Thème central pour la communauté de l’IB: « Notre humanité : une réalité partagée »

There is no obligation, all help given is  a gift not an obligation.

i have to agree with u on that one!!!!

i have to agree with u on that one!!!!

Yeah, I agree it is a gift. IMO Its a choice to help poverty, not necessary. In saying that, People should at least try do something about poverty

i think that for the wealthier countries we should see it as an obligation, as we can offord to help the countries in trouble, where as the third world countries cant offord to live the way that they are for much longer, and if we were in the same situation, we would want the more wealthier countries to dig deep and help us out, so why not extend the same help to those, while they are in that time of need?

As human beings living in a first world country, with ready medical supplies, food, clean drinking water, education and opportunities, there should be no feelings of hesitant obligation, we should, I believe, help because we are in the position to help, to educate, and to change the lives of others.

Of course there is limitations though, we cannot physically do everything to help the countries with struggling economies, but we can certainly make a huge difference.

That's not to say that we are not trying to make a difference, even by having this discussion we are raising awareness, and we can only hope that if the tables turned that they would offer the same help to us.

These days poverty is a hugely publicised problem that we face. Many International organizations work and advertise through means of TV, radio and published advertisements. Today we can almost say that it truly has become an obligation of a human being to care and help these people. Whether we give in to dropping a coin into the orange World Vision tin in a shopping centre,“Sponsor a Child” or writing a cheque for the people that come to the frontdoor, everybody’s done it once or twice. It’s becoming one of the “done things”of the 21st century. This is one of the many forms in which the human race is advancing.

There will never really be a cut-off point as to how much we should give, we just need to give as much as we can without it affecting our own qualities of life. But on the other hand there is never too little as to how much we should give. If all we have to give is a dollar, that's fine. It doesn't seem like much but if you think about it, if everybody from Australia, USA and Europe dropped a buck into a world vision tin, that could easily hit a billion dollars. We all know we've got to do what's right, so let's just do it. 

Although it is true that all help given is a gift, I believe that it is ethically and morally right to do what we can to aid poverty. We as 'privileged people' should do our best to make a difference in the world, rather than constantly focusing on ourselves and our needs.

We should be grateful for what we have, and try to give as much back to others as we possibly can.

O0ps wrong section * reposted in QAHS forums*

Yes, it is an ethical obligation, if your sense of what is an ethical obligation includes not turning a blind eye on poverty, disease, malnutrition, corruption and incredible suffering. Those who have sufficient resources and economic stability, particularly those living in the first world, should help those areas and groups suffering poverty to the best of their ability. The measure of this obligation is what is necessary to bring equality of health, life expectancy, education.

 "How much help is enough?"...well, as much help that does not include infringement of sovereignity or an interventionist foreign military policy... haha help that wouldn't incur the disproval of the UN Security Council. (No invading Zimbabwe.)

I personally could not live with myself knowing that I enjoy what to many people would be unimaginable wealth while others die for want of a few dollars.

(^_^) go happily...

well i think that wealthy countries have an obligation to cancel the huge amounts of debt that they expect third world countrys to pay when the government of the countries cant afford to support or wont support its population.

True, it may not be an obligation, but we as the wealthier countries, where we do not see or live in poverty, should feel compelled to help these less fortunate people. We sit here with our computers, internet, mobiles, etc. and yet still complain about things, while there are starving children in Africa just looking for some food. In my opinion, I don't see how this idea can not evoke a sense of empathy, nor do I believe that it is morally or ethically right for us to sit by and let millions of people die daily simply because we are to selfish to give countries just the basic essentials. Some people may think that they can not help these people, and though you may not be able to help them directly, every bit helps, from poverty awareness to simply donating as much money as your budget allows. Not everyone can be expected to donate thousands of dollars, all we need to do is donate what we can, becaues in the end that small donation may save one childs life....

If you have knowledge of poverty, do you have an obligation to do something about it?

Even if the help you give is small, it can still go a long way and make a difference in someone's life. A contribution to helping solve poverty can be in the form of donating money or goods. You could also be part of an organisation or group that strives in helping those in need first-hand, as in going to the struggling region themselves.

You have an obligation to do something about poverty if you have knowledge about it and have the resources to make the difference. It is not necessary to give up everything you own but anything you can afford to give up is appreciated by those receiving.

Steph & Lucy

we think that even though it is not our obligation to support countries that are less fortunate than us, we should give some sort of aid, since we acknowledge and hold information that informs us that these countries are in need of help, then we should extend a helping hand.

