Do We Have A Positive Duty to Assist the World's Poor?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by goofyfish, Apr 15, 2002.

  1. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    By "positive duty," I mean "moral requirement." By "world's poor," I mean the third world. By "we," I mean "those who live in the developed nations of the world." For you Clinton supporters, the rest of the question depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

    I would say YES without question we are obligated to help. A lot of the western world has been raking it in from their labor and natural recourses for a long time now, and while events like "Live Aid" in the 80's raised a lot of money and saved a lot of people from starvation what we truly need is Government support for 3rd world countries.

    I believe that a majority of the problems facing the 3rd world are human made and have human solutions. If the west can provide support then I feel we should. Obviously the countries in question should provide the great majority of the work but the west has knowledge, experience and funds that would be invaluable.

    Aside from the humanitarian aspect, capitalists should recognize economic reasons why we should help. There are vast populations in the world that are relatively untouched by the consumer world. These markets, if opened up, could be invaluable to business.

    Peace.
     

Share This Page