Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Solving poverty essays
Essays on how to tackle poverty
Essays on how to tackle poverty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Solving poverty essays
Imagine living in a community where every minute of everyday you are hungry, under clothed, and at risk at death because you are poor. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Both are scenarios that occur on a daily basis in our countries, some more extreme than others. With that in mind, this raises the question of whether rich nations have an obligation to help those nations in need. People who earn above a certain income should be forced to donate 10% of their money to the poor because, it will help break the vicious circle of poverty, help the society at large to move forward, and lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. The poor do not have the money to save; all of the income goes to food, lodging, and heating bills, which are essential for survival. There is little left over to enjoy the luxuries of life, such as a home with heating, education, medical care, or even three proper meals a day. Because of their lack of education, they cannot get a well paying job, and thus are stuck in the lower classes of society. To he...
People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life.
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
Worthy poor: Are those people that cannot provide for themselves, for example: People with physical disabilities, elderly, etc.
In the face of media campaigns and political sanctions, the question about whether we owe the global poor assistance and rectification is an appropriate one. Despite television advertisements displaying the condition of the poor and news articles explaining it, the reality is the majority of us, especially in the Western world, are far removed from the poverty that still affects a lot of lives. The debate between Thomas Pogge and Mathias Risse regarding our obligation to the poor questions the very institution we live in. Pogge created a new framework in which the debate developed. He introduced a focus on the design of the institutional global order, and the role it plays in inflicting or at least continuing the severe poverty people are exposed to. Whilst both Mathias Risse and Thomas Pogge believe that the “global order is imperfectly developed. It needs reform rather than revolutionary overthrow”, they differ on whether or not it is just and entitles the global poor to assistance. Pogge believes that the global order is unjust as it “helps to perpetuate extreme poverty, violating our negative duty not to harm others unduly”. Risse believes that the institution is only incompletely just and can be credited to improving lives of the global poor. According to him, these improvements contribute to its justifiability and negate any further obligation we have to the poor. Through assessing their debate, it seems that one’s obligation to the poor depends on one’s conception of duty, their unit of analysis, and whether improvement rectifies injustice. On balance, it seems that we do indeed owe the poor, only we may lack the means to settle it.
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
An anonymous poet in the 1700's wrote about crime: "The law will punish a man or woman who steals the goose from the hillside, but lets the greater robber loose who steals the hillside from the goose."[l]
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Hunger and poverty will always exist. Many needy nations are stuck in a black hole, in which, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This situation could be fixed, if the poor nations had a little help or assistance. Is it morally good for the better off nations to help or support those who are in need? Who benefits from this sponsorship in the long run? Poverty-stricken nations could seek relief if the silk-stocking nations aid in supplying goods. Many of the moneyed nations are torn between helping or not those who are less fortunate. Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin have two very different opinions on whether to aid those who were not born into riches. Swift uses a satire for the low-income nations of eating and using offspring
Philosophy Public Affairs 32, no. 2 (1995). 4 (2004): 357-383. Singer, Peter; Miller, Richard "“What Duties Do People in Rich Countries Have to Relieve World Poverty”."
The wealthy countries cannot help everyone, there would not be enough for themselves. People should always do what they can to help one another out, however we can, ignoring the problem will make more problems. By helping out your fellow man it will to help yourself indirectly. Immigration adds to exhaustion of food, and will destroy resources faster. Although, without immigration we would not have such a diverse culture, or exchanging of different ideas. The creation of the World Food Bank was intended to help the poor around the world, but it is used unfairly. Not everyone can contribute equally, so often countries only take from the bank without giving anything back. On the other hand, without the world food bank people would die. Countries should give to the bank if they have extra, or even if they never have to use it for themselves, it is only right.
The decision to end world hunger is a groups effort that can provide little by little from everyone to make a difference that will be effective. “the decision and actions of human beings can prevent this suffering” (Singer 554). The action of the human race itself that re better off can save the life of many suffering that are worse off. Singer takes on the case that it should be a moral duty to help others because people often help those that are in reach to them and ignoring to sacrifice and put the effort to help those that are far of reach from them as well. Singer wants us to follow the famine relief and support those in need even if it means putting aside ours wants and benefiting to those who are suffering needs. “We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable or generous” (singer 557). Giving to a suffering nation should be as enjoyable or even more so than buying a new dress and just because you give it is not a generosity or charitable either because you are supporting life, which should not be an option. If it is in our will to prevent harm,
Should the government help the homeless? Municipal governments should provide subsidized housing for their homeless residents. This could help the homeless population of Louisburg. By providing the homeless with an address that gives them the opportunity to get a job, get back on their feet, and also give them a safe place to stay while beginning a new life. Providing for the homeless should not be a charity for show but, for the moral support of human beings. Supporting the homeless does not mean we are encouraging them. Just because some are is homeless doesn’t mean they are drug addicts or just lazy. Many homeless didn’t ask for what they got in the end, whether it be death by starvation or being beaten to death. Death of the homeless could be prevented if the municipal government would provide a safe place for the homeless to go. The homeless people are PEOPLE too. The true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Therefore, the government should be doing much more than it is for the homeless population. They need help and understanding, and they need it from their government.
When my mother saw beggars standing on the intersection asking for help, my mom would try to help them by giving them the money, but my father would argue that you should not help because this would only encourage them to rely on other people’s help. My father says they should helped by the government, instate of helped by individuals. It is not our responsibility to take care of them. I disagree with both of them because they do not look at or think about the problem closely enough. I think people are not only facing problems with wealth, but diseases, and war. These are also problems that many people in many other countries also face. If we work together, we may be able to help each other and make this world better. In my opinion, there are several solutions that poor countries and wealthy countries working together could implement that would benefit both.
More fortunate people must also be willing to help their fellow citizens in need. Volunteer programs should be overflowing with people who want to help. For example, Habitat for Humanity is one organization who builds houses for the needy. If everyone dedicated some of their extra time and money in organizations that help "poor" people, poverty would begin to see a decrease. There are many other organizations that help "poor" people, and if everyone pitches in, one world problem may be diminished in the future.
Has anyone ever considered thinking about what the world is really going through? How many people don’t have the necessities in order to survive? If so, what are these people going through? Poverty is the state of one who lacks a standard or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Sometimes events occur that changes a person’s perspective on life. Poverty is one that can have a huge effect on not only one person, but also the people around him/her. Over half of the world is going through this tragedy and we, being the ones who created it, have the responsibility to end it.