Giving To The Poor

[Cena's Little Helper]

Simply put, I am creating this thread to get your reasoned answers on the following question: Assuming that you live in a rich, developed country and are able to give money to the poor, would you give money to your country's poor or would you give it to the poorest people in the world (i.e., those that live in the world's LDCs, or least developed countries)? Before I give my answer, I would like to make known that the inspiration for this thread came from the answer Princeton ethicist Peter Singer gave to the aforementioned question (albeit the one he answered was worded a bit differently):

We should give where it will do the most good. There is no sound moral reason for favoring those who happen to live within the borders of our own country. Sometimes, just because they are closer to us and living within the same political system, they may be the people we can most effectively help. More often they will not be. If we live in a rich nation like the U.S.A., our money will go much further, and help more people, if we send it to an organization working in developing nations. About a sixth of the world’s population survives on the purchasing power equivalent of less than $US1 per day. For a more detailed statement of my views on this topic, see ‘The Singer Solution to World Poverty’ at the New York Times and chapter 5 of One World.

Personally, while I definitely sympathize with those who live in LDCs, I would find giving money to poor people in LDCs over those in my own country unconscionable for at least two reasons. One, while our money would go further in helping out people in LDCs, considering the consequences of our help in purely monetary terms fails to take into account the psychological despair of the poor in our country. And, when I talk about our poor, I am not including inveterate gamblers, alcoholics, or junkies (that is to say, I am not including those whose wholly fixable habits preclude them from living anything other than an impoverished life). Rather, I am talking about those whom our system failed or those whose well-being was, in the course of a national decision, unfortunately outweighed by the well-being of our country as a whole (for example, uneducated laborers working in Southern textile factories or Pennsylvanian steel mills). People who say that such individuals should count their blessings because they could have it much worse are, in my opinion, full of it. Do these people whom you say should count their blessings live in wasp-infested shanty towns in Sub-Saharan Africa? No, they are, instead, "have-nots" living among, for the most part, those that "have." I can hardly imagine the psychological torment a man must go through who has lost his job, who is unqualified for anything else, and who can't provide his family with what some would call the "finer things in life" but which are, in actuality, mere necessities in his country today.

Second, giving money to people in most LDCs (there are some exceptions) only alleviates, rather than solves, their predicament. In my opinion, the people in these countries are miserable because of corrupt governments whose members are infinitely more concerned with adding to their bank accounts than with the welfare of their people. Sure, the money we give to the poor is mainly managed by altruistic non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but what can these NGOs exactly do for them if the governments of the countries they are in won't meet them halfway? For example, what could education really do for such people, if their government is corrupt and has such a tenuous hold on power (undoubtedly due to their greed and corruption) that foreign direct investment proves too risky? In the end, giving to poor people with good intentions and determination is not enough for me. I would need to give to those with good intentions and determination and whose country would allow their intentions and determination to come to fruition.

These are the reasons why I would give to the poor in my country rather than to those in LDCs. I look forward to your answers and, possibly, cordial and respectful debate.

 

[OIL]

I went for giving to the poorest countries in the world, simply because giving to the poor in England is all fine, but at the end of the day we have the capabilities to provide for them, with shelter and food, while the less developed countries don't have this luxury, and need the help a lot more than my country does. Giving £10 to a less developed country can provide A LOT of food for them, whereas giving £10 to the poor in England would last them about a day, so, for that reason, I'd give it to the pooriest countries of the world.

 

[HBK-aholic]

If I was taking the money over myself and giving it to them, then I'd have no problem giving to the poor in a different country. But I don't trust those charities with adverts on TV trying to make you donate a certain amount each week. I doubt all the money donated goes directly to them. For that reason, I'd donate to my country.

I don't think it matters though, really. You're still helping someone. And someone in England will be equally as grateful as someone in Africa.

 

[Dragonslayer]

If I was taking the money over myself and giving it to them, then I'd have no problem giving to the poor in a different country. But I don't trust those charities with adverts on TV trying to make you donate a certain amount each week. I doubt all the money donated goes directly to them. For that reason, I'd donate to my country.

