Not really. That person must try to alleviate esxtreme poverty there where he or she is/lives. Suppose he/she was born in another country, but nw lives in a different place. Why should he/she go back to fight extreme poverty.
The moral obligation concerns there where he/she encounters poverty and suffering
Tough question. It's similar to asking why should we explore space, when there are so many problem to solve on earth. I think the general answer to all such questions is that we need to do more than one thing at a time.
If we only concentrated on solving the immediate problem, we would still be living in caves.
We believe that science can fight poverty, therefore we have a charity Saloon (club) offer free teaching and training for people. We offer in our Saloon learning English, international publication, communication skills how to get opportunity to study abroad and others. We have our project please see the link that is a private completely from our money and within our project we run such above programmes.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Stars-and-Planets-in-the-Sky-of-Home-Economics-in-Egypt
That's an interesting question, because it strikes close to what we're seeing in Germany today, where the government have taken on themselves to alleviate poverty worldwide whilst at the same time we see a very sharp increase in German pensioners - old people who've worked all their lives there and presumably paid their taxes - scrounging public skips and garbage dumps on the street and going cold and hungry.
We could try and translate your question into business terms: Does a business executive have an obligation to make his own company successful and its employees well-off before trying to help competitive companies?
Of course, the political question is far more complex because many other elements come into play, such as the economic model used in various countries, the fertility rates steered and/or encouraged by governments and/or local cultures (compare the recently loosened China child policies with cultures in other regions that mandate that you must be as fertile as you can (as a sign of success), and so on), all of which have a direct bearing on eventual wealth and poverty.
A conclusion would be that wealth and poverty arise from a total package - culture, policies, level of assistance within the country, dominant work ethics, and much more.
A politician (as opposed to a private person) has no influence and indeed, as a rule, absolutely no understanding of another country's total package (they don't speak the language, they never lived there, etc.) - and hence could well do much more harm than good with foreign charity, because they may just artificially compensate and hence paper over shortcomings in these societies, that however need to be addressed. A local politician is in place to look after, first and foremost but not exclusively, the interests of his/her constituency, and their level of competence abroad is limited. There are some striking examples of this on the world stage today.
However, I do not see the same obligation at all for a private person. A private person has IMMO full latitude to help whomever they choose, anywhere in the world.
Dear Kirk,
Specially for US citizens given that the cause of the extreme proverty in the US and abroad is in the economic system the US suppoted. So please do change first the US politic and you will solve both.
There are poor in every country. Research ideas are welcome in every country, one's own and elsewhere. Begin the research on relief where you are or assist those elsewhere. No helping hand should be turned away.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics