• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

International Obligations

25,439
Posts
11
Years
Do wealthier countries have an obligation to provide aid to those that suffer from poverty or that have been hit by a severe disaster? Why/Why not?
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
My own belief is that we have a moral obligation to help people in need. But since that's just my personal belief I don't expect others to agree automatically.

I do think that it makes the most sense for the safety of the world and the human species for people to work together to mitigate disasters, whether they are natural (storms, drought, etc.) or human-generated (war, etc.). It's just hard to help people if you don't have much security yourself so we're all mostly afraid to help for fear of losing what little we have.
 

Majestic Electric

Raining on your parade!
333
Posts
9
Years
Obviously, wealthier countries should try to help less fortunate countries, but they're not really obligated to. The needs of their own citizens needs to come first, in my opinion. Furthermore, the unfortunate reality is that these countries can't rely on foreign aid forever. They need to also do more to help themselves instead of expect someone else to take care of everything.

However, in the case of a natural disaster, wealthier countries should do everything they can to help those afflicted to rebuild. I see that as being an exception to my prior statement.
 

Somewhere_

i don't know where
4,494
Posts
8
Years
Wealthier countries still have poverty and problems. Until those are taken care of, I wouldnt say there is an obligation. And $1 that goes to a poorer country is a $1 not going to a poor person in America. Not to mention, generally, subsidizing poorer countries helps their government and the elites- not the people. It would be better if we removed that middle man.

Im also pretty sure there is an economic consensus that dumping a whole bunch of resources into poor countries destroys their domestic production and ensures their reliance on wealthier countries. It would be better to trade or place a limit on how much wealthier countries give them.

But at an obligation viewpoint... yes and no. I personally believe I have a moral obligation to help others, but I do not believe in forcing my personal moral beliefs on others, nor do i believe others should be able to force their personal moral beliefs on me.
 

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns
1,879
Posts
7
Years
  • Age 33
  • Seen Dec 15, 2022
I believe Europe and Britain definitely have obligations to help the third world countries they ruined with their various Empires.
 
7
Posts
6
Years
  • Age 36
  • Seen Jun 9, 2019
In a way "yes" and many rich countries stole or took advantage of what is now the poorer countries.
E.G. Europe and USA are guilty of taking riches out of Africa
 
Back
Top