I don't think it matters though, really. You're still helping someone. And someone in England will be equally as grateful as someone in Africa.

Very true, that. I personally also don't like charities that advertise on TV somehow, I don't know why; it just doesn't seem right somehow, even though it's perfectly sensible.

As it is, I am actually a member/functionary in a charity association called "Metal For Fairness", which is a pretty cool thing I think... It was originally conceived by a class of the Vienna Business School as their graduation project; usually, the kids only have to work that out on a theoretical basis, but they decided to pull it off, and so began to put charity Metal concerts together; originally, it was planned as a one-time thing, but the response was huge, and meanwhile "Metal For Fairness" is a legal entity and they are organizing 3 larger concerts/festivals every year, plus several smaller ones; and the net revenue of course always goes into choice projects. In the first year for example, they used the money they gathered to build a girl's school in Sudan, and last year's as well as this year's revenue will go into building infrastructure in several villages in Cambodia (once again most of it into a school building). Of course they're not making as much money as larger organisations, but it's at least something, and we all know where the money goes (plus, it has to do with "Metal" which is always cool with me, heh). This year they are by the way targeting a sum of 10.000 Euro for that school, which would be a new record for the project. You could check the site out at www.metalforfairness.at , however I believe the content is mainly in German unfortunately (and seems to have some issues right now for some reason).

That being said, of course the answer to the poll is simple: I really don't care. I think there are people in need both in developed/western countries and in developing countries who can need some help, and it really doesn't matter which you support, as long as you know the support truly reaches them (that's why I like knowing where my money goes instead of just blindly donating to some organisation or other).

I guess poverty is a difficult situation in either case; either if you live in the middle of wealth and surplus, but can't afford to take part in it; or whether you live in a developing country where living standards are just awful - it's always hard, and it's always difficult. I wouldn't say one or the other case is more deserving of aid than the other, as it is hard for the people affected in any case. So I guess support is good in any way, and for anyone.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Theoretically, if you give to the people a developed nation, they can lift themselves up and benefit the economy. In that instance, they can then donate to the Least Developed Nations. If you develop your own economy, then as a second step you can benefit the others.

Furthermore, the US donates hundreds of millions a year to Africa. If we had a greater tax base, we could donate more to Africa. Therefore, benefitting your own people seems to be a better move.

 

[WillYouStopIt!]

Some of you mentioned that you don't trust the charities you see advertising on television. There is a non-profit organization called charity navigator that grades charities based on their performances. The performance in this case is how efficient they are, how much of the donated money that they receive people goes to helping the less fortunate and how much goes to things like advertising and administration. I would highly recommend anyone to check charity navigator before donating to any organization.

But when it comes to the question at hand, I more often than not donate to organizations that help individuals that are worst off, and more often than not they are in locations outside of the United States. But in reality it doesn't matter, as long as people choose to donate some of their money to the less fortunate, the world will be a better place as a result of it.

 

[Mr. TM]

I would rather donate to my own country then another, just because I believe that helping those in my own country would in fact help myself. Though the people I do typically donate to are the arts, as they are underfuned in Canada, and believe that through the arts, we can create a better society. I do however have little problem with donating to Underdeveloped nations, as long as the charity is one the is legitimate, providing stimulation for nation infastructure, such as irrigation systems that benefit people in the long run.

 

[The Big Gunnzbowski]

I went with poor people at home, with exceptions. I'm not talking about the drunk, drugged, and self impoverished. I'm talking about the people who did what they could and ended up on hard times that they just couldn't overcome.

 

[Ms. TM Canada]

I said poor people in my own country.
In first world countries (like ours), the impoverished/homeless are a minority (not a huge minority, but still a minority).
In third world countries, the impoverished are the vast, vast majority.
We can help our minority much easier than we can help entire countries full of impoverished people. If we can help our minority of impoverished/homeless people, we are then stronger and more able to offer services and support towards other countries.