It’s common nowadays to hear the phrase ‘ the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’ and this begs many questions such as, shouldn’t the rich donate some of their wealth to someone who is less well off? Charity is considered a good deed in our society and is usually bestowed onto the donor are the qualities of kindness and generosity. However, the action of charity is a choice and one that is not always taken upon.
Therefore should the rich be morally obligated to part with some of their wealth to benefit the less fortunate and is it right for society to guilt wealthy people for not funding good causes? Most people are familiar with the lavish lifestyle that the rich have always taken part in whilst the poor struggle to make do everyday.
Large portions of the rich take part in charity for the betterment of the poor. Figures such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have bestowed vast fortunes onto good causes such as ones focused on eradicating malaria and providing medical services for children.
Although there are some who abstain from charity and as such, brought about ill opinions of themselves by the public. Our society is built upon the idea that charity is virtuous; people who are easily capable of charity yet don’t do so, prompting various negative opinions as people who are stingy and lack of compassion. It would seem unfair that just a little bit of charity could have just a great effect on others and yet the wealthy ignore the less fortunate.
Morally charity is something that we should all try to partake in, however morals constantly change through the years. Wealthy people could argue that charity will have no benefit to them, in this instance ignoring a moral stance. This however is false in an economical sense as lowering the disparity of wealth in a country naturally leads to improvement in economic growth as demand and supply increases. Basically in theory charity could lead to prosperity for everyone.
However the wealthy do have viable reasons not to fund charities as many charity funds have been known to use the donations criminally, being swindled away before it could even touch the lives of the poor. With the prevalent nature of these fraud, can we blame the rich for abstain to fund a potentially criminal charity organization? However the fact that these frauds exist does not mean to say that people should stop charity as the need is still real and existing. There are still people who need help and fraud should not become an excuse for us to ignore these people. Read about lifestyle of the poor and rich
Putting aside ever-changing morals, It naturally comes down to the question whether society should be allow to guilt wealthy people into charity. If it is considered wrong to impose your beliefs on another, is it all right to guilt trip people into contributing to good causes. I feel that it is necessity for us to guilt the wealthy because without it, the wealthy would have no incentive to actually give to charity. With imposing our morals, people generally feel that they have to conform the social standards and would therefore contribute to charity.
Charity is also universally looked upon as a quality, thus it does not challenges anyone’s traditions or cultures by imposing our expectation on charity from the rich. On most occasions I would feel that the wealthy should be morally obligated to provide to charity if they are able. We should spread and continue the idea that charity is a good quality and as a quality of humanity. Humans are communal species and charity is something that binds community together, helping others to help ourselves.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment