Do we have an obligation to the global poor?

Poverty and famine is something that has plagued some countries around the world where the lifestyle of the poor are deteriorating constantly. The moral question that has been raised from this matter is, whether or not we as a society have an obligation to help this essentially neglected segment of society.

The first set of reasoning that is in support of the aforementioned question is one of human nature. This argument is based on morality, in that human beings, who are moral creatures, have an innate sense of what is right or wrong. Because they are aware of right and wrong, guilt will not allow them to neglect the poor and their morality will motivate them to help the poor get out of the situation that they currently find themselves in. Although this argument may seem as if it adequately addresses the question, however the problem that comes about as a result of this argument is that not all people abide to a moral code. Everyone acts differently and according to their own models therefore this argument does not apply to all people so thus it cannot be entirely true. Another argument offered in support of the questions is that of equality. In an ideal society where there is equality reigns supreme, the population all have a similar amount of wealth and financial standing. This idea of equality will ultimately be motivation for people to help the poor, however there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Most countries today are based on political ideologies which poses a problem, this reasoning is fine for countries that promote a communist ideology which promote equality, but for countries that promote capitalism, which is based on exploitation, this reasoning is totally contradictory and will essentially pose a great problem in implementation.

The view that is in opposition to the empowerment of the poor is that of self-empowerment. Many people are of the belief that the poor being in a disadvantaged should help themselves out of the situation that they are in. The rather selfish reasoning of the argument suggests that everyone only owes a duty to themselves and no one else based on constitutional principles. The obvious problem with this argument and reasoning is that how are the poor supposed to empower themselves without resources that are often provided by others? This would also mean that all people who received some sort of financial backing by parents should forfeit this, as it was not provided by themselves which poses a great problem.

My view on the matter is that we do, based on a religious perspective. Islam commands that those with an excess of wealth must give a certain portion of it to the needy if they qualify. This is the reasoning for fasting in that fasting gives people the understanding of what the poor face every day to motivate them to help the poor. The flaw in this argument is that simply, everyone is not Muslim and cannot be subjected to the beliefs that a particular religion vindicates.