View Full Version : A moral dilemma?
July 19, 2005, 08:39 AM
Last night I read about a group that tackles world hunger. Totally amazed at the level of hunger that is still prevalent in our world and the tacit acceptance and apathy that exists, despite decades of publicity. I expected Bangladesh to be at the top tier of hunger but not so. Many countries are so so much more desperate, especially in Africa. Yes, it doesn’t ever make the front page but it still kills people, slowly but surely.
Moreover, there was hardly an area of the globe where hunger was non- existent. In other words, poverty exists in every shape and form, and in each and every country, including in a mighty country where I live. I really wonder whether as human beings we should help our neighbour and country first, or go to provide relief where the need is more urgent. Automatically, as Bangladeshis, we will veer towards any help to Bangladesh. But morally, is it right that we should we go where the hunger is greatest or go to our “group”?
July 19, 2005, 12:23 PM
I guess both ways are right. In terms of humanitarian efforts, we should not restrict our efforts by country boundaries. Do whatever your heart tells you to do.
The important thing is in this materialist world, we don't forget the fact that there is still lots of people in the earth who don't get 1 meal a day (forget about 3 meals a day). To me its less important whom we select to donate, its more important that we don't forget about the needy and don't stop extending our helping hand.
I personally try to donate 1st hand through my mom where 100% goes to the needy people instead of may be Red Cross where there is significant overhead charge. On the other hand my donation may not be reaching to the neediest one.
I guess from religious point of view, we are supposed to help the people in need nearest us first.
July 19, 2005, 01:03 PM
I was considering helping in some poor countries such as Africa, parts of Russia or the slums of Bangladesh. But than, I've got people right outside my condominium here. I did stop a month ago and talked to one fellow, and gave him $5, which I don't have since I live on a Student Loan. He said there was a fire, and he wound up on the streets. He said he has a toumour and does not know how to get back to an apartment. I tried to help him, but he seems to far gone. 50% of homeless on Canda's streets are diagnosed with some mental illness. While that is still tragic, I feel the need more for an entire family in Africa, for instance, where the parents died from Aids, and 5 young children are left alone with an 88 year old grandmonther whom can't help them anymore.
July 19, 2005, 01:44 PM
Apart from donations to the Red Cross I choose to sponsor a child, and hence the family and the local community. I have done this for many years. The aim is to give the local community a boost in terms of water, hygene, medical clinics, better nutrition, small business, etc. They decide the project priorities. Then the support ceases when they are in a position to help themselves better in the future. It also puts the child, and brothers and sisters, through school and keeps them healthy.
I saw my first sponsored child through a local school and then on to a college. I hope she did go onto teach in her village as she had hoped. I like to think it helps them to know that they have a friend through my letters and have some more hope and security for the future. More selfishly I also know I have definitely helped someone for a sustained period.
It is not a lot I know but it is something and maybe it is a lot to a few people.
Edited on, July 19, 2005, 8:28 PM GMT, by Trueblue.
July 19, 2005, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by oracle
But morally, is it right that we should we go where the hunger is greatest or go to our “group”?
Hardly a dilemma! whichever you choose from above, there is no "wrong" choice. Both are in need!
Now obviously we will lean toward our own.. perfectly in accord with human nature. A mother will try to save her own child first should a situation arrive where she has to choose between her child and the child of another unless ofcourse you are mothe teresa, then all chidren are yours.
I would choose the one that is genetically most closest to mine! But that's just my personal thing.
Anyways, I don't feel comfortable writing this anymore.
P.S. I am just picturing Oracle as Mr. Schindler. At the end of the day, his soliloquy might just be "this plane ticket, this WC cricket ticket, this watch oh this watch could have saved so many..."
:) Good man Oracle!! :thumbs:
Edited on, July 19, 2005, 9:26 PM GMT, by Orpheus.
Reason: so many not so much
July 19, 2005, 05:34 PM
Poverty is increasing in this world, as the commerce is really unjust and dominated by international companies. If fair trade will not be supported in all the countries this situation will never change.
Many people are desperately poor in many places of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America... and all that is offered by modern economic system is large scale exploitation.
Recent G8 held in Edinburgh has been discussed mostly on "war on terrorism", plains to cancel poverty from this world have been useless words, as usual...
Why should they care about giving poor countries a chance to develop as the self-elected most important countries in the world think that their decisions are always right, as far as they have the leading role?
I feel quite hopeless... we live in a crazy world and nothing seems to change in a good way...
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.