Argue For or Against Global Obligations to the Impoverished From a Care Ethics Perspective
Care Ethicists would argue that we are fundamentally interdependent people, and to the extent that we’re emotionally attached to a person or persons, their concerns should be of ultimate concern for us in our ethical decisions. One would then assume that we would have obligations to help the poor, and I wholeheartedly agree.
However, this topic has incensed me to the core. I knew that when I researched Care Ethics that I would find plenty of articles that, once again, blamed the Americans for practically everything, and that is exactly what I found. For example: “Leaders in developing countries should bear certain moral responsibilities in saving people from poverty, but it is citizens of developed nations who have an even a greater responsibility to eradicate global poverty since they have benefited from years of colonialism and the exploitation of natural resources in other regions of the world.” Krishna Mani Pathak, Asia Journal of Global Studies
Now, I’ve read about Lifeboat Ethics and the Singer solution to world poverty. I know how many impoverished people die each day (21,000), and I know that the growth rate of the human population and how the affluent reproduce at a much slower rate than the poor. Again, I agree that the affluent should help the poor and do a lot more than they are currently doing. 21,000 people dying each day is nothing to be taking lightly. But I hate that we are blamed for almost everything that has gone wrong. What about the birth rates in these countries? I contend that one should not have children (anywhere in this world) if they cannot support them. I also contend that the women having children they cannot support are doing something ethically and morally inexcusable. Yes, we have done our share of exploiting of the natural resources, but we are not forcing women to have child after child that they cannot support....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document