should help people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

I know you don't like philosophy but even if many people are caring and compassionate for their immediate surrounding, many do not feel called upon to help people on the other side of the globe, there is very much room for philosophical discussion.

---

Why bother with the other side when there's plenty to do on this one?

hehe just realised u didnt ask that XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

No the declaration doesn't stipulate how you implement the necessary provisions, just that you should do so. Americans would be in violation of human rights were they to categorically deny people access to health care based on some criterion (e.g. no insurance). As I understand it, fortunately for you things are not quite that bad yet in the USA.

---

I feel like going down this road of american healthcare will only distract from the original question: are we morally obligated to help the poor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

As time progresses, wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. 50 years ago, being rich meant earning 20 times the average wage. You had a few cars, big house, great holidays. Your kids went to an expensive school. You owned a yacht, etc. You had a bit more influence, but no great power over elected officials. On the flip side, most people had a job that paid ok, and they had some collective bargaining power in the workplace, they had healthcare, and their wages were increasing most years.

Now being rich is earning 300 times the average wage. You can do all of the above x 1,000. You pay less tax, you have channels into the centres of power. Large numbers of people don't have a job, most don't have healthcare, and those who are working have seen their living standards decline over 20 years.

Americans seem to act as if these facts are abstract and removed from the reality that people are now much lazier and just want free tvs.

---

If you were to say such a thing in the 1940s and 1950s people would laugh at you. It seems history is more complicated than "elites get richer all the time".

Nevertheless, if you are going to make the point that the rich are getting richer, is your underlying argument that charity is morally obligated because the wealth comes from the poor and middle class in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If people weren't caring and compassionate by nature then philosophers would never have asked if there was a moral imperitive to help the poor, they would have asked "is it in our self interest to help the poor?".

---

If people were caring and compassionate by nature than politicians would never have come up with the idea of war.

Do you see how ridiculous of a statement that is?

Quote:

---

If people were caring and compassionate by nature than politicians would never have come up with the idea of war.

Do you see how ridiculous of a statement that is?

---

War is not a political invention.

Christian's, Jews and Muslim's have a moral imperative to help other people around the world escape poverty. Because the command to give alms and alleviate suffering of the less fortunate is a command for everyone from these religious perspectives, then yes, everyone irrespective of their belief has a moral imperative to do it.

From a secular perspective, it may make sense to give to the poor or it may not, depending on how you look at it. From that perspective I have no idea what is imperative or not. It is up to the individual and their background and subconscious social bias created by a combination of their upbringing and circumstance. You can look at is as a form of advanced egoism - long term - or as an outlet for people to spend money and make themselves feel better as is conveys reward when done publically because everyone likes getting free things, so if you are one of the suckers giving, others will most likely celebrate you for it.

Is it imbued in us? If you follow some Religious logic, yes. If not, then I've seen no such "imperative" as you are implying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

War is not a political invention.

---

Poor word choice. Let me rephrase my point.

"If people were naturally caring and compassionate, there would be no violence between nations or individuals."

If you take this statement as true then:
Sasaki's point of humans being naturally caring and compassionate is wrong because there is war and violence between people.

If you take this statement as false then:
You can't make the opposite but similarly encompassing argument that if humans were not naturally compassionate, no one would ask the OP's question on morality.