There Is Still No Unanimous Consensus on Whether Wealthy Individuals and Countries Should Only Concern About Their Own Affairs

There is still no unanimous consensus on whether wealthy individuals and countries should only concern about their own affairs. I concede the statement that not everyone in poverty could be financed, but that is not to say their generosities are useless.

Seemingly, the point that individuals and countries can not prevent the countless tragedy is plausible. There is also an ongoing concern that the aid money, in stead of alleviating sufferings, could be misused by dictators to consolidate their rule. Nevertheless, notwithstanding possible unaided and misused, we could not ignore the survivals who might have dead without help. The wealthy have moral obligation to help others.

As a full-fledged member of society we should, first of all, concerning about people who living in misery, not only limited to our own nations, but also worldwide. Besides, rich countries are generally call themselves civilized nations. If they are to really live up to their names, how could they refuse to aid the poor who are constantly suffering in poverty and languishing in misery? Critically however, supplying could not only protect poor from starving to death, which is the exact condition of millions of people, but also promote national interaction, in terms of economy and culture. This benefit should not be underestimated.

Besides which, shouldn’t we try to give contribution to build a peaceful society? Would our world be better and more harmonious if we were all willing to help each other?

In sum, I prefer the suggestion that rich countries and citizens should aid the poor insofar as it is a noble idea, and my viewpoint is human being should be