NationStates Jolt Archive

An argument concerning the duty of the affluent to aid those less fortunate has consistently arisen in every thread in which the redistribution of wealth has become an issue. Because of this, I thought a seperate thread addressing this issue appropriate.

Are affluent human beings morally obligated to aid those less fortunate than they? Does the government have the right to impose this duty on it's citizenry? Should it? These questions form the crux of the matter, I believe.

I believe that the answer to all of those questions is a firm 'Yes.' I refer you to Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence and Morality (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm), an article I have referenced several times on this forum, for a strong and well-thought argument for my position.

What are your thoughts?

I think people in a civilized society are obligated to aid one another. I hope we'll become civilized soon. But I'm just one of those crazy liberal socialists.

They say the quality of living in a nation can be judged by how the weakest members of society are treated. By that logic the greater the investment in welfare programs, the greater the quality of life. That way the poor and the hungry are at least treated with compassion and given some shred of dignity... but again i'm another crazy pinko commie.

We may feel obligated to aid the poor if social sanctions resulted or our consciencess are grieved by inaction. These may be desirable qualities in a society or individual, but doesn't create a right of the poor to recieve benefits from those who aren't poor.

The poor have negative rights, not positive rights. Singer might think that we owe the world a comfortable life, but he never asks whether certain groups deserve it, or whether it is reasonable to provide it.

It seems to me that the issue isn't the right of the unfortunate to receive social welfare but the obligation of the affluent to provide it. There's a definite difference in whom the law applies to here, do you not agree, Pepe?

Singer presumes that you, the reader, believe and agree that suffering, famine and disease is bad and should be prevented whenever possible. It's not about these people "deserving" to have these things prevented for them; it's about the fact that these things should be prevented no matter what.

Of course, if you don't think suffering, famine and disease should be prevented whenever possible, please feel free to express that opinion.

We may feel obligated to aid the poor if social sanctions resulted or our consciencess are grieved by inaction. These may be desirable qualities in a society or individual, but doesn't create a right of the poor to recieve benefits from those who aren't poor.

The poor have negative rights, not positive rights. Singer might think that we owe the world a comfortable life, but he never asks whether certain groups deserve it, or whether it is reasonable to provide it.

I think that any civilized person would know the answer to that.

Of course, if you don't think suffering, famine and disease should be prevented whenever possible, please feel free to express that opinion.

I don't. I can think of a group of men off the top of my head, along with their wives and children, living in caves on the Afghan/Pakistani border who suffer from inadequate medicine, poor living conditions and disease, who deserve absolutely nothing.

I think that any civilized person would know the answer to that.

Yes, we should, as a society, encourage charity as much as possible. But this doesn't create a categorical right for all persons to be equally rich or poor, as in Singer's essay. Singer's philosophy concerns the elimination of an 'affluence gap,' or difference in quality of life. I don't believe that all people should be equally blessed, regardless whether they deserve it.

I think people in a civilized society are obligated to aid one another. I hope we'll become civilized soon. But I'm just one of those crazy liberal socialists.

I hope for the same.

I don't. I can think of a group of men off the top of my head, along with their wives and children, living in caves on the Afghan/Pakistani border who suffer from inadequate medicine, poor living conditions and disease, who deserve absolutely nothing.

You're blaming the Afghans for what is occuring and has occured?! On what basis is it there fault?

You're blaming the Afghans for what is occuring and has occured?! On what basis is it there fault?

No... I'm talking about certain foreigners hiding from justice, not the Afghan people - the terrorist cells using their land as a sanctuary from the law.

Yes, we should, as a society, encourage charity as much as possible. But this doesn't create a categorical right for all persons to be equally rich or poor, as in Singer's essay. Singer's philosophy concerns the elimination of an 'affluence gap,' or difference in quality of life. I don't believe that all people should be equally blessed, regardless whether they deserve it.
I don't believe we should all have the same luxuries, but is it really going to kill you if poor people get enough dental care to keep their teeth?

I don't believe we should all have the same luxuries, but is it really going to kill you if poor people get enough dental care to keep their teeth?

That's fine in a local context, where the poor are supported by the community. I was addressing the OP's use of the Singer article, which would hold you, a farmer in Brasil, directly responsible for the wellbeing of a destitute opium addict in Burma. When the law guarantees basic ammenities be provided for citizens who are obligated to adhere equally to the law, the law should be followed, and written with humanity in mind. This isn't the same as creating a "right" for a poor person, regardless of desert or equality, to be supported by someone living under an entirely different set of objectives and values which may be entirely at odds with the other's.

