2007-07-12 13:08:46 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Most definitely.
The poorest 20 percent of US households received less than 5 percent of all income in 2004.
About 1.35 million children--nearly 2 percent of the nation's total--are homeless.
Consider at the printing of my source there were160 billionaires, 2 million millionaires, and 100 million homeless people.
Blue collar and lower administrative jobs in the US are being eliminated, downsized, outsourced, and exported. At the same time programs intended to help families are being eliminated or funding is being cut. The poor are stigmitized as lazy when frequently they are single parents struggling with minimum wage jobs and an inability to afford childcare much less anything else.
In 2001, 26.4 percent of female headed families were below the poverty threshold, and in such families the average income was about 60 percent less than the median income of all families. They represented 38 percent on 2003.
40 percent of the poor are under age 18 and 10 percent are over age 65.
Social assistance programs for low-income families and individuals account for less than 12 percent of federal expenditures in 2005.
1/3 of the poor live in the suburbs, 1/5 live outside metro areas, less than half live in central-city areas and less than 1/4 live in inner cities.
Maybe we should redefine our classification of our poor and get to work.
2007-07-12 13:11:29 · answer #1 · answered by future dr.t (IM) 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Hear! Hear! Ms. dnttri2hrd !
Right on the mark, Girl!
Found out my ranking; tis real clear....unfortunately, I already knew I was poor, now it's merely verified!
Poverty USA and Poverty Worldwide is wrong. And when it is the byproduct of an illegal, unethical, immoral administration or governmental leader, then it is doubly wrong. (Example: Zimbabwe, Africa).
And war???? Never found a good reason for one of them....
071207 8:40
2007-07-12 14:38:46 · answer #2 · answered by YRofTexas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the respond is extremely dependant on what ethical equipment you're making use of to be sure morality. diverse platforms will of course supply a diverse answer and motives why or why no longer. in my view, i could say that allowing poverty is a many sided undertaking, it truly is the responsiblitiy of human beings, society and government to help the undesirable on the different hand, the undesirable additionally could desire to place attempt into attempting to strengthen their difficulty. there is likewise the question of what point undesirable is, or how undesirable is undesirable. conflict is an entire diverse tale. lots of the time it truly is fought for undesirable motives and that could desire to be seen immoral. Even in a ethical conflict, there are strikes that are greater or much less ethical.
2016-10-19 04:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by mcgoon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, definitely. There's a quote I've read, "bread for myself is a physical issue, bread for my neighbor is a spiritual issue." I also think war is a moral issue. While I don't think people who kill in war are murdering, I think war inevitably causes evil and the destruction is causes is all encompassing.
(By the way-like the name-are you going to sing us a love song)??:)
2007-07-12 13:15:43 · answer #4 · answered by keri gee 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
War is a moral issue and poverty is a socio-economic issue.
2007-07-12 13:15:19 · answer #5 · answered by genaddt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Please to tell this one, what aspect of the lives of each individual does not involve morality and ethics?
The choices that each one makes in his or her life effects not only that one but all others and all of existence as none are separate from all else that is. We live in interdependence with all that is.
Should one reflect upon the saying taken from the mathematics of chaos, "A butterfly flaps its wings in Asia and a huricane forms in the Atlantic", one may well see how the same applies to all of existence.
One shares what one has and others then have also. One hoards what one has and others do without. Those who have live more peacefully and with greater harmony. Those without, seeing themselves and their children suffer, might strive to take from those who hoard.
Cause and effect. With the choices of each one as cause, one may follow to see the effects.
May it all be well with you.
2007-07-12 13:43:11 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're very different things, but yes...
Helping people who are homeless and/or starving seems like a no-brainer to me.
War always sets a bad example, but we seem to be too savage a species to ever put it behind us. I wish that weren't true.
2007-07-12 13:13:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anise 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure if they are what the typical "moral" issue might be. But they're difinitely Issues, that needs more attention.
2007-07-12 13:14:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anthony L 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both are moral issues if we do nothing to stop it.
2007-07-12 13:13:01 · answer #9 · answered by Shawn B 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes, The Bible teaches of caring for the poor and being peacemakers along with other things.
2007-07-12 13:15:32 · answer #10 · answered by David F 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