Who's Responsibility Is It To Help The Poor? (Part I)

Here’s a staggering figure for you. Nearly 3 billion people in our world live on less than $2.50 per day. Furthermore, 80% of the entire human population lives on less than $10 per day. So what if most people make only a few dollars a day- what’s the big deal, right? It is true that low income, in and of itself, is not a pressing or urgent issue. However, we use income to define the level of poverty within a population, and “poverty is the principal cause of hunger worldwide”. Once a population is hungry, they cannot help their society. When left unchecked, the society loses the benefit of precious human resources. This self perpetuating cycle places that population into a downward spiral because hunger “caus[es] poor health, low levels of energy, and even mental impairment” which creates “greater poverty by reducing people’s ability to work and learn”. Clearly it’s not as easy as telling these populations to pull themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps. The problem of poverty is more real than that, though it is not a new issue.

Many solutions, some radical, have been bantered about over the years. Some people, like Garrett Hardin, who taught many years in the University of California system, believe that “the quality of life and the quantity of it are inversely related” and “calling a ubiquitous problem a ‘world problem’ is useful only if there is a plausible worldwide solution.” In stark contrast, there are people like that of Australian philosopher and renown bioethics professor Peter Singer, who embrace a staunch utilitarian ideology- “that is, one[s] who judge whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences”. Singer’s views suggest we are killing people if we do nothing and that we are “failing to live a morally decent life” if we are enjoying anything that resembles a plush life by spending money on inessentials, rather than giving to overseas aid organizations that saves lives. Hardin appeals to the rational and logical side of our humanity suggesting that overpopulation is bad due to lack of natural earthly resources. Meanwhile, Singer makes it his responsibility to appeal to everybody’s morality on the principle basis that there is a right thing to do and we all can do it. Hardin admonishes us to listen to our logic and preserve our own future by letting needy populations die off. Singer contends that we listen to our heart and make a radical move to our pocketbooks. I am asserting, however, that we as Christians are governed by a supernatural law, a divine order- not logic, reason, or an elusive secular argument of what is morally right. The act of selfless giving of time and money by Christians, is a way that we fulfill our decree to spearhead this injustice of world hunger and poverty; not only because giving helps, but also because the bible instructs us to do so.

(To Be Continued)