That's fine in a local context, where the poor are supported by the community. I was addressing the OP's use of the Singer article, which would hold you, a farmer in Brasil, directly responsible for the wellbeing of a destitute opium addict in Burma. When the law guarantees basic ammenities be provided for citizens who are obligated to adhere equally to the law, the law should be followed, and written with humanity in mind. This isn't the same as creating a "right" for a poor person, regardless of desert or equality, to be supported by someone living under an entirely different set of objectives and values which may be entirely at odds with the other's.

Understood.
But I do believe that a country as prosperous as the US could take better care of those on the bottom. In Oklahoma they cut a guy off medicaid because he made too much money. It wasn't enough to pay for anti-rejection drugs, but it was over the medicaid limit. When asked about it and told the guy would die without them the DHS rep said that it was sad, but could save the taxpayers 200,000 dollars. It really chapped my hide. In Texas, they've cut several hundred thousand children off the child helthcare program for the working poor in the last couple of years. (I can't remember the name of the program, some acronym)

People are obligated to have enlightened self-interest. Helping other is helpin goneself, in the long term.

Are affluent human beings morally obligated to aid those less fortunate than they?
No
Does the government have the right to impose this duty on it's citizenry?
No
Should it?
No

Well, that was quick.

^ There are some people I'm not sure are human. I just don't comprehend it.

Understood.
But I do believe that a country as prosperous as the US could take better care of those on the bottom. In Oklahoma they cut a guy off medicaid because he made too much money. It wasn't enough to pay for anti-rejection drugs, but it was over the medicaid limit. When asked about it and told the guy would die without them the DHS rep said that it was sad, but could save the taxpayers 200,000 dollars. It really chapped my hide. In Texas, they've cut several hundred thousand children off the child helthcare program for the working poor in the last couple of years. (I can't remember the name of the program, some acronym)

Well, I think we're in agreement on this, but neither outlook implies Singer's point. His was as follows:

"We have an obligation to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of comparable value."

In other words, if a random person needs a kidney, or else he'll die, and you have two, then you owe yours to him. After all, a life is worth much more than a kidney.

I would change the word "comparable" in Singer's doctrine, to "significant," or something like this. We morally should care for the deserving poor, without sacrificing something significant, like a kidney, unless we are particularly charitable, wish to save a family member or some other such circumstance makes it prudent. Saving the taxpayer $200,000 might be a good idea, but that sum of money isn't significant compared with a human life.

Well, I think we're in agreement on this, but neither outlook implies Singer's point. His was as follows:

"We have an obligation to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of comparable value."

In other words, if a random person needs a kidney, or else he'll die, and you have two, then you owe yours to him. After all, a life is worth much more than a kidney.

I would change the word "comparable" in Singer's doctrine, to "significant," or something like this. We morally should care for the deserving poor, without sacrificing something significant, like a kidney, unless we are particularly charitable, wish to save a family member or some other such circumstance makes it prudent. Saving the taxpayer $200,000 might be a good idea, but that sum of money isn't significant compared with a human life.

Agreed.
Damn, now what do I argue about?

No, No, No.

Well, that was quick.Ideally, you explain why your reasons for these answers, as opposed to being trite.

Pepe: This thread was not meant to be about Singer, though I feel he brings up strong arguments relevant to this discussion on the side of thinking that I count myself on. What of the other questions; that is, does the government have the right to take the wealth of it's society and give it to those less fortunate? SHOULD it, even if it does?

^ There are some people I'm not sure are human. I just don't comprehend it.

:( < You

:p < Me

It seems appropriate I'm watching something on one of the Discover channels about how the US throws away 100 BILLION dollars of food per year. And that's not counting the amount farmers plow under each year because it costs more to harvest it than they'd make.

agree for SOME help for the lesser... but... nobody in this forum came with the ideea of.. "where do money come from"??? Who will pay for all these? Have also in mind that these very poor peoples/nations have the highest birth rates... sooooo, in some years, we'll have to pay more and more, they will get used to be helped and do nothing.

:( < You

:p < Me
Probably more like
me> :confused:
or :headbang:

Ideally, you explain why your reasons for these answers, as opposed to being trite.

There are no reasons. People are not indebted to eachother and do not have any moral obligation to help those less unfortunate unless they decide to out of the kindness of their heart, or because they feel guilty about it. As such using the government to force people to do so is wrong.