We are not obligated to help, but since we know whats going on in the world around us then we should take responsibilty to support and aid our fellow humans because no one deserves to be in poverty, everyone is entitled to a life that is worth living. we should help not because we have to but because we want to. everyone knows that when you want something you go after it until you get it. so why dnt we 'want to end world poverty'? once we realise that we actually want this problem fixed then it will happen. as we arent affected by poverty because we have the basic needs covered and we have never experienced first hand what it is like to live on less than $1.00 a day it is hard to feel responsible for what is happening and be affected.

by Avers&Mylinh

I don't believe that we should help those in need because, where i was from the people who were homeless didn't try to do anything to productive, to free themselves from their current disposition, all they did was steal from the more privileged. 

Coming back to the general idea though, when we tried to help last time, a magic Jet turned up for the politicians, along with a mansion for the leader, some may argue that this brings in jobs for servants, but i don't think it'll make much of a difference.

Even if we know about poverty, and we know that it's there and well and truly...er...'alive' I guess...well, what can we do about it?

Apart from those that are starving and such, those in less technological societies don't seem to be all that fussed by not having iPods, computers, or anything like that. For those that are starving, go to freerice! >w< Freerice!Freerice!Freerice!!!!

 Also, everyone see that video with the lady with the baaaaad haircut talking about climate change affecting poverty and stuff?

 Bloody hell, what doesn't cause climate change to increase these days? It's like cancer, I'm pretty sure by current medical standards even walking can give me cancer nao...

As a person living a developed country i feel that we all have the ethical obligation to support third world countries in there fight against world hunger their is alot we can do that really would help them. We need to implement  fair trade laws because at the moment we are basically stealing from them. Many companies who can afford to pay reasonable amounts for the items they need do not instead they exploit the third world countries who are desperate for any money to pay the debt they owe to developed countries. One company is coca-cola they get the ingredients needed from a small town in Africa they pay insanly small amount of money and most is asorbed in taxes. Most people drink coke at my school so in effect in consuming this product we are contributing to poverty.

This information should leave us with the ethical obligation to correct the situation. It's not much, people from developed countries pay other developed countries fair prices, but in implementing a fair trade law we could help to correct the situation. 

But i think the massive debt the countries in need are in would possibly have an effect on their current state,  if the leader, the representative of the country, can't handle their money effectively, what does that say about the citizens themselves?  

 If so, what is the measure of this obligation? How much help is enough?

I think that people in first-world countries and people with economic stability and available education do have an ethical obligation to help those who don't have these opportunities. Every person has a right to education and a right to a life. Fighting for food, water and shelter every day is no kind of life. The people who are comfortable in their position of living do have an obligation to help give these rights to those who don't have the opportunies.

This does not mean that people in first-world countries must give up their education and economic stability to provide it to another, but they must contribute something to help the well-being of those who are worse-off.

For there to be no poverty left in the world at all, there would need to be an astronomical amount of help. This is not to say that people should not help, it is just saying that there will always be help needed.

I think that every single person who is in a position where they can make a change, should. If you can't then you have a few moral fibres missing. The extent to which poverty is making peoples day to day lives unbearable is heartbreaking, and that we should do everything in our power to slow it, stop it, and make sure we never see it again.

Our incredibly wealthy country needs to start sharing, to stop being so greedy, and to start using their heads. We are responisble for every woman that loses a child, every child born with AIDS, every teenager who has to drop out of school to look after their poor family, and if we don't make a change, then who will?

There needs to be a trust from the people of australia and america and all the other well-off countries to start donating money, time and showing a bit of compassion for our fellow man. There needs to be trust because people don't donate because they can't directly see where their aid is going.

If we aren't part of the solution, then we are just a part of the problem.

Ruby.

Im not sure whether just having knowledge of poverty is enough to create obligation. Instead i believe obligation comes when you have the ability to help. For example a person in poverty would know quite a bit about poverty. Does this mean that they hav to donate there money to other poor people? However we have the opportunity as we hav quite a lot more money than them meaning we can donate

It should bring out an obligation. However, the way we organise the aid may be crucial.

We must focus on something long term (ending the debts, stabalising population or generating infrastructure) methods. We should NOT be wasting money on satisfying small portions of the population with donations of food (and certainly not toys) when it will both be short term help and be in vain as thousands more die that day then what you will feed.

Also, there is talk of 'we need to stop talking and do it'. The larger portion of the earth will always procrastinate on this subject. There are those who are motivated enough to organise help, but there will be so many people who just dont do their bit. There will never be a perfect world in which everyone helps out. And so, we stop hoping for an imaginary moment in which the nation rises up as one and demands the end to poverty and get the largest organisation available to us to do give the aid - the government!

