Would it be moral or ethical for first world countries to stop giving aide to third world countries.?

Question

Should third world countries be told that their population must be practicing an effective birth control plan before they will receive aide. Should third world countries be required to provide plans for the future economic developement of their country to show the countries providing aide that they are at least trying to provide for the future.

Answer 1

Yes, I agree with your rationality but then the First World countries should stop starting unnecessary wars also.

Answer 2

It is, in fact, moral and ethical to NOT give aid to countries that don't deserve it. The problem is, who decides what 'deserving' means? Well, it's the current government, that's who. For example, a Democratic US President is more likely to give aid to Africa than a Republican US President. Instead, we must look at the long-term effect of what giving aid is, versus not. The long-term effect is it will help. Not giving can't help, can it? But keep in mind we simply cannot tell 190 countries how to run every little social program they have. There are simply too many different cultures. There are certain countries that abuse what little resources they have, and keep aid from those who need it most. These countries need to be held to a higher accountability. I think for the most part the richest nations do a decent job of this. Not great, of course, merely decent. More can always be done-- I'm aware of this. If we did 90% of what was needed in a country, someone would still say, Why aren't you doing more?
There is also an insidious side to making sure there are always rich countries and poor countries. It is this-- you can't have rich people without poor people! Otherwise no one would be rich! That is the truth of capitalist societies. Those that have it want to keep it, and those that don't have it want to bring everyone else down to their level. It is, however, in the world's best interest to not have complete disasters everywhere. That is why there is sometimes an extra boost of attention and aid to places like Somalia, Darfur, Rwanda, etc. when they have gone way too far in millions of deaths, and millions of homeless people suffering and starving. The problems are typically given a bandage, but not given a permanent solution. Anyway, there will always be rich, because there must always be poor. It is ethical and moral. Any other viewpoint must be extrapolated to its ultimate conclusion: Communism. Where everyone is equal, with the same exact amount of money and privilege. And this will never happen worldwide because there are simply too many people who want the freedom to become rich, and want things to remain that way. (By the way, my personal viewpoint is this-- I wish my country would stop spending so many of my tax dollars on the war machine, and more in Africa)

Answer 3

Hmm ... Let's take "Country" out of this and say it's just between a Bank and Person. No Bank in it's right mind would deny a "Loan" (assuming paying back with interest) to a person based on "Birth Control". Banks can require small businesses, individuals to provide prof of assets (statements, asset inventories), budgets, and third party forecasting when deciding to "Loan" the money.

However, if the Bank were a Friend/ Family Member donating (gift - no return necessary) the Money ... then yes, the Friend/ Family Member may attach strings like "Birth Control" & plan. Then it becomes the receipients choice to accept the gift or to deny the gift (like in football --- accept the penalty or deny the penalty). It's a loving thing to do to ask another to step up and be more responsible. This is the path to helping equality rather than disparity. However, I am against forcing "Birth Control" ... but I'm not the one giving money.

Answer 4

The problem is that the more we do for them , the worse the situation becomes. Many of those people are their own worst enemies, by continuing to have children. And, the more food and health care we give them, the more they reproduce.
I know this may sound cruel and inhuman, but to save children from sickness, hunger, and death, they should not be brought into this world in the first place. How can we allow such horror to continue, year after year.
So, and this could work to control Aids, why not "fix" ie, tie the tubes on women, give men vasectomies, on a voluntary basis? I am sure, if you told a woman that the child she bears will die anyway, she might agree to have it done.
Before you jump up and down and call me something I don't want to hear, think how intelligent societies control the amount of children they can support sufficiently. Both of my wives had it done.
Don't you think it's about time we stopped enabling these unintelligent people to create misery?

Answer 5

If the govt of that country could not care less about these starving people...I think it's absolutly necessary that someone should do something! We cannot stand and watch people die! Most third world countries are the same as other countries..it's all about power...it never ends and all in all politicians all over the world play the dirty game and the innocent suffer...it's really sad...We need leaders who care and the US is in a position to help. Most people in the third world only live on 25 cents per day..we in america waste so much food and we are so materialistic and selfish that I think it's only fair to say it is UnEthical for wealthy countries to stop giving aide...

Maybe the third world countries that have a some what stable govt and developing economy should have plans..but for countries like Africa it's unquestionable..everyday is a struggle..it's very very sad...what is happening in the African countries...everything is out of control..We must do something to put the killers out of power...soon!

Answer 6

Unlike some of the "GOO GOO, GAA GAA" answers you've already received, the fact(s) of the matter is that if you thoroughly research the histories of the so-called "third world" countries, you will find that the now so-called "first world" countries obtained MOST their initial and --- continued wealth and power from these so-called third world nations!!

Western europe made contact with Africa, Asia, the Americas and others a long time ago for the purpose of dispossessing the natives of their natural, environmental, mineral, intellectual, spiritual, botanical and human resources!

It's not as though the western white worlds acheived its current economic system of supremacy and advantage by staying in their own respective "back yards"---- they went out and stole it!!

Their present wealth is a direct result of their raping , robbing and pillaging of these third world nations long ago!

Theft and acquisition by deceit, trickery, warfare, slavery, colonization, genocide, murder and political skulldulgery is how the western world became so rich and what their economies were originally founded on!!!

So yes it would be immoral and unethical for aide to be discontinued to the poorer, underdevloping nations that first brought civilization to europe only to have them return the favor by murding, enslaving and stealing from them!!!

They are simply giving back a little of what they owe them!!!!

Answer 7

I have no problem helping the people of less endowed countries but sending billions of dollars to some dictator is not the answer, send food and medical aid and schooling so they can eventually help themselves, we have far to many problems here in our own country to continue and support half the world, just drive your local salvation army or food bank and look or better yet build them a home and give them food and an oppurtunity, lets get our own civilization taken care of first then we can try and help the rest, just like Iraq either do it get it done or get the hell out its time we quit playing mr nice guy to the crazy radicals and take complete control of the country, set curfews , declare martial law and shoot any d.am.n one of em that wants to act an a.s.s. , im so sick of hearing about my fellow young men and women of working class decent dying for the rich mans war.

Answer 8

The system has developed into something complex and immoral itself. I don't think we can make a preferable move at this point on the consumer end of things. Political pressure will have to be applied to stop this circle of unfairness. Just being aware of the problem and thinking of ways to create a better system of trade is the best option in my opinion. Maybe if we slowly start buying goods from better sources, local companies and companies who value the rights of world citizens, the easing off will start changing the system...? I don't know.

Answer 9

The problem with third world countries is that most of them are run by corrupt governments headed by dictators who could give a rat's a** about its people.

I think private aide to these countries is fine, but I question government sponsored stuff because it's a waste of money. Also, much of the 'aide' to these countries never reaches the intended recipients and is intercepted by the governments and squandered for their own use.

For the U.S.- there are plenty of problems that we need to deal with more efficiently here first.

Answer 10

no this would not be ethical

1- they'd have to be supplied with brith control
2- their governments whom are rich (even by our standards) would have to stop taking their money
3- religions may become angry with the use of birth control
4- some countries can't make ecomic plans (places that are agriculturally based depend on good weather and other unreliable sources)