Should we help the poor/weak or do nothing?

[PJ]

I'm raising potentially challenging questions.

Should we help the poor/weak or do nothing?

(of course, there might be more options not mentioned)

For some, it may be instinctual to say "yes of course we should help, how can we just watch them suffer?" But maybe it's worth considering whether the world would have enough resources to support a wealthier (and thus more resource-depletive) human population.

The world is overpopulated with humans as it is. Natural resources are becoming more scarce as a result of human overpopulation and overconsumption and careless depletion of natural resources.

One argument might be, the world was never intended to support such a overpopulated human species. Currently, as life gets better, we're using more resources. If more people were to improve their lives, they would consume even more resources than now.

Another argument could be, that everything has a balance with 2 sides, including quality of life. For some to have a good life, other must suffer. One man's gain is another one's loss. This is how the world must be.

Yet another point could be that many poor/weak people were born by mistake. Their parents didn't mean to conceive them, but it happened anyway. Notice that the world's fastest growing regions are the poorer countries. More "mistakes" are made there, so the sooner they die off, the more mistakes are corrected.

OK, what say you?

[kidd]

I would still say "yes of course we should help, how can we just watch them suffer"

When you help the poor/weak, isn't it sharing your resources?

"Another argument could be, that everything has a balance with 2 sides, including quality of life. For some to have a good life, other must suffer. One man's gain is another one's loss. This is how the world must be."

Well, if one has $1000 and the other has $0 and the one with $1000 gave $30 to the one with $0, don't the one with $1000 become less rich and the one with $0 become richer? So, it's still balance.

[kent60]

As an individual the power to do anything on that scale is limited, just a quarter of the food we throw out is enough to feed the entire world but who amongst the rich nations are willing to sacrifice our lifestyle for such drastic changes are we prepare to pool our resources together, eg share cars. use public transport, live in communes... Democratic governments will bow to our greed and unwillingness sacrifice our luxury, they will also bow to the Capitalists who run this world and are the cause of the inequalities.

Individually whether we should do anything comes down to our guiding principles at the time eg Christians certainly are morally "obliged" to do something, "Realists" may just choose to focus on what can be done at the everyday local scale. There is no moral code that everyone should adhere to.... so do nothing ,do something, feel guilty whatever is OK...the world will run its cause whether to destruction or change for better...Shoepenhauer (can't spell his name) proposed that we are trapped in our time and powerless to change anything, I kind of agree with this so I just act like a worker ant in a massive colony and go about my business as I see fit.

[kent60]

If you look at giving away $30 as rich in the sense of making yourself feel good then the net sum is different.

[kidd]

If you look at giving away $30 as rich in the sense of making yourself feel good then the net sum is different.

If you add other variables and definition into the equation, of course the net sum will be different.

Emotions is up to the individual. The world has limited resources, so, we need to share and balance. But, emotion is not one of the limited resources.

So, this particular/specific equation of mine, richness is only in terms of monetary possession. Translate to bigger scale, it's monetary, properties and resource possession.

[HuangYushi]

I'm raising potentially challenging questions.
Should we help the poor/weak or do nothing?
(of course, there might be more options not mentioned)

Yes, we should help the poor/weak, and there are a variety of different ways to do it.

But maybe it's worth considering whether the world would have enough resources to support a wealthier (and thus more resource-depletive) human population.
The world is overpopulated with humans as it is. Natural resources are becoming more scarce as a result of human overpopulation and overconsumption and careless depletion of natural resources.
One argument might be, the world was never intended to support such a overpopulated human species. Currently, as life gets better, we're using more resources. If more people were to improve their lives, they would consume even more resources than now.

Helping the poor/weak does not necessarily mean making them "wealthy" by the simple dictionary (or even common-use) definition of the word. While I agree that additional resources are needed to help the poor/weak and that resources by and large are more easily depleted than created, I believe that a long-term view needs to be taken when helping the poor/weak. Then, the use of resources becomes more justifiable.

While giving monetary assistance is the quickest and easiest way to help the poor/weak, well-intentioned individuals need to be aware that money may not necessary be the best solution for them.

