Looking for a Challenge.

Indeed, it has been a spiffing debate, thanks. I have one inconsequential point before delving further into this round of rebuttals and ripostes. My opponent must not have comprehended that "famine-stricken children" would fall under the category of "emergency aid" charity. A famine, or a drought, is an emergency and would be responded to in kind. As a matter of fact, famine causes, "...less than 10% of hunger deaths." [1] It is actually Chronic Persistent Hunger that 850 million people suffer from. I affirm that we all accept that caution plays a big part in how much we give and who we give too. Nevertheless, caution doesn't always help, as I have indicated. I think that all readers realize that this debate is certainly about each and all charities. In the same sense, it is targeting both the broad and the narrow, and I have definitively proved that there are, indeed, hundreds of charities that one should not be morally obligated to donate to - for whatever reason. If one is not morally obligated to donate to these, then it stands to reason that one is not morally obligated to donate at all. "3) There is no morally relevant difference between situations where people are suffering and dying nearby, where we can directly help them, and far away, where we cannot. This one is more likely to be contentious. So now to go into the lovely realm of thought experiments:" My opponent, in round 2, creates a touching exemplar about a man named Steve. However, this correlation is really a fallacy, since spontaneously, physically and heroically saving a child in imminent danger is much different than proffering forth a large portion of money necessary to one's comfortable livelihood in the hope of possibly saving a child overseas - perhaps the money won't make any difference? What if the child is shot by a rebel in Somalia mere minutes after s/he consumed the money you gave (in food or whatever manner)? Therefore, there is a large difference. As I carefully concluded in Round 3, one's money may or may not even help to save somebody. There are thousands of scenarios of what could happen to your money, and so would it not be better to ensure that your own children have a future? Let me introduce to the readers a concept called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The first "needs" that it addresses are physiological: sustenance, water, housing, sleep, good air, sanitation etc. These are all relatively easy to obtain in our society, and so there is a next level called, "Safety and security." These encompass job security, financial security, health and well being. These aren't nearly as easy to obtain, and many people must expend copious quantities of money battling for their own health, much less that of the people overseas. In the United States, thousands of people have become bankrupted due to prolonged medical bills and treatments. The next three stages are love and belonging (affordable, pending on the woman. ; ) ha ha, sorry... :P ), esteem and self actualization. My opponent suggests that we cut corners in obtaining these very important, "Needs" of our own life simply so that some person who isn't productive may have them. That brings me to my next two questions. 1. When does it become our responsibility? And 2. Do they even want our help? When does providing for people who we have never met and who reside in some Himalayan mountain area become our responsibility? Why are they impoverished? Can't they help themselves? Why can't they be productive enough to do so? Why do I have to offer development support? What is the accursed Government doing with all of the nation's money? Why don't they help? Why do we, productive citizens, have to care for non-productive citizens? These are all legitimate questions to which the only fitting answer is, "I work hard, and they do not. I'll pay my taxes and the Government will use a portion of that in development aid." Though, again, our nation needs much work, money and care. For example, Canada has a deficit and there are still gangs, internal strife, polluted water, trafficking of humans, substances and guns etc. Does our moral responsibility not first belong to Canada (or whatever home nation one resided in)? Do they even want our help? The Taliban surely doesn't. They've made it very clear that once they regain power, they will demolish all (or most) of the "Infidel's" progress. Pakistan sure doesn't, Somalia squanders it, Sierra Leone didn't, Idi Amin in Uganda didn't. It doesn't seem to be a moral responsibility if nobody even wants or dreams of our assistance. Or what if they become dependent on it? Then, one day, we have to stop. That seems worse than the former option - depriving dependent people of aid that they've become used to. Toby Ord is a most generous man, but his wife is a nurse and also works. Suppose, however, that one person works and has three dependents - they could not afford to give away much at all, barely meeting the bills. Obviously a one bedroom flat isn't going to suffice for the family, and a hard working man must definitely purchase more than one coffee or energizing beverage a week. Is it frivolous to ensure that one will have a comfortable and enjoyable retirement? To ensure that wife and children live in a comfortable and sustainable manner? Yes, a person could give up the occasional DVD (net worth of $15.00), and donate that insignificant amount to charity, but any more than that seems to be beyond moral responsibility. Thanks for the debate, Logician. Good luck in the voting. Have fun with Round 4. 1. http://www.inmylifetimecampaign.org... 2. http://www.bargaineering.com... (Take a look) 3. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com...