My ingenious plan is to impose a poverty tax on luxury items (eg cars over 20k, restuarants and hotels above 4 star!) I know! Im brilliant.

However, the government isnt going to snap its fingers and impose this tax just because I think it rules. It needs some encouragement (pressure).

The good think about this is though, this simply needs petitions etc. Most of the population wont mind putting down their signature to impose this tax. Its not that the population is cold hearted, its just they lack the inspiration to do the organisation.

So- Summary:

pressure government to impose super smart luxury -> poverty tax!

Pressure government to spend the money on long term aids (infrastructure, decreasing debt)

 Thunkyou vury muuch...

bombadil

Do we really have an obligation to help these people? Don't shout me down just yet, just listen to what I have to say.

We were given a Make Poverty History DVD to watch the other day about how Climate Change is putting people into poverty around the world and making them live in terrible conditions. I said in class that the DVD makes me feel like it is my fault, like me and all my countrymen are to blame for these people living in poverty. I tell you right now I have never done anything to these kids with hungry bellies, or these families living in mud huts. It is not my fault that their trading with the West is ridiculously taxed, or that they don't simply refuse trading with wealthy nations and start trading with other third world nations in order to stimulate their economy. I know that it is not my fault that they don't do anything about it themselves.

So, why should I give money that I have earned to be part of the solution to a problem that I didn't create? I'm not saying that I don't want to help, I do, only that I will only donate when they start helping themselves and stop blaming us.

An ethical obligation? Not a legal obligation, this would probably explain the lack of help and support coming from first world countries.

So what’s the difference? Well, a legal obligation is a rule or law set down by a governing body that means a particular person or country has to obey by, has to comply to. An ethical obligation isn’t law; it’s an obligation toward a suffering man, women or child. Something we will not get punished for not doing, hence not many people do it. Maybe we do have an ethical obligation, but because it’s not law then it’s not something people will do willingly.

I guess everyone has an obligation to help their fellow man survive. The ethical bit comes from if you care, do you care enough to help or would you rather just watch it on TV and think that they’re too far away from me to affect me. People DO have a responsibility to help, we do have a responsibility to provide support and the means for each and every person in poverty to find food, water and health. It’s a responsibility that is not written in the law books, but written in the newspapers.

But, we cannot help people who are not willing to help themselves. A country suffering and in poverty, just watching itself fall deeper and deeper into a hole without any kind of attempt to stop this from happening doesn’t deserve our help. They need to start by helping themselves, then first world countries can begin to help them and provide education and money to help initiate projects that will save their lives.

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?

An ethical obligation, is a personal opinion of how much do we care? do we care enough to do something about it, put the words we say into action? I guess we all have an ethical obligation to help the people around us. To help our neighbours survive, to help them live a life not run down my illness and disease, give then basic needs to sustain a life.

We, the fortunate people of the world. who have been sent to school, have clothes on our back, houses to go home to, and the ability to 'chuck out' food we dont like. These people can only dream to have enough food, and we throw ours out.

So pretty much, it is an ethical obligation, but ethicality is not in relation to law, so theres nothign to say any one lawfully should do it. It is a personal choice. If we think about it, if everyone in the world just gave up something they dont need, a couple of dollars, some old clothes, alot of the problem could be mended. Theses are our own people and i guess we would like to think that if we were in trouble people would help us. The help that we should give, doensnt me we personally should give up our comfort, because lets face it, there are very few people in the world who would do it. But just giving a little, is enough to give these people basic needs; food, water, shelter, education, health care. The necesssities of life!

Yarr! Many of you fools talk of the perfect scenario: 'Everyone doing their litle bit to help the poverty, such as gold coins etc'.

 THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

What do you think will happen? all the 2 billion people in the world will give 2 dollars, and so you now have 4 billion dollars, which will save the poverty people.

TWO PROBLEMS MY PEERS:

1. All 2 billion people are not going to out of the blue rise up with motivation as one united nation and work together! all pitching in with their small bit. THIS IS A DREAM! Whether it be because the 2 dollar donation isnt a priority to them; its just two bucks, or whether the people cant be bothered. GET BACK TO REALITY

2. This will onlt help in the short term. 4 billion dollars might be able to rid much of unfair debt, or feed a lot of people for a week. BUT WHAT THEN!

Look at my previous post for my uber solution.

I DONT WANT TO SEE ANOTHER: "IF WE ALL DO OUR BIT" POST!!!!

