Using the word "Privileged" in the sense of those that suffer little disability, or encumberences such as endemic poverty, and illnesses such as those that relate to mental health and others that cause societal dysfunction. I wanted to generate a discussion on what the duty of care is ethically and morally required of society whether Western or Eastern or in between, to provide for the welfare and hopefully the improvement of life quality issues of persons less blessed than ourselves. Questions like: Do countries that have wealth have an moral or ethical obligation to provide aid and assistance to other less fortunate countries? Does society have a duty of care to those persons that are severely handicapped due to mental health issues such as Paranoid Schizophrenia and the like? My personal opinion is that Society or countries do have a duty of care, but wonder to what extent or how far we should go in our philanthropy. The most common argument against aiding a person or country is that aiding only seeems to perpetuate the problem and not solve it. Of course this applies to lesser situations like the societal isolation of a mental health consumer. How does one determine the level of compassion one shows? Is there a "golden rule?" This issue of course is much bigger than this thread could ever be. And there are many many aspects to consider. Years ago the UN declared the Charter of Human Rights. What ethical and moral requirements required this amazing document? What was the underlying motivation? Was it simply the realisation that to avoid the need for war and achieve a peaceful co-existence, compassion and equality of all humans is the only path? I would be very interested in all your comments. Care to discuss? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi Quantum, The social worker in me says that yes, we do have a 'duty of care' to other countries. The capitalist in me says that on the topic of 'euthanasia' - we need to look after own own kids first!! Recently a woman with refugee staus wanted to bring in 13 of her family from an Arab state. Whilst admirable, the economic burdon to tax payers here would be enormous - welfare, housing etc. And it hacked me off as it is a privlage to live here. If our immigration policies were relaxed, both NZ and OZ would fill up in seconds, impacting on us, the environment and societies well being. When you talk about 'duty of care' to those with mental health issues, I wonder if you mean ' non-discrimination' so consumers can integrate into an accepting society? Or do you mean that society ought to literally care for them - go and visit them etc? I think the level of compassion one shows for those with disabilities depends on peoples own experiences, their upbringing, and society's predjuces. We're quite lucky in our country's because there aren't that many that 'slip through the cracks'. Health providers are pretty much onto it. Regarding 3rd world and oppressed countries, I am the first to agree to assist in humanatarian aid. The sad fact is though, is that charities like the Christian Children's Fund and the like, spend a lot of that money on admin . And does a dollar a day give the starving quality of life?, or is it just keeping them alive to suffer more? I struggle with this, and to me it seems that those who die daily in 3rd world countries face a natural 'culling'. I think that the population boom is the most serious issue we face for the future. I don't think the world can sustain itself. We live in a consumerist society where emphasis is put on material, beauty and success, and it seems like 'survival of the fittest'. Just as aside, yes the Humans Rights charter is great. However, the thing thats happening here in NZ is that recently some hardened criminals received compensation for being mistreated in our prisons. These are people who murdered etc. Whilst their human rights were violated, the victims were forgotten, and these prisoners will walk out with thousands of dollars eventually. So not fair! Where was the duty of care to the victims? Good topic
Invest in our local needs first. As things are now, our wealth is being spent elsewhere. Absolutely, we must care for those in need, but domestic needs should come first.
KirstyKiwi, thanks for your well measued response, it is always good to hear from you. It is an interesting subject and not surprisingly a vexatious one. I was thinking of the example of two families living next door to each other. Both have children. In one family the children have three pairs of shoes, in the other they have none. Should the parents of the child with three pairs of shoes give one pair of those shoes to the neighbour so that their neighbours' child could wear shoes? In other words should the country of wealth, lower it's wealth to help support a country that is poor? Here in Australia we have the same vexation regards indigenious peoples, the Aboriginal population. In many ways our response to their difficult circumstances has been ridiculously meager and miserable. However the greatest problem is the sense of futility associated with what assistance we give, that being due to the results that aid has achived. Unfortunately it is also a part of the Black Australia dilemma that the aboriginal population are only reacting from a position of trauma induced by years of abuse and neglect and it is little wonder that the results are so poor. [In some respects - please accept that this over generalisation is just that] For the Government of Australia to deal with this issue it has to invest it's resourses in a way that allows it to maximise the result as the aboriginal popluation is the supplicant on society and can not help itself. [Again I am focussing on a perceived perception of the majority of the aboriginal population and not a statistical one] but really in the final wash it comes down to the morality and ethics of standing by and watching your neighbour suffer when you have the ability to help. it is true of course that the only reason you are in that position to be able to help is that you have acquired the wealth to do so and it is also true that if you give away your wealth you may become as disadventaged as the people you give to. But some times I wonder if that very wealth you have has not been achieved at the expense of the suffering neighbour in the first place. It could be argued for example that the wealth of the USA has in some ways been acheived by the contuing instability of the Middle East. By keeping the Middle east in a state of instability thus keeping the price of oil low. So indirectly the Israel and Palestinian instability is of benefit to countries like the USA because it prevents the Arabs from forming a strong Oil Syndicate. So it could be argued that the Aboriginal issue is simply because we ripped them of when the British arrived in 18th century. Issues of mental health could also be argued in this vain, [inadequate education about drugs, sexual abuse trauma, bad parentling skills etc etc] As Bowser has said we need to look after our own first and in many ways I agree, however if we fail to lookafter our extended human family we pay a hefty price. The defence budget of the USA is a really good example of that price. