There has always been a considerable debate on funding provided by charity firms. Some individuals claim that non-profitable institutes should serve the residents of their nation only, while others argue that these organisations should extend help to anyone in need irrespective of where they reside. This essay will discuss both the arguments in detail and provide evidence why helping every needy human is more ethical and beneficial.
Examining the former viewpoint, supporters explain that offering funds by charitable trusts should be restricted to their land. To begin with, by providing aid to their own people, the burden on the government to look after its people would reduce. Consequently, the authority can utilise these money in various other tasks. To illustrate, as the government is unable to reach every individual, these organisations would help them with the basic necessities of life. Furthermore, it is truly said that charity begins at home, thus, if limited funds are available, it is often advisable to help vulnerable citizens of country on priority.
On the other hand, some are of the opinion that such firms should consider donating to people of any nationality. The primary reason is that it would certainly develop cordial relationships with other nations while enhancing the sense of trust and peace amongst the people. For instance, fundings from NGO's in countries such as the United States and Europe, are being utilised in underdeveloped areas of India to provide them with food, shelter and education. In addition, this act would not only enhance the reputation of the organisation in the society, but also attract more people to donate and raise the amount. As a result, they can possibly reach many rural areas with sufficient funds. Therefore, although belonging to another motherland, such trusts should aid the needy.
In conclusion, despite people differ in their viewpoint, I firmly believe that charity foundation should definitely help the devastated even though they do not share the same land because of the aforementioned reasons.
There has always been a considerable debate on funding provided by charity firms.
Some
individuals claim that non-profitable institutes should serve the residents of their nation
only
, while others argue that these
organisations
should extend
help
to anyone in need irrespective of where they reside. This essay will discuss both the arguments in detail and provide evidence why helping every needy human is more ethical and beneficial.
Examining the former viewpoint, supporters
explain
that offering funds by charitable trusts should
be restricted
to their land. To
begin
with, by providing aid to their
own
people
, the burden on the
government
to look after its
people
would
reduce
.
Consequently
, the authority can
utilise
these money
in various
other
tasks. To illustrate, as the
government
is unable to reach every individual, these
organisations
would
help
them with the
basic necessities
of life.
Furthermore
, it is
truly
said that charity
begins
at home,
thus
, if limited funds are available, it is
often
advisable to
help
vulnerable citizens of country on priority.
On the
other
hand,
some
are of the opinion that such firms should consider donating to
people
of any nationality. The primary reason is that it would
certainly
develop cordial relationships with
other
nations while enhancing the sense of trust and peace amongst the
people
.
For instance
,
fundings
from NGO's in countries such as the United States and Europe, are being
utilised
in underdeveloped areas of India to provide them with food, shelter and education.
In addition
, this act would not
only
enhance the reputation of the
organisation
in the society,
but
also
attract more
people
to donate and raise the amount.
As a result
, they can
possibly
reach
many
rural areas with sufficient funds.
Therefore
, although belonging to another motherland, such trusts should aid the needy.
In conclusion
, despite
people
differ in their viewpoint, I
firmly
believe that charity foundation should definitely
help
the devastated
even though
they do not share the same land
because
of the aforementioned reasons.