Major Assignment.docx

DO THE RICH NATIONS HAVE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF HELPING THE POOR NATIONS 1




Do The Rich Nations In The World Have The Moral Responsibilities Of Helping The Poor Nations?
Name
student ID
institution
professor
Course



Introduction
Morality is of great importance in the society. For this reason, every society provides a number of moral values that should be followed by all the members of that particular society. In addition, the members are required to comply with all the provisions of such moral standings and in many cases, they should not question. According to Gluchman (2013), morality refers to the principles concerning the differentiation between right and wrong or a good and bad behavior.In addition, it refers to a certain system of principles and values of conduct. However, morality differs from one society to another since every society has a sense of what is accepted as right and what the society believes to be wrong (Gaus & Sterba, 2012). For this reason, morality is not universal among all societies and therefore one has to understand the moral provisions and assumptions of their society. One of the most common moral values in the society is helping people suffering from different issues in the society. In the recent days, most of the poor society around the globe especially those in Africa and Asia are suffering from a number of issues. Such issues include poverty, crime, famine, hunger as well as affluence. This has led to the dilemma of whether or not the rich nations around the globe have the moral responsibilities of helping the poor nations. This issue has remained a point of discussion for a long time in the midst of the current moral decay when most people have thrown their moral beliefs to the dogs. This paper presents a critical analysis of my view on whether or not the rich nations around the globe have the moral responsibilities of helping the poor nations.
Unlike some decades ago when the world was partially linked, today the world has become a global village and nations have a wide sense of knowledge about their neighboring nations. Consequently, trade, as well as movement of people, has increased among nations than before. Nevertheless, even in face of development and globalization, not all the nations have benefited from the fruits of the global development. Many people and nations continue to be poor and in most nations, the gap between the rich and the poor has continued to balloon. On the other hand, globalization has led to the increased development in some nations leading to making of people with massive financial muscles. In such nations though a small number, the gap between the poor and the rich has reached the record low. What is more, the standards of living in such nations have increased leading to less number of people living below the poverty line. At such point, a moral question is asked whether these developed nations have the moral obligation of helping the poor nations.
To begin with, there are humanitarian reasons why developed nations should help the poor nations. Like the people giving charity, many nations feel it is their social, moral and religious duty to helping people in other nations suffering from famine, war, disease, and drought. Based on the on Kant's theory, there is no a moral obligation for the rich nations to help the poor ones, instead, the decision to do so should depend on their maxima (Ginsborg, 2016). According to Ginsborg (2016), maxima is the ground rule or a subjective action principle. In this case, maxima is a thought that motivates individuals. Based on this, there is no moral responsibility for nations to support the poor ones. According to Kant, nations should consider these two questions before making a decision on whether or not to help the poor nations; One, nations should consider whether they can rationally will that all act as they propose to act. In this case, if the answer to the question is No then the action is not worth doing. Secondly, nations should consider whether their actions respect human beings' goals instead of just using them for the purpose of the nations (Bird, 2016). If the answer to the question is no, then the nations should not consider performing the actions. Based on the second question, it is clear that helping the poor nations respects the goals of human beings. Helping the poor nations would help in reducing deaths and suffering among the people in such nations. The help may come in different forms such as financial and military help. The rich nation should make the reduction of human suffering their maxima and this would ensure that they have a moral obligation of helping the poor nations.
On the other hand, based on the utilitarian theory the poor nations have the moral responsibility of helping the poor nations. The utilitarian theory states that best action is the one maximizing utility (Cremaschi, 2014). In this case, the utility may be defined in terms of the wellbeing of sentimental entities like human beings. According to Shaw (2016), the theory places the direction of right to wrong main on the consequences of choosing one policy or action over the other actions. The theory moves from the individual interests to the interests of other people. For example, there is no utility in witnessing other people suffer while an individual is in a position to help. In addition, the utility in killing people is low compared to the utility gained in seeing other people happy and assisting them in their low moments in life. Based on this theory, it is clear that rich nations have the moral responsibility of helping the poor nations. The theory is based on the consequences of the actions taken. For this reason, whether an action is right or wrong is fully dependent on the consequences of such actions. When rich nations help the poor ones, they reduce the possibility of increasing deaths and sufferings in such nations. In addition, helping the poor nations will help them to grow and hence reduce the chances of them having to seek financial assistance from the rich nations. What is more, helping the poor nations will ensure that they build their own capacity and become independent both politically and economically. On the other hand, when nations decide not to help the poor they increase the burden on themselves in many aspects. For example, such nations will have to constantly seek financial help from the rich nations. In addition, the rich nations will have to help the poor nations with technical capacity like skilled labor even when they do not have enough. The consequences of helping the poor nations include giving them the capacity to produce for their own and even have a surplus to sell to the rich nations. Moreover, after assisting the nations, they will invest in technical capacity and supply the surplus to the rich nations. Considering the consequences of the two actions, helping the poor nations have the highest utility among the two and therefore nations should aim at helping nations to increase their capacity and reduce human suffering in such nations.
Altruism acknowledges the need for helping other people in order to raise their wellbeing (Ricard, Gordon & Mandell, 2015). The theory is a core perspective of many secular global views and religious traditions. The theory is the opposite of selfishness and it discourages living in plenty while other people are suffering. According to Ricard, Gordon & Mandell (2015), altruism comes at a cost and people should be ready to do things at other people, which are at a cost to themselves. The actions should benefit either directly or indirectly and should be done without any hidden expectations of compensation or reciprocity (Yildirim, 2016). Based on this theory, rich nations have the moral responsibility of helping the poor nations. The theory holds that people should always work at improving the welfare of other people even if it comes at a cost (Yildirim, 2016). As per the theory, people should be ready to sacrifice their comfort for the social benefit of others to ensure improvement of their wellbeing. This could include sacrificing money to help them cater for their basic needs, sacrificing time to reach to them and even offering counsel to them to ensure that their wellbeing is improved. What is more, the theory criticizes selfishness as an immoral way of life since it is based on the helping oneself without any concern about the welfare of other people. In applying this theory, rich nations have a moral responsibility of helping the poor nations because this will increase the welfare of the people in those poor nations.
According to the ethical egoism theory, the rich nations do not have any moral obligation to helping the poor nations. According to this theory, moral agents must do what is in their own self-interest (Gantt & Burton, 2013).). According to this theory, actions are morally ethical as long as their consequences benefit the doer (Gantt & Burton, 2013). The theory assumes that all people are intimately familiar with their own needs and wants. Such people are all people are unique to pursue their needs and wants efficiently. On the other hand, we imperfectly know the needs of other people and for this reason, we are not suitably suited to pursue them. For this reason, if people assume the role of been their brother's keeper,' they are likely going to do more mischief than good. The theory also assumes that giving charity to people is one way of degrading them and it implies that the individuals are reliant on the munificence and unable to look out for themselves (Overall, 2016).
Moreover, the theory holds that altruism denies people of their value and for this reason it is destructive to both the society including its individual components by viewing life as a thing to be sacrificed. In addition, the theory holds that Altruism shows that man does not have the right to exist for his sake. According to Henry Sidgwick, the main reason for morality should be to teach people not to suffer and die, instead to enjoy life and live (Ricard, Gordon & Mandell, 2015). Based on this theory, actions whose consequences benefit the doer are ethical. Based on this theory, rich nations have moral responsibility of helping the poor nations with the condition that such actions benefit the rich nations in different ways (Wilson, 2014). For example, if the rich nations capitalize on the suffering of the poor nations for their own good, then they do not have any moral responsibility of helping the poor nations. For example, if due to poverty the poor nations sell raw materials to the rich nations, then they may not consider helping the poor nations because in so doing the benefit is cut short. In addition, if the rich nations benefit from cheap skilled labor due to the poverty of the poor nations, then according to the theory, they should continue exploiting the poor nation and they should not offer them any help.
According to Nietzsche philosophy, the rich nations do not have any moral responsibility to help the poor nations. Nietzsche argues that compassion and pity are not good things to do. He despises pity and argues that it makes people powerless and weak (Evans, 2016). In addition, it negates the will for creating and dominating and makes the will powerless. According to Nietzsche, Christianity has given pity sacrosanct pedestal, whereby the strong people are required to help the poor and the weak compassionately to improve their wellbeing and reduce their suffering (Evans, 2016). He adds that pity makes the strong people become weak. According to Nietzsche, pity is artificially produced through preaching of morality of both good and evil. In addition, it is realized through brainwashing the strong people using the weaker types. He holds that the thinking of pity and compassion has hazardous effects on humanity because the stronger people are restricted from their domination, which should be the natural outcome of events through moral claptrap (Young, 2014). Considering the argument of Nietzsche, rich nations do not have any moral responsibility of helping the poor nations because this makes them weaker. When rich nations help the poor, they lose money to these nations instead of investing it in projects that can help the nation grow economically.
Conclusion
Rich nations have the absolute right to decide whether or not to help poor nations. However, the society expects them to consider different moral values while making this decision. Based on the utilitarianism theory, rich nations have the moral responsibility of helping the poor nations. According to this theory, nations should make a choice that achieves the highest good majority people. Based on the theory, rich nations have the obligation to help the poor nations because this has the greatest good to the majority of people because it helps ensure wellbeing of people. On the other hand, Nietzsche philosophy shows clearly why the rich nations do not have any moral responsibility to help the poor nations. According to the Nietzsche philosophy, too much compassion and pity makes the mind weak and leads to people losing their will power and determination to uplift their lives. For this reason, the rich nations should stop giving assistance to the poor nations because this will make them poorer as they lose their determination and willpower to solve their issues.


