Will the rich man choose to save his Bentley or the child..

If a rich man should be driving his Bentley and get stuck on a railway track and the train was approaching and then looked out his window and saw a poor indian child also stuck on the track. Who would he save the £250,000+ car or the child ?

(I make the comparison that the rich man is the first world countries and the poor indian boy is the third world country’s.)
So then what must the rich man decide, from my observations I would say the rich man will nearly always choose his car as aposed to saving the child. My reasoning is the rich man brought the Bently in the first place, and with £250,000 could have prevented that kid from being on the train tracks in the first place that is to say a child in poverty could have been saved from death caused by poverty.

Or to put it another way many of us aspire to drive a mercedes or other top end car, have big houses wear expensive clothing and jewelry, bigger t.v’s etc etc.. but by indulging ourselves with these luxurys our brothers and sisters suffer, to say I brought a Bentley instead of a nissan micra would mean I choose the Bently over the child. And why ? by buying the more expensive things I deprive giving to the homeless feeding the malnurished, medicine/caring for the sick, giving hope to the hopeless etc etc. It is believed that the more the richer the person is the more he wants to have, thus what is a real treasure for one person, can be nothing for another.

As most of the world knows, the poor in a third world are the majority, but have no political or other type of voice or power. It is generally the minority rich that are those in power positions, placing literally an oppressive thumb on top of the poor to control them. Laws are not designed to help the poor. And because the poor are undereducated both academically and in understanding systems, they virtually have no relationships with their governments either.

Nye Bevin, the Labour Government's Foreign Secretary in the late 1940s, "Africa is a valuable source of manpower and raw materials. The US is very barren of essential minerals. In Africa we have them all." And yet africa is the poorest of the poor.

Larry Summers, one time chief economist at the World Bank, now at the US Treasury: "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." So infact by this comment we see the rich man would sooner kill the poor by destroying their environment rather than help them.

Governments/corporations would rather develop Nukes, guns, fighter jets, satelites, space shuttles and the likes therof to help us destroy each other rather than save some poor starving children. And the cost of these wastefull activities has got us all in immense dept not only in money terms but also environmental and moral terms.

But aren’t we all responsible in some way, I mean how much food do you waste. And yet we know there is enough food produced in the world for everyone and yet we don’t give to the needy. Why buy an expensive car or house when a modest one would suffice. Why subscribe to Sky t.v would that money not be better served saving an innocent life.

In conclusion I believe we in the first world are guilty of the deaths of some 4 million people world wide each year. We are too selfish to to help others , we are blind to the plight of the “have nots” we say we care but wont get off the backs of third world country’s. We don’t stand up to government for human rights or what is so clearly a fairer system. Even in first world country’s we could infinetly do more to help our own poor.

So my position I hope is clear, we in the first world are just as reponsible as our governments for the avoidable deaths of millions and that means YOU TOO. Yes you chose the bentley over the child.

While I tend to agree with some of which you say, I think you point the finger too much at those who do happen to be in the upper echelon of our socio-economic spectrum. We should not 'pre-judge' them simply because they are rich. To say that he or she bought a Bentley versus saving a child's life is a little off, in my opinion. I think it is suffice to say that anyone living above the poverty line, could spare a few dollars to help save a life over in Africa. Rather than looking at the rich, we should look at everyone. What percentage of your income would you personally be willing to donate?

Whether it is five dollars or five million dollars, every penny makes a difference. Why would we ridicule the rich, who seem to donate plenty of their resources to helping others, and not 'ourselves'? Are we saying that you need to be rich to donate money? What about the Average Joe next door who makes fifty thousand a year, and does not donate two nickels of that to a charity. Do we ridicule him? Certainly Joe could spare ten or twenty dollars to help save a life. But do we find his mug shot in our cross hairs? No. We focus on the rich, and have this naive preconception that he or she should be donating a large percentage of their money, to a cause that 'we' overlook on a daily basis.

reaper2, feel free to ignore this part of my post, but if I may, I would like to ask a question or two of your personal situation. Do you donate to charity on a regular basis? How big is your television? What type of vehicle do you drive? What about your shoes? Even if you have a small television, cheap shoes, and a real 'bomber' of a car, you certainly could of cut more corners and donated more to charity. We all can. Next time we could go with the 12 grit toilet paper rather than Chanel. Or next time we want to go out to the movies, or supper, we'll stay in and have a microwavable dinner so we can offer that money to a life in Africa.