Many countries have welfare frameworks and systems that seek to help the poor/weak, yet due to ignorance, lack of knowledge and fear, many poor/weak do not know where and how to seek help from the very frameworks and systems that have been set up for them. Therefore, sometimes, helping the poor/weak is just a matter of connecting them with these welfare frameworks and systems. It is something that every able person in any community can do.

Then, there are those who fall outside the boundaries of welfare frameworks/systems for various reasons but appear to be poor/weak and needy of help. If the specific type of assistance required can be identified, there'd probably be an NGO or other organisation somewhere in the world that is already providing this sort of help. So the well-intentioned individual either connects the poor/weak to the NGO, or becomes an advocate by starting a local chapter or working in partnership with a suitable organisation in the community.

For individuals looking to start helping the poor/weak on a regular basis, it is often good to participate in the assistance programmes that are run by community organisations. This allows the individuals to be introduced to the "business" (in all senses of the word) of helping the poor/weak while doing some good, before a decision to be more involved is made.

Helping the poor/weak can also be very personal, e.g. a neighbour, a coworker, a customer or someone whom we meet daily on the way to work. Besides connecting these poor/weak to welfare organisations and/or NGOs, we may often find ourselves being drawn into their problems, simply by virtue of knowing these people on a personal basis. And sometimes, it is very hard to extricate ourselves from these people and their problems after getting involved.

While it is our basic courtesy towards our fellow man and our in-built empathy that lead us to help the poor/weak, our emotions that can and do get the better of us, sometimes causing us so much "trouble" that we end up saying "we should not have done anything about this!"

(Note to PJ: I wonder, is one of the many trains of thought that you're getting at?)

Anyways ... "trouble", or the fear of it, should not be the reason why we refrain from helping the poor/weak. If we walk into an "assistance" situation with our eyes open, our brains working and our emotions prepared, we should be able to provide better help to the poor/weak and retreat at the end of it with everything more or less intact.

Another argument could be, that everything has a balance with 2 sides, including quality of life. For some to have a good life, other must suffer. One man's gain is another one's loss. This is how the world must be.

If we go by this view of the world and everything in it as a finite pie that everyone shares, then this reasoning of gain versus loss would hold true. Indeed, it does seem to hold very true in places where the poorest/weakest are found, but the truth behind the gross inequality in these places is simpler and more sinister: insatiable personal greed.

Yet another point could be that many poor/weak people were born by mistake. Their parents didn't mean to conceive them, but it happened anyway. Notice that the world's fastest growing regions are the poorer countries. More "mistakes" are made there, so the sooner they die off, the more mistakes are corrected.

I can see a well-known member of this forum having a field day with this particular paragraph, but he seems to be curiously quiet these days. Heh, heh, I digress...

I believe that the thoughts of **poor/weak people as "mistakes" that should be allowed to die off as a natural means of correction** would have entered the minds of more rational/reasonable/well-educated /(insert positive adjective here) individuals than many would have dared to admit, but basic courtesy for our fellow man simply prevents us from acting/being/speaking in such a selfish manner.

Therefore, in the name of basic courtesy, all of us normal people (i.e. discounting all those whose life-calling is to help the poor/weak) continue to ponder over the question of helping the poor/weak, offering assistance through money, goods, time and service whenever fancy strikes.

---

More than a decade ago, I quit my job and spent two years as a volunteer in my community. I worked with geriatrics without families (I had to deal with the funeral of one elderly man who suddenly died of a heart attack), very low-income but intact families, drug users, people with mental health problems, disaster victims, etc, etc.

One of the most important things I learnt from the experience was this: Never ever forget how a needy person feels when you first meet him/her about his/her need. To him/her, his/her need holds the highest priority in his/her life. So therefore, even if you've heard the story 100 times from 100 different needy persons, you still need to treat it as if you're hearing it for the first time. It is important to the needy person because it acknowledges the need at his/her level. But because of your experience (having heard and dealt with similar problems 100 times before this), you'd be more effective and efficient in rendering help, thus bringing quick and satisfactory closure for everyone.

Long-winded once more,
HYS

[Trien Chieu]

PJ and Kent60, where is personal responsibility?
Wealths aren't falling from the sky, they are created through hard work.