No offense :)

Hayden

First of all Hayden there is NOT 2 billion people in the world, there is something more like 6.2 billion. This, less the 1.2 billion living below the poverty line (according to http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/killer.htm) could potentially make a difference if they all donated together. But as you mentioned this is not going to happen, which i totally agree with.

I think that people in a privileged society (such as Australia, the united states etc.) should be forced to donate a small amount of their earning per year, no more than 3 dollars per annum, to a 3rd world country of the governments choice. This would raise funds for the country to develop educational facilities, water treatment plants, farms etc.

This presents a series of problems though, as i raise earlier, by sending money to countries, they somehow seem to obtain certain privileges, a jet here or there or a yacht for example, and very little, if any, seems to make it's way to the public in dire need of it. So i propose that the government in this instance (that of the developed nation) come up with a 'fool-proof' method of ensuring the funds of it's people reach those who need it.

 This may goes against what i may have said earlier, but i still firmly believe that poverty is because of the people in the situation, not any other factor, but this would allow these people a chance to change their circumstances, develop practical long term solutions for their way out of poverty. Instead of buying a country food, fund them enough money to grow the seeds themselves, thus creating jobs, and a supply of food for it's people. 

Goddamnit another issue,  the food grown by the population, is distributed among the local population without question or fee, as it is their wage for working on the farms. The left over harvest is stored for later consumption. Under no circumstance should the food become a privilege to those who grew it (nobody who grew the food should be refused access to it). 

Another issue, thievery  or greed will not be tolerated, a resonable explanation, backed with hard evidence, should be given for obtaining more than anyone else. Whereas stealing should be deal swiftly and harshly, i'm not talking a stretch of jail time, where food is provided at no cost to the person, i'm talking forceful removal of fingers, this may sound harsh and uncalled for, but are they going to learn otherwise? In some of these countries children are hacked to death with machetes, that's harsh, at least these people did something wrong. Any rebel groups trying to control the local population will be dealt with extremely harshly, capital punishment, an entire army killing any indicated to be opposers of peace and equality, immediately, without mercy.

Basically thats it, its a general sort-of semi-specific idea on how to save the world.  

Also try to comment on other peoples ideas, by improving the suggestions of others we can hopefully come up with the perfect solution, by just posting your own ideas, oblivious to those around you, we are going no where.

Individually we are weak,

but together we are strong. 

Individually we accomplish nothing,

but together, we can re-write the wrongs.

Thank you, 

        James Evans 

James...I disagree. 

"Goddamnit another issue,  the food grown by the population, is distributed among the local population without question or fee, as it is their wage for working on the farms. The left over harvest is stored for later consumption. Under no circumstance should the food become a privilege to those who grew it (nobody who grew the food should be refused access to it). "

Are you suggesting this or saying this already happens? :S

If you are suggesting this, don't you think it sounds a lot like communism? I'm not saying communism is bad, theoretically its great, what you are suggesting would mean that one person or a group would control the food and rations...and people are easily bribed.

 "Another issue, thievery  or greed will not be tolerated, a resonable explanation, backed with hard evidence, should be given for obtaining more that anyone else. Whereas stealing should be deal swiftly and harshly, i'm not talking a stretch of jail time, where food is provided at no cost to the person, i'm talking forceful removal of fingers, this may sound harsh and uncalled for, but are they going to learn otherwise? In some of these countries children are hacked to death with machetes, that's harsh, at least these people did something wrong. Any rebel groups trying to control the local population will be dealt with extremely harshly, capital punishment, an entire army killing any indicated to be opposers of peace and equality, immediately, without mercy."

I've often thought that unjust punishment, totalitarianist governments and dictatorship are the causes of poverty, financial inequality, and civil war. Chopping someone's fingers off because they steal...maybe not such a good idea. Even if food was equally shared among the population, in many countries there would not be enough food to go around. Go and live in poverty for a week or two and see how long it takes for you to start stealing a bit of food here and there.

The issue here is not "greed," as you said, but lack of basic needs.

For the first point i am suggesting this, i am not saying it happens already.  It DOES sound a lot like communism, everyone equal, but that is not a bad thing, are you suggesting that there should be favoritism within society? You are saying that is the people are corrupted, then the solution won't work? Aren't they already? Isn't that why they are in the position they are in already? 

 "Even if food was equally shared among the population, in many countries there would not be enough food to go around. " That is why I'm suggesting that they grow food instead of being given food.

Im not saying that food grown in one area should be  shipped out across the country,  I said "the food grown by the population, is distributed among the local population " so i don't know if you misinterpreted it or you didn't read it properly.

"The issue here is not "greed," as you said, but lack of basic needs."

