A great man once said, “Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed by the actions of human beings”- Nelson Mandela. With over half of the world’s population considered to be living in poverty, many say that there is no way that over five billion people can get out of poverty. If in fact there were a way to cut into the poverty in the world, where would one get the resources to accomplish it? The wealthy? Although, that’s the question we are facing today. Should the rich help the poor? There are many wealthy people that feel obligated in doing so, and then there are some that say the best way to help them is by not helping them. For example, by letting the people who are in poverty figure their
…show more content…
Hardin explains that even if the rich were to help the poor, there would still not be enough wealthy people, since there are more poor people then there are wealthy. Not only are there more people in poverty than there are wealthy, the differences in these two are increasing at an astounding rate. Hardin reveals to the reader that the population increase in the United States, considered a wealthy country, will decline much faster than in a country considered to be in poverty, for example Pakistan or Thailand. Because the population difference is so great, Hardin proposes that instead of the rich helping as many people in poverty as they can, they should not help them at all. There would not be enough wealthy people to help the poor. Instead of just helping a few, Hardin explains that it would be better to not help at all, since it would not be fair to the others that are also in poverty. Although, Swift, in his article, would disagree. To begin his article, Swift puts lots of emotion into the first couple paragraphs to reveal to the reader why the rich should help the poor. “It is a Melancholy… or sell themselves to the Barbados” (Swift). He emphasizes how the mothers and children, under the circumstances they are in, are unable to have a “honest livelihood” and their futures are unknow. This emotion appeals to the reader in a way that forces them to think that the rich have a sort of moral obligation to help the
Hardin explains that even if the rich were to help the poor, there would still not be enough wealthy people, since there are more poor people then there are wealthy. Not only are there more people in poverty than there are wealthy, the differences in these two are increasing at an astounding rate. Hardin reveals to the reader that the population increase in the United States, considered a wealthy country, will decline much faster than in a country considered to be in poverty, for example Pakistan or Thailand. Because the population difference is so great, Hardin proposes that instead of the rich helping as many people in poverty as they can, they should not help them at all. There would not be enough wealthy people to help the poor. Instead of just helping a few, Hardin explains that it would be better to not help at all, since it would not be fair to the others that are also in poverty. Although, Swift, in his article, would disagree. To begin his article, Swift puts lots of emotion into the first couple paragraphs to reveal to the reader why the rich should help the poor. “It is a Melancholy… or sell themselves to the Barbados” (Swift). He emphasizes how the mothers and children, under the circumstances they are in, are unable to have a “honest livelihood” and their futures are unknow. This emotion appeals to the reader in a way that forces them to think that the rich have a sort of moral obligation to help the