Pepe: This thread was not meant to be about Singer, though I feel he brings up strong arguments relevant to this discussion on the side of thinking that I count myself on. What of the other questions; that is, does the government have the right to take the wealth of it's society and give it to those less fortunate? SHOULD it, even if it does?

Yes, the government has the right, legally. Morally, however, this will vary depending on exactly how and in what ways the government attempts to do this.

Assuming we give the government the benefit of the doubt, i.e., that it is democratically-elected, doesn't prohibit out-migration and harbors no malicious intention toward minorities, I think that if the people want to write into law a provision requiring certain ammenities be given to deserving members of their society, this is permissibile, provided there is an equality of the law. Without equality of law, there is no obligation.

Gee Sal, your use of the word "moral" really has me confused. What does it mean in your world?

I think anyone with half a heart will agree that the affluent amongst us have a moral obligation to help the least fortunate and suffering in our society. Also any reasonable person will agree that we do not want the 'undeserving' poor, those who can work but are lazy or unwilling to benefit from a system to help the genuinely needy in the country.

Most of us would thus agree that we need a system that satisfies both of the above, its the nature of the system that seperates a liberal and a conservative.

What about the governtment's obligation to protect the health and wellbeing of it's citizens?

Are affluent human beings morally obligated to aid those less fortunate than they? Does the government have the right to impose this duty on it's citizenry? Should it? These questions form the crux of the matter, I believe.

Objectively speaking and ignoring some aspects of human nature the answer to all those questions is no - as long as the people not willing to participate in the system do not get any of the benefits either. If you are vehemently against social welfare, it is defendable to not wish to contribute to it.
However if you then suddenly find yourself without work and savings.. tough luck. Have fun on the streets.

To take this reasoning further: assuming you are a citizen of a state, the state can obligate you to do things. If it deems welfare necessary, you either contribute, or try to change the system, or declare yourself to not be a citizen of the state. The last choice means you should leave it. If you're not welcome elsewhere.. tough luck.

Gee Sal, your use of the word "moral" really has me confused. What does it mean in your world?

I used it as an adjective, specifical with this defeniton.

Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous:

You think we should help those less fortunate than ourselves, you think this is what everyone should do.

I think I should help those less fortunate than myself, I think this is something that everyone should decide on their own.

They say the quality of living in a nation can be judged by how the weakest members of society are treated. By that logic the greater the investment in welfare programs, the greater the quality of life. That way the poor and the hungry are at least treated with compassion and given some shred of dignity... but again i'm another crazy pinko commie.

"they" who is this they? Personally I think "they" are full of crap. Which of these two societies is better off; the one where the lowest member is at level 2 and the rest of society is better off than him, or the society where the lowest member is at level 2.1 and the highest member is also at level 2.1?

Objectively speaking and ignoring some aspects of human nature the answer to all those questions is no - as long as the people not willing to participate in the system do not get any of the benefits either. If you are vehemently against social welfare, it is defendable to not wish to contribute to it.
However if you then suddenly find yourself without work and savings.. tough luck. Have fun on the streets.

To take this reasoning further: assuming you are a citizen of a state, the state can obligate you to do things. If it deems welfare necessary, you either contribute, or try to change the system, or declare yourself to not be a citizen of the state. The last choice means you should leave it. If you're not welcome elsewhere.. tough luck.

Whilst it is true that the state can obligate you to do things, that really should only stretch into what actions it can prohibit, not which actions it can force you to do.

The first case is more reasonable, but I doubt many people who see social welfare as an inherantly flawed system have any guilt in contributing to it's problems and trying to bring it down, whilst benefiting themselves.

Edit:
I do not believe actions should be forced, only prevented. You people seem to think that because we don't think the Government has the right to make us do something, that we must therefore believe we have no pity or compassion for those worse of than us.

Whilst it is true that the state can obligate you to do things, that really should only stretch into what actions it can prohibit, not which actions it can force you to do.

Is the driver licensing system forcing you to have a licence or preventing you from driving without one?

Is the driver licensing system forcing you to have a licence or preventing you from driving without one?

Neither, it is only preventing you from driving on PUBLIC roads wihout one.

Before you jump down my throat saying "DUH" almost all roads are public, the country could have gone a different route. Just as the railways were initially private, so too could the road system have been. companies could have been formed to build and maintain the roads, behaps charging tolls for their use. They could have raised the money from the stock market given that the public would have had more disposable income because the govt did not need to take road building into account ands its budget and tax burden would have been less.