I completely agree that they lack the basic needs in these countries, they can't be greedy if they lack their basic needs. But as i suggested, grow their own food, then they would have the food to be greedy about, that's why i mentioned it. 

Wow! what an amazing forum... it's so good to hear you all thinking so hard.

Congratulations James for challenging forum participants to be more interactive by responding directly to each other's comments. And congratulations Russ for taking up James' challenge by responding to his provocative points about poverty!

First of all, in remark to your comment (replying to mine) James

I know there is 6.2 billion. I was refering to the first world population,l eaving out the second (eg china) and third (ethiopia).

Also, your avatar is too wide ;)

For the rest of the comment. TY for backing me up :)

I do agree to some extent that a communism method could be good for a country in poverty, a system with some people more important than others wouldnt work. However, communism is risky in this countries, as poverty stricken countries tend to have corrupt governments allready.

In rebut to Russ, you say the issue is not greed. You must be under the illusion that poverty stricken people do not try to farm allready. There are many farms at current in the countries that could feed so many people. But what happens? Two things: either much is taken by the government, or it is owned by a foreign company. In both cases, the food is taken off them.

Also, in the case of it being taken of the people by the government, this is either because the government is corrupt, or it is because the government is trying to do its little bit to slowly trickle away the debts placed on it by first world country governments in payment for aid.

And so:

reason the food was taken off the people:

• corrupt government (greed)
• foreign multinational company (eg coffee) (greed)
• to pay for debts imposed by selfish first world governments (greed)

And you say the problem is not greed?

One of the most important things poverty people need to begin doing is begin substinence living. (What they make they have)

What we (our government) can do is pay off or pressure other countries to end the debts imposed, and cleanse the governments of corruption (eg Mugabi)

What we (individuals) can do is pressure our government to do this.

We live in a democracy, which means every 4 years the parties wanting power begin making offers which the countries general population want to come into effect. If we show to them we want poverty ended strong enough, theyll make promises to earn our tick on their box on the ballot card.

Thanks James

Hayden.

For my personal project, I'm actually hosting a FreeRice competition at my school. Is anyone doing anything similar?

I think that we can all help in small ways. You can help people without sacrificing anything or raising money, while also learning new things as well. They actually use the money from advertisements to buy food in that country, so that the local economy is helped as well. Everyone has the ability to help, and they should take advantage of that.

Yes, I think people who have resources to spare do have an ethical obligation to help those who don't have those opportunities and resources.  Of course they can choose not to follow this obligation, as some do. I know of many people who are rich and have the resources and the time to help, but choose not to, and I don't understand this at all. Many people only donate when there is a natural disaster or some other kind of calamity. I think that there is an ethical obligation to help those in need not just some of the time, but all of the time. People shouldn't wait for a 'special occasion' to help those in need. 

James. No offense but I don't think cutting people's fingers off and legalizing mass killing is going to do it.

"the food grown by the population, is distributed among the local population without question or fee, as it is their wage for working on the farms. The left over harvest is stored for later consumption. Under no circumstance should the food become a privilege to those who grew it (nobody who grew the food should be refused access to it)"

Flashback to Stalin's collectivization. How do you propose to make this work? It didn't work then, so why would it work now? 

"Another issue, thievery  or greed will not be tolerated, a resonable explanation, backed with hard evidence, should be given for obtaining more than anyone else. Whereas stealing should be deal swiftly and harshly, i'm not talking a stretch of jail time, where food is provided at no cost to the person, i'm talking forceful removal of fingers, this may sound harsh and uncalled for, but are they going to learn otherwise?"

Oh so don't-put-your-fingers-in-the-cookie-jar-or-we'll-chop-your-fingers-off??? Mutilating people is justified? "HOW ARE THEY GOING TO LEARN OTHERWISE"? Are you KIDDING ME? They're not KIDS for goodness sake they're people in a desperate situation! Seriously, how can you even propose such a scheme knowing that the people running this project would be human beings, therefore flawed and malleable. A reasonable argument could very well be telling the gatekeeper "If you give me three sacks of grain I won't shoot you" There would be so much corruption and just... chaos if you just gave certain people cigar cutters and said hey if you see any Oliver Twists asking for more go at 'em with these! 

Look, no matter how hard you try to regulate and enforce morality, you can't expect people who are starving to manage a food program without skimming a bit off the top for their families. It's inevitable. And if you have an international organization running the program it won't work either because the people will resent an outside force coming in and telling them what to do and how to live. 

"In some of these countries children are hacked to death with machetes, that's harsh, at least these people did something wrong. Any rebel groups trying to control the local population will be dealt with extremely harshly, capital punishment, an entire army killing any indicated to be opposers of peace and equality, immediately, without mercy."

