jdgothtech
New member
Analysis of Rich and Poor and The Case Against Helping the Poor
I have chosen to analyze the article Rich and Poor and The Case Against Helping the Poor because they has actually made me think deeper about a subject which I previously thought to have a distinct answer. That is, that we should always attempt to give aid to the poor, and moreover that giving aid always produces beneficial results. I will compare the arguments given in the article to some of the more general ethical policies we have studied in class, and will bring my own original arguments on the matter into the picture as well. Although a proper treatment of such a topic should incorporate both sides equally, I will focus more on the argument of why giving aid to the poor is not always the best choice. I will give more attention to this view because the other view, that says we should always try to give aid, seems a most obvious and simple answer, and thus does not warrant much additional thought. Also, the question of whether or not each ethical standpoint is valid or has distinct flaws will not be dealt with, but rather a simple explanation as to how each would deal with the topic will be presented.
Suppose Americans did in fact give as much aid as we possibly can, which means we can not spend money on luxuries such as stereos, vacations, alchohol or tobacco. In a society such as this, the merabers of the richer countries could definetely sustain an existence which is still far superior to those living in squalor, even without our many indulgences. For people who currently work in the fielRAB of producing these amenities, travel agents, stereo manufacturers(and all those employed therein) and video game manufacturers would be out of business. This would lead them to finding less substantial jobs, with lower salaries, and the people who used to work in these lower jobs would in turn have to move to lower jobs, or even to unemployment. Soon, we would only be able to give less and less aid, until we ourselves are close to the same poverty level as the Third World countries. Perhaps it would not be as drastic as this, as we might still be able to maintain a standard of living far above that of the developing nations. The reason we live such luxurious lives is circular, meaning we support the lives of other Americans who live the good life by purchasing these luxuries. This view is more characteristic of the second article, The Case Against Helping the Poor, as it states that giving too much aid will certainly lead to drastic consequences in the long run. Although it might seem ike a pompous and selfish view, there will always be rich and poor people, regardless of how hard we try to help those less fortunate than ourselves.
The author of Rich and Poor cites a statistic that the United States gives a mere .15% of its' GNP to foreign aid annually, far below the UN goal of .7%. But the U.S. still gives more aid in terms of absolute dollars than any other country, so we therefore produce the most overall support. As long as we continue our pattern of affluence and prosperity, we we be able to provide more and more support in the future. But if we decide to cut down our standard of living by giving more to the poor than we currently do, we will begin a downward trend that will lead to us being able to give less and less aid each year. (An interesting note on US foreign aid. Although we give aid to many underprivileged countries, a cursory analysis of where the aid goes is eye opening. Our foreign aid policy is highly based off of our global political interests, as we give the most money to countries with whom we want to be political allies. With 47% of our foreign aid going to Isreal and Egypt, countries that are by far not as needy as Somalia or Ethiopia, but countries with whom being political allies is signifcantly beneficial to us.)
There is also the argument of what type of aid we should give when we do decide to help the poor. The contraceptive argument relates directly to Utilitariansim by looking forward and considering only the end consequences. If we give contraceptives and education aid, instead of basic food aid, more people will most definetely starve right now. However, in the long run we might be able to provide a better standard of living for the Third World population as a whole, thus producing more happiness for the world as a whole. The idea of self-sufficiency is also brought into the picture by many antagonists to giving foreign aid. They maintain that by merely giving food aid to the poor, they will become less self-sufficient and begin to rely on getting free handouts. Their agriculture will degrade due to lack of necessity. Why farm when you can get food for cheaper, or even free, from the richer nations?
