It is argued that developing nations undergoing some forms of natural catastrophe ought to be lifted by the developed states who can render help with human resources. This essay agrees with this statement because it is morally justifiable for them to assist the third world nations and to also reduce the number of casualties during those periods.
The highly developed and richer nations are morally justified when they give assistance to the needy. These underdeveloped nations that are struck by an act God such as flooding, hurricane, earthquake and fires does not have the technical know-how to combat these issues. Therefore, it is the duty of some morally standing richer states to come to their aid with their knowledge and other resources like food, shelter and clothing. Furthermore, the people form these developing countries will be forced to immigrate illegally to the developed nations as refugees which might be a stress on their economy. A recent study showed that there is an increasing number of European countries sending relief materials to the poverty-stricken states during unexpected occurrences.
Another vital reason for giving support to the less privileged nations is to prevent an increasing number of fatalities as a result of the calamity. There would be an escalation of these issues if these developing countries experiencing a natural occurrence do not receive aid from powerful and highly developed nations. During a period like this, the health care facilities would have been over-stretched thereby requiring assistance from wealthier nations which will decrease the rate of mortality. It was reported in a popular newspaper that the United States of America supplied one of the East African countries with a formidable health care services when the nation was attacked by the deadly Ebola disease.
In conclusion, when poorer states are in distress, the richer nations are to be blamed because it is ethical for them to render basic amenities of life and also to minimise the effect of the tragedy.
It
is argued
that developing
nations
undergoing
some
forms of natural catastrophe ought to
be lifted
by the
developed
states
who can render
help
with human resources. This essay
agrees
with this statement
because
it is
morally
justifiable for them to assist the third world
nations
and to
also
reduce
the number of casualties during those periods.
The
highly
developed
and richer
nations
are
morally
justified when they give assistance to the needy. These underdeveloped
nations
that
are struck
by an act God such as flooding, hurricane, earthquake and fires does not have the technical know-how to combat these issues.
Therefore
, it is the duty of
some
morally
standing richer
states
to
come
to their aid with their knowledge and other resources like food, shelter and clothing.
Furthermore
, the
people
form these developing
countries
will
be forced
to immigrate
illegally
to the
developed
nations
as refugees which might be a
stress
on their economy. A recent study
showed
that there is an increasing number of European
countries
sending relief materials to the poverty-stricken
states
during unexpected occurrences.
Another vital reason for giving support to the less privileged
nations
is to
prevent
an increasing number of fatalities
as a result
of the calamity. There would be an escalation of these issues if these developing
countries
experiencing a natural occurrence do not receive aid from powerful and
highly
developed
nations
. During a period like this, the health care facilities would have been over-stretched thereby requiring assistance from wealthier
nations
which will decrease the rate of mortality. It
was reported
in a popular newspaper that the United
States
of America supplied one of the East African
countries
with a formidable health care services when the
nation
was attacked
by the deadly Ebola disease.
In conclusion
, when poorer
states
are in distress, the richer
nations
are to
be blamed
because
it is ethical for them to render basic amenities of life and
also
to
minimise
the effect of the tragedy.