When my mother saw beggars standing on the intersection asking for help, my mom would try to help them by giving them the money, but my father would argue that you should not help because this would only encourage them to rely on other people’s help. My father says they should helped by the government, instate of helped by individuals. It is not our responsibility to take care of them. I disagree with both of them because they do not look at or think about the problem closely enough. I think people are not only facing problems with wealth, but diseases, and war. These are also problems that many people in many other countries also face. If we work together, we may be able to help each other and make this world better. In my opinion, there are several solutions that poor countries and wealthy countries working together could implement that would benefit both.
Preventing diseases is every countries’ responsibility, whether they are poor or rich. Poor countries lack the knowledge and the money to gain, and expand medical resources. Therefore, many people are not been able to be cured. For wealthy countries, diseases are mutating at incredible speeds. Patients are dying because drug companies do not have enough data to produce vaccines to cure patients. When developed countries help poor countries to cure their people, the developed countries could help underdeveloped countries. Since developed countries can provide greater medical resources to poor countries, people living in the poor countries could be cured. As for the developed countries, they can collect samples from the patients so that the drug companies can produce new vaccines for new diseases. When trying to cure diseases, developed countries and poor countries would have mu...
... middle of paper ...
...could stimulate its economy. This would benefit poor countries as well. Since developed countries stabilized energy prices, food prices in underdeveloped countries would not rise. Thus, people living in poor countries could purchase food, and survive. When wealth countries are solving energy crises, they are also saving millions living in the poor countries.
In the end, countries that cooperate and do not discriminate against each other will help themselves and the world flourish. If these developed countries continue to prejudge underdeveloped countries by wealth or other conditions, when people are faced with serious problems in society, these problems become global. By helping each other, all countries offer hope and compassion, and share new knowledge with each other. Therefore, people all over the world would suffer less, because they know they are not alone.
Many people have different opinions when it comes to dealing with poverty around the world. It is easy for those who live in rich, first world countries to sit back and ignore the problem that is at hand, however it is a better idea to examine the problem and look at possible solutions. Some liberal arguments try to convince people that a world food bank needs to be set up in order to solve the hunger problem on Earth, while others believe that by doing this we are only enabling these poor countries to stay hungry. At first glance, it seems that the obvious and correct way to deal with the situation would be to set up a world food bank. Wouldn’t the rich countries be selfish to not share some of the unneeded wealth that they have acquired? Many groups and organizations have investigated the future impacts of acting in favor or against the poor, and reasoning shows us that certain actions could be devastating. Although it sounds morbid and cruel, setting up a food bank would only bring the world as a whole down.
Disease has been known to humankind as the invisible killer for centuries. Plagues destroying towns, people dying for unexplainable reasons, and children dying all too soon. The miracle of modern medicine has permitted society to to have significant control over these terrifying invisible killer outbreaks. The vaccine is one of the greatest miracles of modern medicine. For example, the vaccine for the polio virus has virtually eliminated the incidences of polio in humans. “Vaccines represent a low-risk intervention administer according to a schedule in which there are currently no known acceptable alternatives.” (Opel et al. 2013). Vaccines protect the person who has been vaccinated from viruses and the more persons vaccinated the more
Hunger and poverty will always exist. Many needy nations are stuck in a black hole, in which, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This situation could be fixed, if the poor nations had a little help or assistance. Is it morally good for the better off nations to help or support those who are in need? Who benefits from this sponsorship in the long run? Poverty-stricken nations could seek relief if the silk-stocking nations aid in supplying goods. Many of the moneyed nations are torn between helping or not those who are less fortunate. Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin have two very different opinions on whether to aid those who were not born into riches. Swift uses a satire for the low-income nations of eating and using offspring
Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you are hungry, under clothed, and at risk at death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others. With that in mind, this raises the question of whether rich nations have an obligation to help those nations in need. People who earn above a certain income should be forced to donate 10% of their money to the poor because, it will help break the vicious circle of poverty, help the society at large to move forward, and lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The poor do not have the money to save; all of the income goes to food, lodging, and heating bills, which are essential for survival. There is little left over to enjoy the luxuries of life, such as a home with heating, education, medical care, or even three proper meals a day. Because of their lack of education, they cannot get a well paying job, and thus are stuck in the lower classes of society. To he...
