No, no one has a moral duty to look after the poor just because they are poor. The instant that it becomes a duty, charity starts to just perpetuate the problem as it removes the downside risk to behavior. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea, but charity can not be treated as a duty, else it will become abused.
It is correct that it isn't their fault on an individual case. That doesn't change that perpetual foreign aid, the way it is done by governments, only perpetuates the poverty. Which is why I said that the focus should be on economic and infrastructure improvements and not throwing money at the problem.
It doesn't matter what the U.N. does. Unless they hand deliver the aid, and only a day's worth at time, a large percentage will be stolen. This still doesn't address the issue of the aid either helping prop up lousy governments that are largely responsible for the rampant poverty, or helping feed the ongoing civil strife (which is why a lot of these countries are so poor). This will happen whether the aid is stolen or not. Reducing the aid because it was stolen won't matter either as it has no negative repercussions on the people/government that stole the aid. The best it will accomplish is teach the governments/warlords/what-have-you how to fool the U.N. into thinking that the aid wasn't stolen.Originally Posted by Stealth694