I would like to reply to the question posted by joannactheme:
Do people in first-world countries or people with economic stability and available education have an ethical obligation to help those who haven't been given the opportunities that we have? If so, what is the measure of this obligation? How much help is enough?
It is true that in the world there are both fortunate and less fortunate people. The country I live and study in, Bangladesh, is an example of this. Here the rich live "side by side" with the poor, and it is often said that the "rich are getting richer," while the "poor are getting poorer." I feel very fortunate for all that I have, especially being from a developing countries, I am very blessed to be in the position that I am in, to have access to education, shelter, food, and more. There are millions around the world that take these factors for granted, and do not realize that there are many who do not have the same privileges as them, who were not fed with "a golden spoon" since birth.
I believe that those that are better off, that have the wealth and can live a lavish life, should look over their shoulders to face the harsh realities of this world. It is one of the five pillars of Islam, my religion, to give "Zaka'h", or a small percentage of your overall wealth to the poor. I believe that if there is a standard (set by a quantity) that defines the people that are fortunate, it should be made obligatory for those people to give a set (small) percentage of their overall wealth as charity. This doesn't have to be an enorous figure, but imagine if all the "fortunate" people would give a small portion of their wealth annually (or another length of time), how much we could benefit the impoverished...
