Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth and resources among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizen themselves? v.5

Our world is a very diverse place, and not always in a good way. There is a huge disproportion in terms of wealth and resources across different countries, and this state of affairs raises the question of whether richer nations should aid those less fortunate or rather let them fight their battle for themselves. On the one hand, giving poor countries food, resources or money without getting anything in return, such as goods or services, is bound to remove any motivation for them to develop and to do something to improve their situation. This may create a vicious circle, similar to the common problem where some unemployed people abuse the welfare system by not even trying to find a job. This concern is one of the top reasons why some are convinced that it is the governments of poorer nations who should be responsible for the well-being of their citizens. On the other hand, many people believe that helping countries that suffer from poverty is a moral duty and can benefit both rich and poor nations by making the world a better place. They argue that the right type of aid, first of all, education, gives poor countries a chance to get back on their feet and start changing for the better. The question of whether the charity is a good approach to dealing with poverty has always been a matter of debate. Personally, I think that although wealthy nations should not be obliged to help the poorer ones, it seems like the right thing to do. Apart from humanitarian reasons, it can also bring about some political and economic benefits to the donors as they are creating a foundation for future cooperation and potential trade.