Friday, March 18, 2011
Responsiblility
I believe the dilemma of having thousands of poor and suffering humans is the responsibility of all the humans on Earth, not just the ones suffering. The extreme gap between "poor" and "rich" is and evident problem. Many of people who have surplus cash spend it for themselves on luxury goods. No one needs three or four T.V.'s, three cars, beer, or name-brand clothing, but many people in our culture see those items as necessities. You would think that the more money you have, the more money you will feel obligated to donate or use towards helping others. Any famous person in pop culture today has nice cars, house(s), pools, and fine accessories, and occasionally I hear of the charities some of them help or donate to. If all of the rich, or financially well off people, gave a significant amount, but still stayed around or above the average comfortable lifestyle income, the world could be changed tremendously. People need to think about what is important in life which is being happy and with each other. I believe there needs to be a drastic change that makes it mandatory for the millionaires of the world to have to give back a certain portion. Without some sort of change Earth's resources will continue to fastly deteriorate as will the health and safety of all humans and animals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you on your main reasoning but I think you are blaming the rich too much. It is true that there are rich people who should give more of their wealth to charities but that doesn't exactly make it fair. But the poorest persons in the united states still live much better than any developing nation. I think a mandatory amount donated to charities should be for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that it shouldn't just fall the rich to donate. However, I do not agree that it should mandatory for everyone in the US. That may be a little bit too unfeesable. There are many people living in the US that could in now way give up any of their income for someone else to use. Every cent they make goes to feeding, clothing and housing their children. Although if you think about it, we are, in a way, required to give a certain amount away in our taxes to help pay for people to live that, other wise, could not afford to. For example, our tax dollars are used to fund things like WIC and Medicade. These are both services given (or donated if you will) by everyone in the US without being given a choice.
ReplyDeleteI think that Allie made a pretty solid point here, its true that something must be done about this, it is also true that there are many people who are spending their surplus money of worthless material things. However, enforcing a law that would requre everyone to donate a certain amount to help developing countries is not what we need to do.
ReplyDeleteI can, however, see where Malcolm is coming from. The tax money that we pay to take care of things like this obviously isn't enough. Therefore, it should be our responsibility to research different ways to provide the help that we should.
I agree with Allie and Wyatt on the matter of the mandatory giving. Would it really be charity if it was taken instead of given? Who's to say who has to give what? Robin Hood ideals work, but you'll step on a lot of toes to get there. With that aside, giving is necessary, but it needs to go to the right places. In many nations that the United States gives to, the money goes to the government which is more often than not pretty corrupt. In this corruption, the bottom many don't see hardly any of those relief funds while the government fritters it away on whatever they see fit. The root of the problem isn't the poor people, it's the foundations of the countries. Only fools go about treating only the symptoms. Cure the disease at the source and the rest can be mended later with much less effort.
ReplyDelete