See my point?

At what point do we stop living and sacrifice for a life we will never know? Believe me, if I were in a position to save a life, I would sacrifice anything I could. But frankly, I do not trust most of these organizations that say they are saving lives in Africa. How do I know for sure that I am not paying into a fund to pay someone else's mortgage?

While I may refuse to donate my money to these 'Save Africa' funds, I do donate plenty of my time to help local youth find a home, enjoy a warm meal, and help turn their life around. I am currently volunteering on a committee which is attempting to get a non-profit organization off the ground which is aimed to help teens from 16-19 find a 72 hour safe house, rather than living on the street. I donate my ears on almost a daily basis to those who wish to make use of them.

So rather than ridiculing the rich, we should look at every individual. What percentage of their income are they willing to contribute? What percentage of their time are they willing to contribute? The Average Joe can spare a few bucks, and a few hours, to help save a life. "We" should not get a free pass on this issue, and it seems too often we do.

The gap between first world & third world nations is growing. Our goal is to empower the third world and help pull them from the darkness. Our goal should not be to undermine our own lives. Yes, we need to close the gap. But let's close that gap by empowering them. Whether it is two dollars, or two minutes of your time, both are vital.

Originally posted by reaper2
In conclusion I believe we in the first world are guilty of the deaths of some 4 million people world wide each year. We are too selfish to to help others , we are blind to the plight of the “have nots” we say we care but wont get off the backs of third world country’s. We don’t stand up to government for human rights or what is so clearly a fairer system. Even in first world country’s we could infinetly do more to help our own poor.

So my position I hope is clear, we in the first world are just as reponsible as our governments for the avoidable deaths of millions and that means YOU TOO. Yes you chose the bentley over the child.

Are we, as a society, greedy? Certainly. But we are not responsible for their deaths. Again, before ridiculing everyone else, take a look at yourself. You have a computer, an internet connection, and I can only assume what else. How much did all of this cost? Why not sell these 'luxuries' and donate them to an African fund? Is this computer, internet connection, etc., nothing more than an indication of greed?

Am I a greedy, selfish, SOB because I have a 42" television in my living room? No, I am not. We have one life time here on this world, and I am going to enjoy every year, every month, every week, every day, every hour, every minute, and every second. Watching a big ass television contributes to my happiness. I could of donated this thousand dollars or so to a charity, just as you could of donated that money last week when you went out and bought your own luxury.

Forcing myself to live in poverty is not the answer, and I am not going to take the blame for the deaths of others. While I am prepared to donate a percentage of my income, and donate as much time as I possibly can, I am not prepared to punish myself because not everyone has the same advantages as I. Are you prepared to punish yourself? Do you honestly believe that is going to accomplish anything?

Wow chissler what a well thought out reply. i will try to reply as best i can.

I think it is suffice to say that anyone living above the poverty line, could spare a few dollars to help save a life over in Africa. Rather than looking at the rich, we should look at everyone. What percentage of your income would you personally be willing to donate?

Well this is my point exactly everyone who can spare something i feel should, the analogy of the which man was an extreem analogy i thought would make the picture clearer.
And what percentage of my income am i will to give up. well at this time i can't say a percentage only that i will give what surplus i can.
I don't solely blame the rich because as you say they donate a lot of money and time to good causes but saying that everyone who is able to help should help, the more you have the more you can give thats life.

reaper2, feel free to ignore this part of my post, but if I may, I would like to ask a question or two of your personal situation. Do you donate to charity on a regular basis? How big is your television? What type of vehicle do you drive? What about your shoes? Even if you have a small television, cheap shoes, and a real 'bomber' of a car, you certainly could of cut more corners and donated more to charity. We all can.

In relation to the above qoute. -

I do not donate regularly
42inch flat screen
Audi A4
Clothing is top of the line

Yes we can always do more but what im saying is i don't have to be so extravagant i would still get along just fine with a smaller t.v and less expensive clothes

Next time we could go with the 12 grit toilet paper rather than Chanel. .Or next time we want to go out to the movies, or supper, we'll stay in and have a microwavable dinner so we can offer that money to a life in Africa

you need not take it that far but do according to your concience.