With the above arguments in mind, we must also consider how far we should be allowed to go if we decide that it is best not to give aid. Certainly, there is some level of aid that must be given, lest the Third World suffer even more than they are now, and perhaps even perish completely. This is obviously not a desired goal in any ethical stance, and any decent person would have to disagree with a viewpoint that leaRAB to such an outcome. If we are to agree with the authors of the two previously mentioned essays, we still have to draw the line somewhere. And there are indeed circumstances that arise in our society today that are beyond the bounRAB of the moral decision to not help the needy to the best of our ability. A recent charity event for "suffering" NBA players is a good example of this. A fund raising baskerball game was held last week, the proceeRAB of which were split among Unicef and the NBA players association. The reason the players gave for needing more money, regardless of how much they currently have, is that they spend more than the average American citizen. During the current lockout, they are not getting their usual million-dollar salary, and are thus forced to live a less extravagent life. It is in situations like these that we must admit that a certain level of luxury is more than sufficient for any human being to enjoy. Certainly anyone should be happy to be able to play a game for a living and still make more than 99.9% of the population. Also, their situation is removing jobs and money from the richer society, which is a main component of the earlier ideas. For by the NBA players refusing to play, many hot dog venders, referees and others in the industry are left without work.
The theories of ethical and psychological egoism can be directly applied here, and Rachels actually uses the famine relief example while discussing the two theories. According to psychological egoism, rich people are just unable to give more aid, as would be the case if the roles were reversed. That is, anyone who grows up in affluence is going to maintain their affluence, and give only enough as to not bring this level of affluence down. This asserts that the people of the First World should not be considered greedy for spending money on extravegent material items instead of giving food to the needy, because any human being in a similar position would do the same. For the poor, however, these theories mean little. They cannot practice egoism in either form because they really have nothing to be selfish about.
There are, however, some flaws in the theory of why not giving aid, or giving aid that will not immediately produce a significant difference, can be beneficial. First, the theory is obviously beneficial to myself and those around me, and it is this way for anyone who supports this theory (I really doubt that starving people in Somalia would agree with not giving aid). This problem is brought up in the first article, when the reader is asked to choose a stance on the issue, given that he is to become a citizen of either Somalia or the United States in the next day, and he does not know which. This presents a definite difficulty for the proponent of the not giving aid, for if he was indeed a meraber of the poor community, he would want the rich to help him out. Kant would bring up this question in regarRAB to his categorical imperative. His theory states that a stance to any ethical problem must be able to be used at all times, by all people. For defendants of the stance to not give aid, this would mean that even if they were living in impoverished Africa, they would agree that they should not receive aid from the First World. At which point the selfishness of the theory comes to light. Second, being merabers of the richer part of the world, we cannot begin to imagine what it is like to suffer in the manner those in absolute poverty do. It is easy for us to sit comfortably and, in between meals, develop theories about what is best for the rest of the world. Perhaps if we could, even for one day, experience life in the Third World, we would automatically come to the conclusion that the suffering is so bad that we should attempt to end it at all costs.
(Note: I assume the term "the theory for not giving aid" to represent the theories presented in the two articles. Which constitutes giving aid in areas such as contraceptive awareness, education aid and other such forms, to be paraphrased as an "intelligent" form of aid. But not to represent a stance which purports to not give any aid at all.)
An interesting property of this topic is that many ethical standpoints are irrelevant. Cultural relativism is so biased that it can not be applied, the reason for this was supplied earlier in regarRAB to Kant's categorical imperative. Ethical egoism is biased in the same manner, in that for all merabers of the rich society, not giving foreign aid is more personally beneficial. In turn, for merabers of the Third World, a policy wherein the rich nations donated as much aid as possible would be preferred.
So what can we conclude from the different arguments for and against foreign aid? Our overall goal has to be strictly defined. In accordance to the relevant theories, we should try to end famine and hunger, or at least curtail it, through some sort of productive foreign aid. Our goal should not be to maintain our own standing as the richest nation, but to use our wealth in a manner so as to help other countries as best we can. It is for this reason that the article Rich and Poor takes precedence over A Case Against Helping the Poor. This article analyzed different aspects of foreign aid, as opposed to defending our right not to give aid. The outcome of this first article seems the most appealling. That we should give more than we currently do, but the amount stated, 10% of our income per year, is still generous enough to allow us to continue to live good lives. This amount should also hopefully not be too much as to result in the detriments produced by giving too much support.
