Jennifer asked:

Do nations of the Western, developed world have any moral obligation to help or even share their
wealth with poorer people of the Third World? Should we be doing more as a nation in Britain?

============

A friend once gave me a fortune cookie, the little slip of paper inside read: "Food first, then ethics".
Writing this answer I have that little slip of paper mounted in front of me on my desk. I keep it there to
remind me of what I take to be a very important point: that people cannot think on an empty stomach
and that ethics is a relation possible only for 'satisfied' people. The rich nations are satisfied and are
in a position to realise that the poor are not. So yes, individuals and the western world have an
obligation. it is established immediately once we realise that they need our help (but only realise this
once we have satisfied our own needs).

This sounds like a selfish philosophy, it sounds like we first look after ourselves, get our own house in
order and then see what other people are up to. This is not what I mean, rather mine is a description
of a full human life. We each have a dual existence: a personal and an impersonal life both of which
make demands on us. The point is we get outside of the personal once we have dealt with the
demands, by getting food, though I don't think this is an all or nothing affair, we do not have to satisfy
all personal demands before we recognise other people and In fact some of my personal demands
are nullified by the demands of other people. Or more accurately If I fulfil my personal demands in
favour of the other person I an acting unethically

This is of course not an argument but a position to argue from: before we enter in to the ethical
relation we need first to generate the conditions where the ethical relation is possible. This I guess is
vaguely reminiscent of Aristotle's approach. He says that we "need to be brought up in fine habits if
we are to be adequate students of fine and just things" Nicomachean Ethicsbook I chap 4, although I
don't want to suggest that I advocate an Aristotelian answer to ethics). If some one approached
Aristotle and asked him if it were wrong to kill babies, he would look at them 'gone out'. if they don't
already know that they should not kill babies, there is no rational argument that will serve to get them
to understand.

Similarly if someone doesn't see that allowing people starve to death is wrong this is because they
have not entered into the ethical relation in the first place. Further no rational argument would
persuade them to enter into ethics. It is not that kind of matter.

I am sorry is this is a little wishy-washy, but I wanted to give you a different account of why we should
help others from the typical talk of entitlements, lifeboat ethics (proposed by a fella called Garrett
Hardin) and the distinction between killing and letting die.

Of course these do have an important part to play, but they apply to the different question as to what
form the help to deprived countries should take. For important discussion of these issues see Peter
Singer Practical Ethicsand his How are we to Live?

Should we, as you suggest share our wealth with the poor? The answer will depend on what you take
the aim of the help to poor countries is. Is it to relieve poverty, develop the economy, if so it is not
clear that such actions will be successful (at least in the long term). Perhaps we should be more
concerned with the emancipation of the people in the poor countries, if so then we need to change
many of the current institutions, e.g. governments, banks and multinationals. As well as the policies
and activities: high interest debts, the exploitation of the natural resources of the countries by greedy
business often based in the developed countries. In which case perhaps we need to take more action
in our own nations, in order to fight for changes against the injustices of the system.

Brian Tee
Dept of Philosophy
University of Sheffield