References
Bird, G. (2016). Kant's Theory of Knowledge : An Outline of One Central Argument in the 'Critique of Pure Reason'. London: Routledge.
Cremaschi, S. (2014). Utilitarianism and Malthus' Virtue Ethics : Respectable, Virtuous and Happy. Hoboken: Routledge.
Evans, D. R. (2016). Nietzsche and Classical Greek Philosophy : Beautiful and Diseased. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Gantt, E. E., & Burton, J. (2013). Egoism, Altruism, and the Ethical Foundations of Personhood. Journal Of Humanistic Psychology, 53(4), 438-460.
Gaus, G., & Sterba, J. P. (2012). Morality : The Why and the What of It. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
Ginsborg, H. (2016). The Role of Taste in Kant's Theory of Cognition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Gluchman, V. (2013). Morality : Reasoning on Different Approaches. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.
Overall, J. (2016). Unethical behavior in organizations: empirical findings that challenge CSR and egoism theory. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(2), 113-127.
Ricard, M., Gordon, S., & Mandell, C. (2015). Altruism : The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Ricard, M., Gordon, S., & Mandell, C. (2015). Altruism : The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Scott, N., & Seglow, J. (2007). Altruism. Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Wilson, D. S. (2014). Does Altruism Exist? : Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Yildirim, N. (2016). A Qualitative Analysis of Altruism (Selflessness): Views of Headmasters in Turkey. Journal Of Education And Training Studies, 4(7), 82-91.
Young, J. (2014). Individual and Community in Nietzsche's Philosophy. New York City: Cambridge University Press.




DO THE RICH NATIONS IN THE WORLD HAVE THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF HELPING THE POOR NATIONS 3