For some to have a good life, other must suffer. One man's gain is another one's loss. This is how the world must be.

PJ, this is not true. Well off people obtain their wealth by hard work, not by robbing the poor. If the so call poor/weak you mention willing to work hard and live responsibly, they may not getting rich but will not be in the situation of where they are in. The solution to their problem is "LIVE BELOW THE MEAN".

As an individual the power to do anything on that scale is limited, just a quarter of the food we throw out is enough to feed the entire world but who amongst the rich nations are willing to sacrifice our lifestyle for such drastic changes are we prepare to pool our resources together, eg share cars. use public transport, live in communes... Democratic governments will bow to our greed and unwillingness sacrifice our luxury, they will also bow to the Capitalists who run this world and are the cause of the inequalities.

Kent60, people from the so call rich nations work their butt off to earn all the wealth that they have. Why should they give them away?? Why should they sacrifice their lifestyle that they earn? Capitalist society rewards hard working people who deserve it and create inequalities in society but it's all fair and square.

[xJadedx]

Kent60, people from the so call rich nations work their butt off to earn all the wealth that they have. Why should they give them away?? Why should they sacrifice their lifestyle that they earn? Capitalist society rewards hard working people who deserve it and create inequalities in society but it's all fair and square.

Hahahahaha, please enlighten me as to how the likes of Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are "hard-working." There are many people who are wealthy who don't do shit and don't deserve it, and plenty of poor people who are very hard-working, but unfortunately encounter many difficulties in their lives that prevent them from getting what they truly deserve. Don't generalize everything about the world, but hey, I guess that makes processing easier for you.

[Trien Chieu]

Hahahahaha, please enlighten me as to how the likes of Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian are "hard-working." There are many people who are wealthy who don't do shit and don't deserve it, and plenty of poor people who are very hard-working, but unfortunately encounter many difficulties in their lives that prevent them from getting what they truly deserve. Don't generalize everything about the world, but hey, I guess that makes processing easier for you.

How many well off people earn their money like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian?

[Banh Mi]

Look after you and yours.
I would only help people important to me, or if I have something to gain from it. For small things I don't care about sure I can be generous with. But generally, I would only look after me and mine. Weak outsiders will naturally be weeded out.

[JamesG]

If, as a Christian, you feel the urge to help someone in difficult circumstances, do so through your church or the Salvation Army. They are better at determining real need as compared to the freeloader types who abuse the system.

Governments are not a good choice for social assistance, since they tend to trap those who feel entitled to handouts into being virtual ‘slaves’ to the governments.
They are also voter slaves to the political parties providing the handouts. It’s a system ‘Liberals’ love since it makes them feel good and gets them re-elected. It also perpetuates the ghettos.

Social assistance should be closely monitored and those that show the desire and drive to better themselves should get the most help. Those that don’t should only get enough to barely survive. The discomfort might motivate a few more to do better. The physically and mentally handicapped are a separate issue. Too much help is as bad as doing nothing.

[wkeej]

First, a heartfelt clap to Huang Yushi for his volunteer work.

I do agree with kent90 that individuals are limited in helping. On the other hand, I remember the "starfish" logic. Yes, there are so many starfish along the beach. Even you throw them back into the sea, the tide will come back to the beach to die again. But if we can help one at the point in time, at least, we are helping one to live longer. So we should help the weak/poor. though it could be only one and our help is limited.

[Exodus]

It depends of the reason of the people that needs help. Most of the times it feel the government is responsible to sort out this kind of social problem and that i help indirectly through paying taxes. And some people are just not worth helping in the cause of poverty is selfinflicted because of lazyless.

[Lucre]

yes, as long as i have the means to help others i will do it, for God's sake. =)

[yittz]

Look after you and yours.
I would only help people important to me, or if I have something to gain from it. For small things I don't care about sure I can be generous with. But generally, I would only look after me and mine. Weak outsiders will naturally be weeded out.

I know, why do people these days work so hard against evolution? In Australia, the baby bonuses mainly encourage the lazy + short sighted to have more babies and pass on their genes/habits.

