America's Obligation To Help The Poor

Did you know that many people around the world are suffering due to lack of resources within their countries? Some wealthier people and nations decide not to help these less fortunate people as they would rather spend money on frivolous things and think that it’s not their obligation. I believe that man has a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than him, though I believe that it is not morally right to only help those who are less fortunate just to make you feel like a better person.

In Source B, Peter Singer states “if the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” While this position states an extreme case as it expands America’s obligation to children beyond our borders, it
He supports my claim when he says “If you see a child drowning and save it as the result of a direct impulse to bring help, you will emerge none the worse morally. If, on the other hand, you say to yourself, ‘It is the part of virtue to succor the helpless, and I wish to be a virtuous man, therefore I must save this child,’ you will be an even worse man afterwards than you were before.” It is seen as selfish and you are really thinking about helping yourself more than the drowning child. This may be an extreme case as it involves the child’s life at risk, but this point can be applied to helping someone with smaller cases such as work, making dinner, doing laundry, etc. Russell provides the point that people stop thinking about virtuousness once “we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves.” This should cause people to help others in peril or who are less fortunate, instead of one trying to make himself feel like a better