Where does the idea that a strong, powerful, and wealthy nation has a "moral obligation" to help those less fortunate than itself come from? Is it an idea only present in the West?
Is it the idea of a "moral obligation" the biggest spook around?
I'm a Christian myself, and even I say this. The problem with this theory is not that they should be working to help or improve these other countries. The problem comes when there are those who will put on a false sense of piety to champion this idea and loot and exploit those other nations. However, one must take into account the reality that imperialists must have known; that if they had not exploited the other countries for their untapped wealth, another power was going to do so and victimize their country when the next war came.
I really think Peter Hitchens had it right when he said, "You either have your own empire, or you're a part of somebody else's." The exploitation of these nations is one of the great tragedies of history, but if imperialists did not do it then the tragedy would have been in their own country when the power that did comes for them.
I agree. I live in a third world shit hole that just got rid of a dictatorship, and these people stole more from the country than the imperialists did.
At least the Brits had the decency to build roads and sewage systems to appease the population.
When all of this stuff from foreign countries came to the Ming court in China, it prompted the Confucian scholars to decide that the outside world had nothing to offer China. A policy was adopted that, because these China was far superior to everybody else, that to protect this supremacy, China should close completely.
This is a vastly different reaction to the comparison of it's greatness to other's weakness than the European. Obviously, there was something fundamentally different here.
Foreign aid is just charity on a global scale. Charity is a concept about as old as mankind (and foreign aid is not particularly modern or Christian) and is generally considered a way to gain prestige and good will in your community, including the international community.
What's relatively new is the extreme sense of GUILT pushing the West to be charitable to those less fortunate. Feel free to cook up whatever theories you want to explain this, but I consider mass psychology a pseudoscience.
Those countries are heavily influenced by Christianity and have been for most of the past century, especially South Korea, where Protestant prayer services were basically forms of community resistance against Japanese rule during the country's occupation.
>Those countries are heavily influenced by Christianity and have been for most of the past century, especially South Korea, where Protestant prayer services were basically forms of community resistance against Japanese rule during the country's occupation.
That doesnt explain Japan at all.
I think people confuse Western with Christian.
Do countries like Russia and Armenia even care about aid as much as atheist Europe?
Japan probably gives aid because it makes them look good.
Morality aside, it may be just pragmatic to help the poor, wether speaking of nations or population. The cost of dealing withe consequences of poverty (here, mass emigrations, political instability, impact on price of natural resources) may be higher than the cost of limiting poverty.
It's mostly done for two reasons:
A) Diplomacy / PR points, make the nation look like a charitable entity who will "Help the less fortunate" and thus give it a positive view on the eyes of foreigners.
B) So they can ask for favors out of the benefited countries in the long run.
Because we don't donate as a country
We made it daily as a community
We give clothes, canned food, when someone is sick we made a little thing called Chicken party (pollada) and we all buy it and sell it to make profit for his of her medication or treatment that's hiw things are here on cities and on the country it doesn't matter we help each other
>Where does the idea that a strong, powerful, and wealthy nation has a "moral obligation" to help those less fortunate than itself come from?
Because Europe should be helping the world to embrace civilization and all of its benefits. Unfortunately barbarians don't understand that. Look at the US, for example, they killed natives and enslaved a lot of people and now are there. In Singapore the locals accepted British investmts. In Africa on the other hand they fought back and still act like brutes today.
>Is it an idea only present in the West?
Yes because civilized society is a western thing just like morals are too
>Is it the idea of a "moral obligation" the biggest spook around?
No you retarded, Stirner is a meme.
there is no moral obligation at all. when it comes down to it none of the actions a global power does comes from this.
Its better understood by thinking about the added influence and soft power that power will gain by doing so. If (for example) the USA stopped giving aid tomorrow, the aid that China provides will become more important overnight, increasing the relative influence of China on whichever less fortunate state they choose to influence
>t. christian or member of a christian civilization
The fact of the matter is that sympathy is not a constant in every population.
Japan and other wealthy East Asian countries give quite a lot of aid to poor countries. They just don't have this (IMO counterproductive) idea that the West has, that the best way to help a developing country is to import its best and brightest citizens.