The fact that there is absolute poverty in the world cannot be argued. The way we deal with this is the issue at hand. When observing the raw data, including the high infant mortality rates and low life expectancy statistics afflicting impoverished countries, one cannot help but pity these people. Unfortunately, when it comes down to actually taking action and deciding what to give up, we seem to feel just as much, if not more, pity for ourselves. Many reasons have been given for why we may not be obligated to give up portions of our wealth to help those in need. Fortunately, in my opinion, many of these arguments can be refuted.
...to the welfare system and the power of the structural political systems, the difference between rich and poor in this nation is tremendous. Our society consists of thousands of working poor. These individuals are in constant struggle for survival, they work to eat and barely have enough to get by. They work minimum paying jobs, earning less then $7/hr., working long hours. It is easy to point fingers and blame others for the problems that exist, however if our goal is to eliminate poverty, then we most take a more empathetic stance and work on ways that we can improve these conditions.
Despite such documented success we are still witnessing the deadly impact of vaccine preventable diseases. Millions of preventable cases of disease and death are still occurring in low and middle-income countries where disease burdens are often the highest. The time lag in the introduction of new vaccines between high-income and low-income countries has been a major issue. Some vaccines are introduced in high-income countries a full year before they are introduced to low-income countries where disease burdens are rapidly growing.
Many people use the excuse that they don’t need to help developing economies when many other people do anyway however from a utilitarian point of view, the fact that other people could help doesn’t lessen your responsibility.
is able to come to power. Through helping themselves, stronger nations are able to create economic
The wealthy countries cannot help everyone, there would not be enough for themselves. People should always do what they can to help one another out, however we can, ignoring the problem will make more problems. By helping out your fellow man it will to help yourself indirectly. Immigration adds to exhaustion of food, and will destroy resources faster. Although, without immigration we would not have such a diverse culture, or exchanging of different ideas. The creation of the World Food Bank was intended to help the poor around the world, but it is used unfairly. Not everyone can contribute equally, so often countries only take from the bank without giving anything back. On the other hand, without the world food bank people would die. Countries should give to the bank if they have extra, or even if they never have to use it for themselves, it is only right.
Nearly 50,000 people, including 30,000 children, die each day due to poverty-related problems and preventable disease in underdeveloped Countries. That doesn’t include the other millions of people who are infected with AIDS and other incurable diseases. Especially those living in Sub-Saharan Africa (70%), or “the Third-World,” and while we fight to finish our homework, children in Africa fight to survive without food, or clean water. During the next few paragraphs I will give proof that poverty and disease are the two greatest challenges facing under developed countries.
Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.
“You make the world a better place by making yourself a better person,” was once said by a man named Scott Sorrell. In today’s modern world and age, everything seems to be progressing and getting larger at a mind blowing rate. This includes people’s attitudes on themselves, on other people, and on the world in general. Many people are insecure and spiteful towards their physique or their overall worth, and bitter and disconnected from other people. Scott Sorrell’s quote is conveying that one can make the world a better place both for themselves and for other people simply by changing their attitude and being positive. I agree with Scott Sorrell’s quote because by choosing to be happy from within, people’s positive attitudes can reach other people and eventually the world, making it a “better place”.
More fortunate people must also be willing to help their fellow citizens in need. Volunteer programs should be overflowing with people who want to help. For example, Habitat for Humanity is one organization who builds houses for the needy. If everyone dedicated some of their extra time and money in organizations that help "poor" people, poverty would begin to see a decrease. There are many other organizations that help "poor" people, and if everyone pitches in, one world problem may be diminished in the future.
My own view is that I feel morally obligated to help the poor. Though I concede that at some point too much help can in turn hurt our development as a leading country. The issue is important because, according to writer Peter Singer, 1.4 billion people are living in extreme poverty today. That number is outrageous and we need to help it decline.