Whilst it is true that the state can obligate you to do things, that really should only stretch into what actions it can prohibit, not which actions it can force you to do.

I agree with the sentiment.. but how does e.g. taxation fit in then ?

^ There are some people I'm not sure are human. I just don't comprehend it.

Clearly there are a few things you dont understand. Salvondia was making the distinction between "forced"(govt) aid and "voluntary"(private charities) aid.

While it is right and just to help those in need, it is wrong for one group to decide for another what they can do with their own property and time.

People from your side of the fence believe that without the govt forcing society, society is just going to ignore the needy. I believe this to be false. Indeed, when we abrogate our moral responsibility to our fellow citizens into the govt hands, we demean ourselves. No longer am I helping someone because they are in need and I can help, now I am being forced(at the point of a gun) to "give" to others. Thats not giving, thats theft.

And before you get yourself in a tizzy, look at the different rates of charity between American and Europeans. Europe being where the govt confiscates a larger portion of someones income and "forces" them to donate.

Within three weeks of the Asian tsunami disaster, private donors in America had given even more than the $350 million in official assistance pledged by the U.S. government, note researchers Gary Tobin, Alexander Karp, and Aryeh Weinberg in a forthcoming study entitled "American Mega-Giving." With private contributions continuing to pour in, and $6 million per day of relief assistance being carried out by nearly 20,000 U.S. troops, total U.S. aid for this disaster will exceed $1 billion.



And as impressive as that sum is, Tobin, Karp, and Weinberg note that it is far less than 1 percent of the total amount Americans will donate to the less fortunate this year. In 2003, the latest year for which complete data are available, Americans gave $241 billion to charitable causes. We will offer up considerably more in 2005, as our historic pattern is to give more with each passing year. "For Americans, responding to a crisis is not unusual. Millions of Americans respond to the everyday crises of life all the time."



Americans donate like no other people, the researchers note, whether you look at total donations, per capita giving, size of gifts, or types of giving. "The European country with the greatest tradition of giving, Britain, gave approximately $14 billion in 2003. Even after adjusting for population differences, British giving constitutes less than one third of American philanthropy. And Britain's levels are not matched in the European Union. France follows with just over $4 billion, and then Germany with approximately $3.5 billion."



In an earlier report in Philanthropy, Tobin, Karp, and Weinberg write that, "a recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts, and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work.... Some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions...over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities this year.... In short, American philanthropy is extraordinary by any world standard."



Americans are distinctive not only in the level of their giving, but in its decentralized and personal nature. Europeans prefer government welfare state transfers. U.S. citizens generally like to give away their money themselves.



"Americans give at emergency levels every day," summarizes Tobin. "When the rest of the world has forgotten about this tsunami crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."


So you tell me, which is the more decent of the two types of philosophy? The one where people take it upon themselves to help those in need or the one which leaves that role to the govt.


link to source
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18404/article_detail.asp

if u dont like the source you can google it cause the underlying info comes from 50yr organization that monitors charities. Well the American info anyway

An argument concerning the duty of the affluent to aid those less fortunate has consistently arisen in every thread in which the redistribution of wealth has become an issue. Because of this, I thought a seperate thread addressing this issue appropriate.

Are affluent human beings morally obligated to aid those less fortunate than they? Does the government have the right to impose this duty on it's citizenry? Should it? These questions form the crux of the matter, I believe.

I believe that the answer to all of those questions is a firm 'Yes.' I refer you to Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence and Morality (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm), an article I have referenced several times on this forum, for a strong and well-thought argument for my position.

What are your thoughts?

So, what if the rich person is already aiding those less fortunate? To the tune of billions of dollars. Should the government take as much money from that rich person as they do from a rich person who gives nothing to the poor? What if his giving is provably more effective than the giving that the government provides (as is so often the case in the United States)?

What if the rich person chooses to help only atheists - or only Christians?

And what do you say of the major social programs of the United States - such as the Great Society program that began in the mid-1960s - and resulted in the literal destruction of African-American families through indolence and concentration in ghettos? Does the government ALWAYS have a better idea on how to spend money than a philanthropist?

And does the government have a right to crush spending in certain areas where a philanthropist might not? Currently, no US aid money overseas can be spent on abortion - yet a philanthropist spending his own money is free to do so. Is a philanthropist less subject to the politics that money engenders?