I have chosen to analyze the article Rich and Poor and The Case Against Helping the Poor because they has actually made me think deeper about a subject which I previously thought to have a distinct answer. That is, that we should always attempt to give aid to the poor, and moreover that giving aid always produces beneficial results. I will compare the arguments given in the article to some of the more general ethical policies we have studied in class, and will bring my own original arguments on the matter into the picture as well. Although a proper treatment of such a topic should incorporate both sides equally, I will focus more on the argument of why giving aid to the poor is not always the best choice. I will give more attention to this view because the other view, that says we should always try to give aid, seems a most obvious and simple answer, and thus does not warrant much additional thought. Also, the question of whether or not each ethical standpoint is valid or has distinct flaws will not be dealt with, but rather a simple explanation as to how each would deal with the topic will be presented.
Suppose Americans did in fact give as much aid as we possibly can, which means we can not spend money on luxuries such as stereos, vacations, alchohol or tobacco. In a society such as this, the merabers of the richer countries could definetely sustain an existence which is still far superior to those living in squalor, even without our many indulgences. For people who currently work in the fielRAB of producing these amenities, travel agents, stereo manufacturers(and all those employed therein) and video game manufacturers would be out of business. This would lead them to finding less substantial jobs, with lower salaries, and the people who used to work in these lower jobs would in turn have to move to lower jobs, or even to unemployment. Soon, we would only be able to give less and less aid, until we ourselves are close to the same poverty level as the Third World countries. Perhaps it would not be as drastic as this, as we might still be able to maintain a standard of living far above that of the developing nations. The reason we live such luxurious lives is circular, meaning we support the lives of other Americans who live the good life by purchasing these luxuries. This view is more characteristic of the second article, The Case Against Helping the Poor, as it states that giving too much aid will certainly lead to drastic consequences in the long run. Although it might seem ike a pompous and selfish view, there will always be rich and poor people, regardless of how hard we try to help those less fortunate than ourselves.
The author of Rich and Poor cites a statistic that the United States gives a mere .15% of its' GNP to foreign aid annually, far below the UN goal of .7%. But the U.S. still gives more aid in terms of absolute dollars than any other country, so we therefore produce the most overall support. As long as we continue our pattern of affluence and prosperity, we we be able to provide more and more support in the future. But if we decide to cut down our standard of living by giving more to the poor than we currently do, we will begin a downward trend that will lead to us being able to give less and less aid each year. (An interesting note on US foreign aid. Although we give aid to many underprivileged countries, a cursory analysis of where the aid goes is eye opening. Our foreign aid policy is highly based off of our global political interests, as we give the most money to countries with whom we want to be political allies. With 47% of our foreign aid going to Isreal and Egypt, countries that are by far not as needy as Somalia or Ethiopia, but countries with whom being political allies is signifcantly beneficial to us.)
There is also the argument of what type of aid we should give when we do decide to help the poor. The contraceptive argument relates directly to Utilitariansim by looking forward and considering only the end consequences. If we give contraceptives and education aid, instead of basic food aid, more people will most definetely starve right now. However, in the long run we might be able to provide a better standard of living for the Third World population as a whole, thus producing more happiness for the world as a whole. The idea of self-sufficiency is also brought into the picture by many antagonists to giving foreign aid. They maintain that by merely giving food aid to the poor, they will become less self-sufficient and begin to rely on getting free handouts. Their agriculture will degrade due to lack of necessity. Why farm when you can get food for cheaper, or even free, from the richer nations?