Good point when donating how do you know where the money goes exactly? well i know there is a lot of fraud but their are ways to give more directly to the people you may choose to help also you could choose a reputable charity such as red cross who show how much in every poud/dollar will be spent on the poor.

The gap between first world & third world nations is growing. Our goal is to empower the third world and help pull them from the darkness. Our goal should not be to undermine our own lives. Yes, we need to close the gap. But let's close that gap by empowering them. Whether it is two dollars, or two minutes of your time, both are vital.

Again i agree we should not undermine our own lives to the extent that we become poor this would not solve anything. but giving money alone will not empower them, money plus time would go a long way but while we do our lttle to help our governments are underming these efforts you know fair trade and all, supplying weapons to mad men, dumping waste in their gardens, slave labour, depts they can't possibly pay etc etc.

Are we, as a society, greedy? Certainly. But we are not responsible for their deaths. Again, before ridiculing everyone else, take a look at yourself. You have a computer, an internet connection, and I can only assume what else. How much did all of this cost? Why not sell these 'luxuries' and donate them to an African fund? Is this computer, internet connection, etc., nothing more than an indication of greed?

Yes i am greedy i admit it, i don't need the latest computer and all the extras i love so much. and yes i am responsible for some deaths out there because i witheld my help from them when they needed it most. the fact remains i only need clothes on my back a roof over my head, food in my mouth and good company, to live a happy and content life. everything else is just extras (greed or selfishness)

Am I a greedy, selfish, SOB because I have a 42" television in my living room? No, I am not. We have one life time here on this world, and I am going to enjoy every year, every month, every week, every day, every hour, every minute, and every second. Watching a big ass television contributes to my happiness. I could of donated this thousand dollars or so to a charity, just as you could of donated that money last week when you went out and bought your own luxury

By that statement i would have to say yes you are greedy, if having more than you need makes you happy then thats greed, those thousands of dollers could have saved lifes but you valued the television more than those lives just like me and so many others.
Yes we have one life and all so we should understand how precious life is and how misrable it must be for those who see no future before them

Forcing myself to live in poverty is not the answer, and I am not going to take the blame for the deaths of others. While I am prepared to donate a percentage of my income, and donate as much time as I possibly can, I am not prepared to punish myself because not everyone has the same advantages as I. Are you prepared to punish yourself? Do you honestly believe that is going to accomplish anything?

Im not saying anyone should force themselves into poverty if you help reglarly then you do better than many myself included but you must see that we are greedy and we would rather helpm ourselves than save a life we no little about, i believe there is an expresion "out of sight out of mind"
Don't punish youself just take into consideration the lives you could save when you opt for the 42inch plasma tv rather than the 24 inch cathode.

So in essence yes you chose the bentley rather than saving a life.


[edit on 4-3-2007 by reaper2]

The rich man would definately save his child.

Haven't you ever heard of insurance?

The rich know how to protect their assets!

Originally posted by RRconservative
The rich man would definately save his child.

Haven't you ever heard of insurance?

The rich know how to protect their assets!

It is apparent that you did not read any of his post. Read, and then read again, the picture will become clear to what reaper2 is actually saying. He was speaking metaphorically.

Originally posted by reaper2
In relation to the above qoute. -

I do not donate regularly
42inch flat screen
Audi A4
Clothing is top of the line

A lot of icing on that cake, by the looks of it. But why should we refuse luxury? Is paying millions and millions of dollars for a vehicle, or a diamond ring, etc., completely unnecessary? Yes. But there is nothing wrong with a 42" television, or comfortable clothing, or an Audi. I highly doubt you are dropping hundreds of dollars on a pair of pants. If you are, than I'll be prepared to eat my words. What I am getting at is you are in a position to enjoy some luxuries. I believe you owe it to yourself, and your family, to reap these benefits. If the tables were turned, would you expect a complete stranger to sell off their goods? Not a chance.

I can openly offer funds and time to a worthy cause, without depriving myself or my family.

By depriving ourselves, we are not really saving any lives. How are we going to save lives? By getting down on our hands and knee's, getting outside on the playing field, and working with those in need face to face. In my opinion, it is not enough to offer hand outs. I can donate a few dollars to some random cause which may not help out anyone really. But if I get out there and work with people, I may be able to truly help someone out. Money will come and go, but knowledge is forever. Rather than buying them food, let's teach them how to grow it. Rather than putting a band-aid on the gun shot, let's get to the root of the issue.

