It is OK to not care for the poorer classes i.e.: emotionally, financially, etc.

Well hello there and that was fast. Welcome aboard and let"s dive right in. I"d like to reiterate that this debate is not about whether you should or should not care for the poor but whether it is OK to not care "in any form i.e.: financial, emotional, moral, etc. -- and that you should not be demonized for your stance. Also, I am from the USA so my argument is framed with that in mind. To keep a tight leash on this debate I will focus my points on two key principles that deal directly with my topic: morality and evolution (because you mentioned it). 1.Morality: You are responsible for your own, not others. You have no *obligation* to others. 2.Evolution: Survival of the fittest. Society in general operates as a herd mentality. We see it everywhere in terms of race, sex, age and any type of group or "herd" that can form. Yet most of these groups do not draw the same amount of heat that economic groups (poor, middle class, upper, rich, etc.) can draw when related to perceived principles of dealings within and between said groups. For example, Pizza Hut now accepts EBT (food stamps), a program that is supposed to go towards feeding a family that cannot feed themselves. As a taxpayer program, should this program be used for luxuries such as pizza and candies or just staple foods such as milk and eggs? If you even ask this question, or one similar, you are considered morally bankrupt because many people will view it harshly if you limit people and what they eat. I came across an article written by Lucy Mangan titled "If you don"t understand how people fall into poverty, you"re probably a sociopath,"(1) and this quote from the article sums it up nicely; "If you are genuinely unable to apply your imagination and extend your empathy far enough " and you don"t have to do it all at once; little by little will suffice, but you must get there " then you are a sociopath, and we should all be protected from your actions." Taking my stance further, it is not every individual"s responsibility to care for every other individual nor should any individual be forced to care for another nor be ridiculed for any lack of care. Evolution has many definitions that basically boils down to "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state."(2) At its core, evolution is about survival of the fittest or the best traits and characteristics of one generation passed on to the next. Humans have messed with this process. People who have genetic issues or who develop in negative ways are lifted up, cared for and pass on their traits and characteristics to the next creating a cycle. This can also be seen in the poorer classes. A child raised in a poor household is less likely to succeed than one raised in a middle class or rich household. You could say, "well then, if we raise that family out of poverty then they will create their own cycle of success and fulfillment," and I would say that was wrong. As David Brooks stated in his article, "in 2013 the federal government spent nearly $14,000 per poor person."(3) For a family of three the poverty line was $19,530 in 2013.(4) My point? The poorer classes are not just poor due to lack of resources but because of their own mentality and state. It is not my responsibility to care for them when their predecessors are the ones who set them up for failure. If you cannot care for your own then you should not produce more of your own. I look forward to your response. References: 1 http://www.theguardian.com... 2 http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3 http://www.nytimes.com... 4 http://aspe.hhs.gov...