Is trying to feed your family WRONG? And who is to determine who is a 'rebel'? Mugabe sees any opposition to his regime as a rebel force. He would ADORE this justification for murder. 

Basically, your plan would work if it was being run by... I don't know... God? An army of people with moral superiority? Compassionate, selfless robots?

Otherwise... no.

James what u are suggesting is so close to colonisation it is ridiculus.

You want these advantaged countries, lets say America Britain and Australia, to give money to the disadvantaged countries then you want the disadvantaged countries to be monitored by the bigger countries to make sure that there is no wasted money and on top of that you want these bigger countries to have a brutal merciless line against rebel groups? basically kill all the freedom fighters and make sure the country is run how the west wants it run ?

I mean im all for helping out the poorer nations but taking them back into colonisation and managing them like satalite nations and using brute force to keep them inline is hardly any better.

There is a thing called Freedom and some place it higher than life. I would give them aid but let them do what they will with it. If it gets to a point where the goverment wastes it then they wont be voted in again if it gets to a point where the goverment is run by dictators then eventually there will be a revolution. The French the British the Americans and the Russians all had their own revolutions to gain freedom from oppresive goverments. Eventually the people of the poorer nations will rise up and take Freedom.

There is a famous quote, maybe Huxley i really do not remember, and it states that

"Freedom  is never given, it must be taken."

Although there are exceptions to such a rule it is true to at least some degree and these poorer countries will one day become prosperous as long as the people in them are determined to make the change. If we help them some more of them will live. If we dont more of them will die. Which do you think is most likely to inspire a revolution?

I still belive we should donate and help, but it is NOT morally compulsory.

This comment is in response to joannactheme's post on the matter. As most of you have already said, providing help to the poor is not an obligation or but rather a gift. If you have the ability to help those less fortunate than yourself, it is simply your choice to opt to or not. In other words, a person who prefers not to help is not viewed as 'bad' in society.

 Personally, I always argued that just as there is good and bad, there must be rich people to have poor people. It is simply a situation where one cannot be without the other. I mention this because it has come to my concern that the majority if not all of you have failed to consider an important factor. Ladies and gentlemen, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased over recent years. Did you know that in terms of countries, the Gross Domestic Product generated by the three wealthiest countries is equal to that generated by the 48 poorest countries of the world. I kid you not, that gap is increasing. 

 So, how does this have to do with joannactheme's post? Well, for one thing, we reached a consensus as to how it is one's right to help the poor or not. But taking advantage of the poor, in any way, that is ethically incorrect. Yes, there is a saying that one man has to lose for another to win, but taking action to make yourself EVEN FARTHER (in terms of wealth in this instance) is, to me, simply unjust.

 So how do we solve this? I looked back at some few comments and communism sounds reasonable, in that everyone would be equal. But think about it: making equal won't solve the problem. Some work harder than others, regardless of the economic situation they are in. Would you consider a low-class worker working hard daily to feed his kids equal as a man of the same background, but who choses to beg on the streets while he had the opportunity to look for a job? I think not. So, I think as a society we must view the efforts of people, whether struggling economically or not, and encourage them to act so. 

 ----

Appreciatively,

René 

After a brief read over both Joannactheme and Obie's comments i have determined some appropriate responses;

First to Joan, you seem to think that everyone has a heart of gold, trying to do good by what they believe, I'm guessing some kind of religious upbringing might be to blame which might explain this fictional character "god"being one of the only people to run the country i proposed, but I'm not going to judge, anyway back to the topic, e.g. feeding their families by managing "a food program without skimming a bit off the top for their families" is NOT a bad thing, because the person is gaining a form of reward from doing work, which benefits others, however, a controlling group of persons, (a rebel group) are not fighting in the interest of freedom? would you agree? This would make them a rebel, going against the rules of conditional freedom, not a "freedom fighter"(conditional freedom sounds like a contradiction, but in countries in western society, you cannot gain the freedoms a person with a job has, e.g. a person without a job hasn't got the freedom to buy any car they want because they can't afford it, but a person with a career can choose, because they can earn their money. But in the society that i proposed,  if you don't have a job it restricts the amount of freedom you can access not dissimilar to western society.)

You quoted me on saying: "Any rebel groups trying to control the local population will be dealt with extremely harshly" in your response, with CONTROL being the key word, as opposed to FREEING the population from oppression. These people cannot be classed as freedom fighters, as much as people, such as yourself (and 'obie'), might try to think of them, they do not work in the interest of freedom for everyone, only themselves. 