The almighty dollar is not going to cure world hunger, it is not going to spread world peace, and it is not going to abolish poverty. Nothing we do is going to solve these problems. But what we can do is take one person, and possibly end poverty for that one person. We can create peace in this one person's life, or allow them to live above the poverty line.

Is money really going to be the answer to all of these questions?

I am involved with a work shop over the next four months which is dealing with about a dozen clients who are looking to empower themselves. From personal hygiene to the "How To" for a job interview, complete random things that most of us never think twice about are what we are going to direct a lot of attention to. Rather than putting a band-aid on their problems, we are going to get to the true root of the issue. Hopefully after this four month program, they walk away with a little self-empowerment.

Now if I took these same twelve people, and passed them an envelope with say, five hundred dollars in it, which would prove more beneficial?

Money is the band-aid. Knowledge is a tool of empowerment.

So again, depriving ourselves of luxuries is going to solve nothing. We miss out on the "finer" things of life, while others are still in the same shape they are. The answer to this paradox is empowerment. Not money, but knowledge.

Teach them to be better rather than trying to do it for them.

Regardless of our socio-economic status, we can all spare a minute or two of our day to help empower someone in need. Rich and poor alike, nobody escapes the cross hair's of an issue of this sort.

Very thought provoking though.

To a rich man the Bentley is nothing. To a rich man the Bentley is easily replacable, probably covered by insurance anyway.

The child is another in his bloodline. Someone that will go out and further his agenda. The Rich man will if nothing else want the child to take the world just to stroke his own ego.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by Royal76]

Not all rich people were born with money. And to be honest, if someone rose from poverty and became successful, they deserve to splurge a little. I couldn't equate buying a Bentley with harming the poor. A poor person with ambition can achieve great things, and when he/she succeeds, they will feel more accomplished than the rich kid who didn't have to work as hard.

Better to teach someone how to fish than to give them a fish to eat. What the poor countries need most is education. If we hand them everything they'll depend on us too much and not themselves.

Oh, and whether or not the rich guy would sacrifice the car to save a kid... that really depends on what kind of person he is. Being rich has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Royal76
To a rich man the Bentley is nothing. To a rich man the Bentley is easily replacable, probably covered by insurance anyway.

The child is another in his bloodline. Someone that will go out and further his agenda. The Rich man will if nothing else want the child to take the world just to stroke his own ego.

Remember this Q is metaphorical

From my op

My reasoning is the rich man brought the Bently in the first place, and with £250,000 could have prevented that kid from being on the train tracks in the first place that is to say a child in poverty could have been saved from death caused by poverty.

The fact of the matter is people are starving to death while we drive Bentleys. the man could have settled for a car costing £15000. and spent the rest on saving lives and creating sustainable resouces.

And lastly the comparison was not intended to mean that the child was that of the rich mans. it is every child everywhere who is in danger of death for lack of basic needs, don't we care about that???

Originally posted by chissler

So again, depriving ourselves of luxuries is going to solve nothing. We miss out on the "finer" things of life, while others are still in the same shape they are. The answer to this paradox is empowerment. Not money, but knowledge.

Teach them to be better rather than trying to do it for them.

Regardless of our socio-economic status, we can all spare a minute or two of our day to help empower someone in need. Rich and poor alike, nobody escapes the cross hair's of an issue of this sort.

Well chiss many good points made here i must agree money is a band aid and empowerment is the way forward.
But the question is one of a personal matter i realise both time and money are needed to make a significant difference but i still feel that so many of us can do more than we are doing, i know i have a lot of iceing on my cake and thats what made me think about the excess life style that so many of us live and take for granted.

every time i waste money on a vain pack of ciggies i deprive some helpless child of food water etc.

I am involved with a work shop over the next four months which is dealing with about a dozen clients who are looking to empower themselves. From personal hygiene to the "How To" for a job interview, complete random things that most of us never think twice about are what we are going to direct a lot of attention to. Rather than putting a band-aid on their problems, we are going to get to the true root of the issue. Hopefully after this four month program, they walk away with a little self-empowerment.

Well done chiss this is a worthy cause and a big step to making a community a better place and the world at large.
Your reasoning is sound and the best of luck with your work shop

You have voted chissler for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Seriously well done.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by reaper2]