Government Foreign Aid

Con makes a good argument. He refers to the misuse of foreign aid by foreign governments and refers to the hidden agenda possibly behind the offer of foreign aid. HOWEVER, he does so under a limited scope. He does not account for foreign aid in the event of an emergency. Refutations1. Take the Haitian earthquake of January 2010 for example. Haiti is a nation torn in poverty, among the poorest on Earth. An earthquake of that destructive magnitude will be catastrophic. The country has no money to pull itself to its feet, and frankly its government is extremely corrupt. The influx of casual foreign aid, I imagine, is misused by the government, but are those the grounds to cut it off all together? The earthquake in Haiti was an example of an emergency. Guess who was the first responce? The U.S coast guard. It took hours before private charities and the entire world was aware of this dire situation. How many people would have died had the U.S not helped? It is not my intention to paint the United States as a hero of pure conscience, but it is a fact that without this aid, people will suffer. Without this aid, there would be one more family, homeless, starving, and dieing, wondering if the world even cares. Private charities cannot provide the same band of human beings to march down and help people like a nation can, in the same amount of time. So, while I do acknowledge the prevalent misuse of government foreign aid, I stress that we must not cut off foreign aid as a result. When an emergency strikes and that foreign aid becomes of dire life and death importance to another human being, will we turn our back on him simply because of a change in policy? We must find a solution for the misuse of tax payer money by foreign governments, but the complete removal of foreign aid, is NOT the answer. 2. There is a shade of exaggeration in CON's analogy. " If I said that I pushed one kid off of a cliff in order to save one, one could argue that I did so under moral pretenses. But have I not sacrificed one moral for another in the process?"The source of some of America's problems does not stem from the single act of providing foreign aid. There is little evidence that removing foreign aid would even effectively solve its largest issues. So to assert that foreign aid is pushing America off the cliff is a bit of a strech, to put it lightly. I stand by morality, as it is the highest justification for our actions. CON stands by practicality, but it is not the highest justification for our actions.It is PRACTICAL to cut off foreign aid, it will benefit the U.S a little, but it is not MORAL. conclusionIt is within human nature to do what is universally recognized as ethical and morally sound. It is for this reason that there are those who will sacrifice their own lives to save another, whereas it would be more practical to live. We cannot go through with a course of action that is practical yet immoral, if we are to maintain our integrity as moral beings. Foreign aid in the event of an emergency becomes that question of morality vs practicality. Once more, I truely understand CON's concerns about the misuse of foreign aid, but we must attack that issue from a different angle, the cost of removing foreign aid is far greater and far more ghastly than the cost of having it. The U.S in particular plays a big hand in these emergency situations, if it removes that hand, things will get much worse for much more people.