Ok Obie,  you quoted me and said "you want these bigger countries to have a brutal merciless line against rebel groups? basically kill all the freedom fighters and make sure the country is run how the west wants it run ?" I completely agree with the first line, because it is basically a  condensed translation of what i said, but the second sentence, "kill all the freedom fighters" i do not agree with, like i said above, the key word in my proposition which you, conveniently, forgot to read, was CONTROL a population, not free it, so if a group of 'freedom fighters' are controlling a group they are NOT working in the interest of freedom for all, making them REBELS, NOT freedom fighters.

You said: "I would give them aid but let them do what they will with it." excuse me for living in the past, but isn't that already been tried before? and oh wait look at the  change it made! oh jesus, how could i be so stupid, because, it wouldn't be an issue anymore if it actually worked! Are you so narrow minded that you can't see that these ideas have tried before?! Give them the right to do what they want with OUR donations, and look what happens! oh excuse me , 'if we try it some more we can like maybe make more of a difference', get over yourself, your just like Joan, thinking everyone has a heart of gold! Hello? can't you see what is happening in the world,  'because everyone just wants to help each other.' Jesus christ (sarcasm) 

"Eventually the people of the poorer nations will rise up and take Freedom." so are you saying your prepared to wait? See more die until the people realize what is going on? get a grip, you seem to think they haven't realized it yet, that they don't have any freedom?Gee do you think that they are mentally retarded, it because they CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, thats where we come in, like i proposed, if you going to make a comment, next time think about it for more than 5 seconds. 

thanks. 

James, first of all a religious upbringing has nothing to do with it. I was merely commenting on your belief that your proposed "running of a country" would actually work in the real world.

I don't think it could because I, contrary to what you think, don't believe people to have 'hearts of gold' and I think that giving CONTROL of one country to another is simply another form of imperialism and it has the potential to go horribly wrong. No matter how morally pure or idealistic one country claims to be, it should never be able to exercise control over another country and its people. Person A no matter what race, creed, or nationality has no right to control Person B.

I don't know where your from but if you can imagine countries deemed the most powerful and wealthy 'adopting' your country and choosing what parts of your government or infrastructure should be developed and how much food you should eat every day and what education you should receive you might realize how angry that could make you. How unjust that would be.

And that's assuming that everything goes according to plan and that the people carrying out your plan aren't corrupt, which people with power usually are. (This is where I mentioned god or morally superior people or robots SARCASTICALLY being the only things that could make it work) I'm not going to give you every instance in which your plan would fail because there are way too many. Basically, we, as human beings, are too flawed to exercise imperialism in a way that is purely beneficial if such a way exists. 

I'm not the one who's being naive here. 

joan.

 You stated:

I don't know where your from but if you can imagine countries deemed the most powerful and wealthy 'adopting' your country and choosing what parts of your government or infrastructure should be developed and how much food you should eat every day and what education you should receive you might realize how angry that could make you.

This has one major flaw. This is taking the point of view that you like the country the way it is.

Would you be angry if a powerful government chose what food you receive, when previous to the domination you received none?

Would you complain about the education you receive when before you were not getting any?

Would you be angry at the dominating country for choosing what infrastructure to put in when before there was none?

These people never got to choose any of these elements before IN THEIR LIFE. You think they will complain when a new government comes in and gives it to them???!!

Poverty is a lie, people arent in poverty therye just living in their own nice way.
We have no obligation to anyone, succeeding is all thats important.

-Jack

Well, certainly many people we would consider as being "in poverty" are actually part of a well-structured soceity where everyone works together, a community that has been working for centuries. However, poverty occurs when the west makes a mess of these ancient soceities- exploitation, where people are forced to work for horrendously low wages in fatal working conditions- this is not people "living in their own nice way"

Jenny is gay, by Jack :)

Ummm-hmmm-hm
Who-nanananana
hmmmmm mmmm
Ummm-hmmm-hm-yeah
Ummm-hmmm-hm-yeah
Ummm-hmmmmmm
They're justified and they're ancient
And they like to roam the land
They're justified and they're ancient
I hope you understand
They don't want to upset the apple cart
And they don't want to cause any harm
But if you don't like what they're going to do
you better not stop them cause they're coming through
mu-mu
mu-mu
mu-mu
mu-mu
Kick out the JAMS

The notes'll flow, yo -- for the words I speak
Rap is weak so I teach and I reach
A positive vibe, a way of life is how I'm livin'
So get hype to the rhythm
KLF is the crew, ya hear -- yeah
Design a rhyme I just won't fear
Back to react, enough is enough
Let me ask you a question -- What Time Is Love?

