Do Wealthy Nations have the Obligation to Tend for Developing Nations?
They Do have the Obligation
Side Score: 2
|
 |
They Don't have the Obligation
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
Yes we should particularly when it means added global stability. Instead of (for example) paying Exxon to drill for oil that they'd drill for anyway we could give aid to impoverished nations. This shouldn't be looked upon as charity but as an investment that pays huge dividends in the long run. And I'm not talking about vast amounts of money either, maybe an amount equivalent to how much Americans pay for cat food in July. Side: They Do have the Obligation
|
1
point
No they do not . I wonder if the O P is going down the road of a famous Peter Singer type contention as in ........Singer posits that citizens of rich nations are morally obligated to give at least some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor. He supports this using the drowning child analogy, which states that most people would rescue a drowning child from a pond, even if it meant that their expensive clothes were ruined, so we clearly value a human life more than the value of our material possessions. As a result, we should take a significant portion of the money that we spend on our possessions and instead donate it to charity. Side: They Don't have the Obligation
|
