Foreign aid - good or evil?

[Carpe Coma]

No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor.

Yes. Yes they do! At least, that's the way I see it. I hate to sound sactimonious, but I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.

As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?

Hmmm. Charity removes the risks of poverty by making people rich. Discuss.


Nevertheless, you are unarguably right to point out that small amounts of aid don't help much, and only massive support leading to reconstruction and development is enough. It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.

I can think of plenty of things less moral. I have a delightfully imaginative mind *grin*

Poverty is not a problem that can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Rich in irony, I know. The problem isn't charity per se, it is that once charity becomes a duty it destroys the impetus for rational utilization of capital by the recipient.

I'll illustrate with an exaggerated example; say I am totally impoverished and you are doing reasonably well. Since charity is a duty, you fulfill your obligation to give me some of your wealth. For simplicity, let's say a $100 bill. I take that bill and set it on fire. Now we are back to were we were before, except you are $100 dollars poorer. Since I am now totally impoverished again, you are back to being obligated to hand me another $100 dollars. Since I am guaranteed an nigh-infinite supply, why should I care what I do with what I get? I have no reason to be rational in how I utilize your (and everyone else's) charity.

"But I wouldn't do that after seeing how you treated the last $100."

So I'll go to someone else who feels obligated, or I'll burn it when you aren't looking.

"Then, I won't give money"

I'll take what you give me, sell it for money, and then burn it.

I'm not arguing against the idea of charity, just that you can not treat it is a moral obligation without seriously hampering it's effectiveness. Ineffective charity destroys wealth and accomplishes next to nothing except create a dependence on part of the recipient. There are three kinds of people in poverty; those that can't, those that won't, and those that don't know how. Effective charity has to be able to ignore those that won't, help those that can't, and teach those that don't know how.

[DuncanONeil]

"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; If you teach him to fish, you feed him for life.

Which of those is the true charity?

I can think of plenty of things less moral. I have a delightfully imaginative mind *grin*

Poverty is not a problem that can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Rich in irony, I know. The problem isn't charity per se, it is that once charity becomes a duty it destroys the impetus for rational utilization of capital by the recipient.

I'll illustrate with an exaggerated example; say I am totally impoverished and you are doing reasonably well. Since charity is a duty, you fulfill your obligation to give me some of your wealth. For simplicity, let's say a $100 bill. I take that bill and set it on fire. Now we are back to were we were before, except you are $100 dollars poorer. Since I am now totally impoverished again, you are back to being obligated to hand me another $100 dollars. Since I am guaranteed an nigh-infinite supply, why should I care what I do with what I get? I have no reason to be rational in how I utilize your (and everyone else's) charity.

"But I wouldn't do that after seeing how you treated the last $100."

So I'll go to someone else who feels obligated, or I'll burn it when you aren't looking.

"Then, I won't give money"

I'll take what you give me, sell it for money, and then burn it.

I'm not arguing against the idea of charity, just that you can not treat it is a moral obligation without seriously hampering it's effectiveness. Ineffective charity destroys wealth and accomplishes next to nothing except create a dependence on part of the recipient. There are three kinds of people in poverty; those that can't, those that won't, and those that don't know how. Effective charity has to be able to ignore those that won't, help those that can't, and teach those that don't know how.