what time is love?
what time is love?
what time is love?

mu mu
mu mu
mu mu
mu mu

I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat

Okay Houston, we'll give you a countdown...
four, three, two, one, fire

I wanna see you

The final chapter -- prophetic, poetic
When I'm done, this calls for anesthetic
Get to, step to, let an MC
Come in effect with Kingboy D
A wannabe, gonnabe -- ol'time sucka
You know the time, I never stutter
A feat, a dream, a-yeah seem bright
Yeah, pass the mic -- What Time Is Love?
what time is love
what time is love
what time is love

mu mu
mu mu
mu mu
mu mu

I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you
I wanna see you
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat
I wanna see you sweat

Kelly and Jenn

Can you both a) give examples to prove your point and b) stop being tools?

What do you classify as being poverty Jen, and how does giving them low wages make it worse for the people; what was it like previous.

Kellybrap. The pointless and stupid posts are situation at the top of the forums. You came in too late...

Okay joan you said: "I was merely commenting on your belief that your proposed "running of a country" would actually work in the real world."

yeah,  because nobody runs a country in real life, they just sort themselves out, with no direct leader. Come on, tell me you don't think that people don't control a country without some form of a leader 'running the country.'

But seriously, you said my plan has flaws, which i said was the point in my first freakin post! So people could improve it! Doesn't every 'plan' have flaws, democracy has flaws, what if nobody bothered to vote, there's no way to make them, doesn't that mean that there's a flaw in the system? NO! 

Btw the way "I'm not the one who's being naive here." comment, thought you'd take a little stab at me eh? a bit harsh? can't keep up intellectually, decided that this was the only way to put me down? please, that is pathetic. 

It is hard to say that there is an ethical obligation for people in first-world countries or people with economic stability and available education to help those who haven't been given the opportunities that we have, because people have their own personal 'ethics'.

For example, I heard that Muslims have to donate a part of their money to the poor whether rich or not, so for them it would be a religious and ethical obligation to help the needy . However, as an atheist like myself, I do not feel the obligation to help the poor - I rather see it as a gift to the poor like many of you already mentioned.

Also, as a resident of Bangladesh, which is one of the very poor countries in the world, I see tons of people in poverty every day. Every day people knock on my car window an ask for money, and sometimes I do not even feel the inclination to aid them because I know that it is not going to help them by a lot. There are also many health organizations that aid Bangladesh, but the situation just does not seem to get much better. I do not think this problem of poverty can just be solved by people's aid, but I think there needs to be some big change in the government policy to aid the poor and to give them education opportunities.

I think there is a limit to what people in the first-world countries can do to help people in a worse-off country unless the country itself is willing to change.

Countries that have been endowed with natural resources rise up to become economically stable and wealthy nations; education is easily accessible and poverty is relatively less in first world countries. Whether or not it is an ethical obligation for these developed countries to aide weaker nations varies from person to person. From my perspective, wealthier nations are ethically obligated to help out impoverished countries.

Perhaps it is difficult for most to imagine such large scale scenarios as international aide. Simply imagine a classmate who goes through the entire school day without eating lunch because his parents are unable to afford such a luxury, and you are there, sitting next to him with a plate full of good food, perhaps even excess food. Truthfully, how hard is it reach out and help someone in need? This analogy applies to countries as well. People are born into families, races and countries that they cannot choose. Should a child suffer just because he/she was born in a rural village of Bangladesh while the rest of the world is seeking ways to fulfill only their own self-interest? Those who are gifted with access to education and shelter should realize how fortunate they are and be grateful. From my perspective, wealthy nations are more than capable and should help poorer ones.

It is understandable that a country has its right to look out for its own citizens first, but there is a lot of money left that can be put to amazing use and save lives. My family gives money to people in the village that I come from and I can see the effect first hand. The happiness it brings to them is immeasurable. Looking at it from John Stuart Mill’s perspective, happiness is the ultimate goal and should be aimed for the greatest number in greatest amounts. I believe that by wealthy nations aiding poorer ones, greatest happiness in the greatest numbers can be achieved, and therefore it is imperative for first-world countries to do their part and reach out to those in need.

wow, this went dead, does no one care about poverty anymore? or has everyone registered already posted?

Hi James

The posts on poverty were associated with the IB's global lessons on poverty, taught in schools around the time of World Poverty Day, 15 October.

Let's hope that thinking - and action - about the subject hasn't stopped!

Boyd Roberts

for the community theme team

This is a TEST Comment
Salman Khan
Salman Khan
http://www.google.com/