Should rich people help poor people?

Answer 1

because while they have everything they have nothing i know because im poor and my dad drinks all the money we have

rich people should be generous and give to the less fortunate because the poor have struggle to get through life while the rich just slide right through and it is unfair to the poor.

Answer 2

It is always good to give to the poor, and yes I believe we have a moral obligation to do so. However, giving to the poor does not always mean giving money where when that money runs out, their circumstance of being poor remains. Giving to the poor - from my perspective - means also giving moral support, spiritual support, solutions, direction, realization of possible opportunities, helping them to establish overall goals and objectives, etc. In this way you change the heart, help change their circumstances, increase their self esteem, and give hope to those who feel there isn't any.

It would depend entirely upon who dictates the morals. A person with unabashed selfishness like Ayn Rand would feel no moral obligation to the poor. Someone like Mother Theresa on the other hand, would feel that denying the poor of aid to be morally corrupt.

Answer 3

It depends who you ask.

If you were to ask a devout Christian, Jew, Muslim, or member of most other religions (these being the only religions I am comfortable speaking for), they would most likely tell you yes. In Judaism and Islam the concepts of Tzedakah and Zakah, respectively, apply - in both, charity is a sacred obligation for those who are safely able to afford it; in the Christian New Testament, Jesus is repeatedly seen to be urging rich people to give all they have to the poor ("It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven")

If you were to ask a Communist, a Marxist, or, to a lesser extent, a Socialist, they would tell you yes without any doubt at all. In these philosophies, there is considered to be a finite amount of wealth in the world, and rich people, therefore, have obtained their wealth by taking it from others and by exploiting others' labor. They should give all they have to the poor, and if they choose not to, it may be necessary to force them to do so.

If you were to ask a Capitalist, they would tell you no. In Capitalism, many wealthy people attain their wealth by hard work and determination, not by exploitation or theft. They therefore have a right to keep what they have earned, and to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Obligation is, in my humble opinion, a rather strong word to use in this context. It implies that, should the wealthy person choose not to do so, there will be consequences for them, and in my mind, no entity should have the right to take away, or to force someone to give away, what they have legally and rightfully earned. I would substitute the word "responsibility" for "obligation". Just as a right can be squandered (e.g. by a person choosing not to vote), so can a responsibility be shirked, and although we may think less of a person who does this, it is not a criminal offense. Yes, wealthy people should definitely share their wealth with the poor, but should they choose not to, they have the right to be misers - with all the public disdain that entails.

Answer 4

not as much as they should

Answer 5

They should, but you cant make them

Answer 6

charitys and nonprofits