In reference to PJ's original point, we should help the poor by distributing condoms, or even better preaching abstinence.

[Banh Mi]

I know, why do people these days work so hard against evolution? In Australia, the baby bonuses mainly encourage the lazy + short sighted to have more babies and pass on their genes/habits.

In reference to PJ's original point, we should help the poor by distributing condoms, or even better preaching abstinence.

I knew we were bros for a reason.

We should help people by not helping them. People are forced to become more resilient under threat of death. If they want something they ought to work and struggle for it.

[IPlayWow]

I knew we were bros for a reason.

We should help people by not helping them. People are forced to become more resilient under threat of death. If they want something they ought to work and struggle for it.

First I will tell you this. If people need my help than I will help them to the limit of my ability.

Second. That's some good thinking you got there if you live in a well develop society but what if you live somewhere like in communist vietnam? Some people don't even have a chance to make money or anything. So if you or anyone doesn't help them than who will? You're just gonna let them die?

Now I'm not saying you should help someone that is asking for weed or stuff like that but if they have the will to strive and live than I think you should at least help them but from what you're saying, you sound like a heartless person.

At least Ebinizer Scrooge from X-mas carol changed at the end of the story.

[Banh Mi]

First I will tell you this. If people need my help than I will help them to the limit of my ability.

Good for you.

Second. That's some good thinking you got there if you live in a well develop society but what if you live somewhere like in communist vietnam? Some people don't even have a chance to make money or anything. So if you or anyone doesn't help them than who will? You're just gonna let them die?

Why not? People die every day. If I lived in communist Vietnam then I would be even less inclined to help random strangers. I have no qualms about helping those important to me, or those who can also benefit me. But I have no attachment or obligation to random strangers with nothing to offer.

Now I'm not saying you should help someone that is asking for weed or stuff like that but if they have the will to strive and live than I think you should at least help them but from what you're saying, you sound like a heartless person.

Of the millions of people in need in this world. Who would you have me help first and in what capacity? And why?

At least Ebinizer Scrooge from X-mas carol changed at the end of the story.

Cool story bro.

[IPlayWow]

Good for you.


Why not? People die every day. If I lived in communist Vietnam then I would be even less inclined to help random strangers. I have no qualms about helping those important to me, or those who can also benefit me. But I have no attachment or obligation to random strangers with nothing to offer.


Of the millions of people in need in this world. Who would you have me help first and in what capacity? And why?



Cool story bro.

Now of course you cannot go around the world and help the million. But the people that you live in and around your area. If a person is in desperate need of help and you see it live in person than I would expect you to help him or her to the limit of your ability regardless of what you think is going to benefit you by helping him or her.

You sound like one of those vietnamese communist . communist vietnamese only help people so they can gain something out of it.

Oh and when you said """
"""We should help people by not helping them."""

you already mean people as everyone in general and not just the people you know and loves one and family and such but everyone. So now you're just changing your words around about not helping stranger. and I think that's something only communist would do. communist are true hypocrite. keep flip flopping words around.

I bet you won't even help a little kid unless you gonna get money or fame out of it or something. may GOD have mercy on you.

[Banh Mi]

Now of course you cannot go around the world and help the million. But the people that you live in and around your area. If a person is in desperate need of help and you see it live in person than I would expect you to help him or her to the limit of your ability regardless of what you think is going to benefit you by helping him or her.

Why discriminate between someone in my immediate area and the world at large?

You sound like one of those vietnamese communist . communist vietnamese only help people so they can gain something out of it.

It's called reciprocation, it is the basis of human interaction. You give something to me, I give you something back in return. I work for a company, the company gives me money. I pay taxes, the government provides infrastructure.

Oh and when you said """
"""We should help people by not helping them."""

you already mean people as everyone in general and not just the people you know and loves one and family and such but everyone. So now you're just changing your words around about not helping stranger. and I think that's something only communist would do. communist are true hypocrite. keep flip flopping words around.

My first post clearly states that I only want to help those important or useful to me.

I bet you won't even help a little kid unless you gonna get money or fame out of it or something. may GOD have mercy on you.

Probably not, unless the kid has a pretty sister. God can keep his mercy.