With the above arguments in mind, we must also consider how far we should be allowed to go if we decide that it is best not to give aid. Certainly, there is some level of aid that must be given, lest the Third World suffer even more than they are now, and perhaps even perish completely. This is obviously not a desired goal in any ethical stance, and any decent person would have to disagree with a viewpoint that leaRAB to such an outcome. If we are to agree with the authors of the two previously mentioned essays, we still have to draw the line somewhere. And there are indeed circumstances that arise in our society today that are beyond the bounRAB of the moral decision to not help the needy to the best of our ability. A recent charity event for "suffering" NBA players is a good example of this. A fund raising baskerball game was held last week, the proceeRAB of which were split among Unicef and the NBA players association. The reason the players gave for needing more money, regardless of how much they currently have, is that they spend more than the average American citizen. During the current lockout, they are not getting their usual million-dollar salary, and are thus forced to live a less extravagent life. It is in situations like these that we must admit that a certain level of luxury is more than sufficient for any human being to enjoy. Certainly anyone should be happy to be able to play a game for a living and still make more than 99.9% of the population. Also, their situation is removing jobs and money from the richer society, which is a main component of the earlier ideas. For by the NBA players refusing to play, many hot dog venders, referees and others in the industry are left without work.
The theories of ethical and psychological egoism can be directly applied here, and Rachels actually uses the famine relief example while discussing the two theories. According to psychological egoism, rich people are just unable to give more aid, as would be the case if the roles were reversed. That is, anyone who grows up in affluence is going to maintain their affluence, and give only enough as to not bring this level of affluence down. This asserts that the people of the First World should not be considered greedy for spending money on extravegent material items instead of giving food to the needy, because any human being in a similar position would do the same. For the poor, however, these theories mean little. They cannot practice egoism in either form because they really have nothing to be selfish about.
There are, however, some flaws in the theory of why not giving aid, or giving aid that will not immediately produce a significant difference, can be beneficial. First, the theory is obviously beneficial to myself and those around me, and it is this way for anyone who supports this theory (I really doubt that starving people in Somalia would agree with not giving aid). This problem is brought up in the first article, when the reader is asked to choose a stance on the issue, given that he is to become a citizen of either Somalia or the United States in the next day, and he does not know which. This presents a definite difficulty for the proponent of the not giving aid, for if he was indeed a meraber of the poor community, he would want the rich to help him out. Kant would bring up this question in regarRAB to his categorical imperative. His theory states that a stance to any ethical problem must be able to be used at all times, by all people. For defendants of the stance to not give aid, this would mean that even if they were living in impoverished Africa, they would agree that they should not receive aid from the First World. At which point the selfishness of the theory comes to light. Second, being merabers of the richer part of the world, we cannot begin to imagine what it is like to suffer in the manner those in absolute poverty do. It is easy for us to sit comfortably and, in between meals, develop theories about what is best for the rest of the world. Perhaps if we could, even for one day, experience life in the Third World, we would automatically come to the conclusion that the suffering is so bad that we should attempt to end it at all costs.
(Note: I assume the term "the theory for not giving aid" to represent the theories presented in the two articles. Which constitutes giving aid in areas such as contraceptive awareness, education aid and other such forms, to be paraphrased as an "intelligent" form of aid. But not to represent a stance which purports to not give any aid at all.)
An interesting property of this topic is that many ethical standpoints are irrelevant. Cultural relativism is so biased that it can not be applied, the reason for this was supplied earlier in regarRAB to Kant's categorical imperative. Ethical egoism is biased in the same manner, in that for all merabers of the rich society, not giving foreign aid is more personally beneficial. In turn, for merabers of the Third World, a policy wherein the rich nations donated as much aid as possible would be preferred.
So what can we conclude from the different arguments for and against foreign aid? Our overall goal has to be strictly defined. In accordance to the relevant theories, we should try to end famine and hunger, or at least curtail it, through some sort of productive foreign aid. Our goal should not be to maintain our own standing as the richest nation, but to use our wealth in a manner so as to help other countries as best we can. It is for this reason that the article Rich and Poor takes precedence over A Case Against Helping the Poor. This article analyzed different aspects of foreign aid, as opposed to defending our right not to give aid. The outcome of this first article seems the most appealling. That we should give more than we currently do, but the amount stated, 10% of our income per year, is still generous enough to allow us to continue to live good lives. This amount should also hopefully not be too much as to result in the detriments produced by giving too much support.