Are we morally obligated, or on some other grounds?
2006-12-28 00:39:50 · 33 answers · asked by Chris P 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
1. The wealthy Western world didn't have any scruples when they were getting rich using the resources of Africa and other colonies. So, morally, yes, the West has a moral obligation to help starving Africa by means of teaching them how to get by in that climate.
2. Even if we didn't have a colonial past, we are obliged to look after the needs of the needy because,
a) we are one global society now and a society looks out for the poor,
b) if we donot look out for the poor the poor will come and find us by means of immigration because if there is wealth to be had elsewhere nobody wants to sit tight and starve to death.
2006-12-28 00:49:52 · answer #1 · answered by Totally Blunt 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I do believe there is a moral obligation to help all who are in need when possible. However, morals do not constitute legal grounds for said aid. There are deeper problems in Africa than just the fact that there are hungry people and they cannot be solved by simple aid. Africa is awash in rampant human rights abuse and genocidal action. The world will have to deal with Africa at some point, but this is a no win situation for anyone who gets involved. The good accomplished through aid will not outweigh the negatives produced from stronger action which is really required to stabilize the situation. No country can undertake this action as any who try will be seen and harshly labeled as aggressors. Only the United Nations has the ability to really make a difference, but as long as they remain committed to talk and the appearance of action, rather than undertaking the truly hard choices required nothing will change.
2006-12-28 00:47:58 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The continuously rushing food stuffs to Africa only makes matters worse. The problem in Africa is that they are breeding more people than the land can support. Famine does two things; weeds out the sickly and preserves the healthier elements, and brings the population down to a level that can be supported by the land. Continuously feeding the famished areas only prolongs the agony, preserves the weaker elements which causes the more robust humans to suffer and starve too.
The solution to Africa's ills is not food but condoms!
This is true for all impoverished nations. Despite massive starvation and high infant mortality rates Africa still has positive bithrates to death ratios. Whereas developed nations have very low birth-death ratios.
2006-12-28 00:54:22 · answer #3 · answered by Philip L 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem with feeding Africa's needy is not a moral obligation (or lack thereof)...It is that the corrupt governments of Africa make it impossible to effectively deal with the problem. They pocket much of the money or hold on to much of the food sent there by charities and governments in order to sell it on the black market.
2006-12-28 01:03:31 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes we are obligated to help other humans. To permit or allow a human to die of hunger while we throw away food becuse it is a surplus is a crime worst than those of the Nazis.
To pay a Farmer more not to grow food than to let him grow food and feed a hungry world is the same as slitting the throats of the unborn childrfen.
Yes, we are obligated to help others. Not in there efforts to wage war, but in the attempt to live. Yes, we all have that as an obligation, or we are not a part of the Humanity.
2006-12-28 00:52:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No we have no duty or obligation.
I do support a helping hand but not a handout. We need to help them find a way to feed themselves.
Africa has large diamond mines and they still go hungry so it is not a money problem.....they are in constant war..maybe if they settled the problems they could use that money to build roads which would increase the amount of investment and jobs in the areas
2006-12-28 00:53:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on your faith or your humanity. Jesus would certainly say yes. Personally it makes me angry that those countries cannot seem to set up a political structure that is stable and that does everything it can to educate the people, prevent population growth and the rampant sexual habits that promote the spread of AIDS. I am not angry enough though to punish the children of those countries. It is easy to donate a little to those worthy charities that try to provide for the helpless ones and so I do so, angry or not.
2006-12-28 00:50:53 · answer #7 · answered by william a 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While we may individually feel morally obligated, and if we do then it is upon ourselves to do it... This is NOT the role of our government. Government is not, nor should it be a crutch or a charity for anyone, outside the country or within the country.
Charity is on the individual.
2006-12-28 00:43:28 · answer #8 · answered by DiamondDave 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we have an obligation, and not only to bring food there, but to help the people to stand on their own feet. I do my part and donate money to organizations working for this.
2006-12-28 01:07:20 · answer #9 · answered by Elly 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not until there are no more starving people in our country. One of the biggest problems with this country is we try to take care of everyone. We need to work on our own problems first. I know it may seem selfish, but it is what I believe.
2006-12-28 00:44:40 · answer #10 · answered by DR 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