Secondly, in my opinion, it is irrational and insensitive for the rich to continue spending billions of dollars on luxuries as millions across the world continue to suffer. For instance, why would an individual own several luxury cars while another person cannot even afford to settle his or her medical bills? Similarly, why should an individual have billions of dollars lying idle in the bank as scores of people across the world die of hunger? In my opinion, luxury items are insignificant when compared to the basic needs of others including but not limited to food, shelter, and medical attention. In the final analysis, it does not make much sense for one to live in luxury as others wallow in poverty. We therefore have an obligation to give up some of our luxuries so as to help the less fortunate amongst us.
Lastly, I am convinced that helping the poor would in the long-term have a positive impact on the well-being of the entire society. This view is largely utilitarian. When it comes to utilitarianism, Gupta points out that "the principle of utility...
In that regard, all our actions should be geared towards the benefit of the majority. The number of those wallowing in poverty is much greater than the number of those of us living luxurious lives. Towards that end, increasing the overall welfare or well-being by aiding the poor can be viewed as the ultimate measure of good from the utilitarian point-of-view.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear from the discussion above that we all have an obligation to help those who do not have as much as we do. This is the same agenda the parable of 'the good Samaritan' tries to advance. I remain convinced that by taking deliberate measures to help the poor, we would be creating a just and more equitable society.
Works Cited
Gupta, Bina, ed. Ethical Questions: East and West. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.
MacKinnon, Barbra. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Concise Edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