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep, charity begins at home. I remember at a Catholic college I attended, the sisters bought out a loaf of bread. Each piece represented the wealth of a country. I think the 3rd world countries got a couple of bits of bread, and the US and other western countries got the rest. NZ isn't a wealthy country by any means, but I'm happy with the humantarian aid given to our pacific nations when in strife - floods etc. With regard to the Aboriginal issue - we have had similar arguements here with the Treaty of Waitangi, and our Maori. 'Post colonisation Stress disorder' may have led the Maori population to crime and unemployment - 46% of alll prisoners are Maori, Maori women have the highest lung cancer rate in the world etc. Perhaps if you threw tons of money at the problem, it would result in comfortable living for all families. Or perhaps they may drink and gamble it away. Perhaps the welfare system is part of the problem - it is money for nothing. What countries in particular are you thinking of that ought to be supported financially by other countries? Its the old "Teach a man to fish" theory' isn't it? Education.
Kirsty, yes it is "education" and the first step is to "educate" the ones doing the teaching. After all it is no point splashing money all over the place if it isn't directed properly. Ir reminds me of a story told to me by an ex-internal security guy who was in command of a large anti terrorist branch of the OMAN military. We were discussing the ways needed to fight terrorism and although we found no over all solution to the problem [we were not expecting to either I might add] he said that the way the OMAN military won it's fight against terrorist activity in that country was to stop fighting the terrorist and concentrate on building and securing as they built, schools and hospitals and other necessary public infrastructure projects like power and water supplies. They found that as they did this popular support for the terrorists disappeared and eventually they became virtually non-existant. It is interesting that sometimes fighting the fight we forget what it is we are actually fighting for. As to "any particular country" I am thinking of, well no I don't have any specific country in mind. Actually I didn't intend this thread to become a sermon or lecture either. Do you think that maybe us wealthy countries should devote more resourses into learning HOW to help other countries and local minority groups? It does seems sometimes that we really don't know how to supply aid to these countries,[ like the SUDAN and others] By the same token we often fail to deliver adequate care to the people starving at home to. And again I repeat , it seems mainly due to apathy caused by the sense of futility in supporting with out improving. I think if people really thought that what they were doing was truely beneficial they would be all for aiding and assisting. The situation in the SUDAN for example is fraught with problems, especially the issue of unstable government, which makes the delivery of aid almost impossible. In an ideal world it would be good if the UN had the ability to stand a goivernment down temporarilly and place the country under administration so that aid could be delivered effectively. However due to national soveriegnty [spellings!!] issues this is highly unlikely, but seems to be desparately needed. What do you or any other reader think? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would think tha it is up to the leaders of other nations to ask for help if they need it. I don't believe that just sticking ones noses into others affairs, in most instances, would be prudent.
Isn't that what the US is trying to achieve in Iraq at present? To 'liberate' the people. Ha ha! A lot of Governments are to blame I guess, in some nations there are the very very wealthy living in gated communities next to the very poor. Perhaps the very wealthy DO help the poor, but we don't hear about it very often. I guess thats what Marxism was all about - to address stratification in a society. If they gave each family a small plot of land eventually there would be the 'haves and have nots' as well, I'm thinking. I guess society can be apathetic - What about the environment and animal welfare? Do we have a responsibility there as well? I think definatley. Do we also have a responsibility to care for the many immigrants and refugees that come in from oppressed countries? Or are Governments being selfish by limiting numbers with their immigration policies? Perhaps society is selfish - the old 'We're alright mate', 'get over it' mentality is still there, although I must say that there are a lot of wonderful people out there who do so much for others, and a lot of rich people who give so much, but don't want to be recognised. I think compassion ought to be taught in schools - along with self esteem, life skills, parenting skills. That is society's duty of care to our younger generation, and will benefit nations in the future. Because in a few years the baby boomers will be elderly and will need caring for on a large scale.
If you want to see an example of what a government should not do all you have to do is look at the United States we have spent more on foreign aid than any other government but because we have spent it unwisely we are seen as meddlers and incompetents by the rest of the world. My advice is that governments should focus on helping their own people and less on meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations. The only reason to interfere with another nation is self-interest anything else is paternalism and will only earn you resentment in the end.
