[QUOTE=MMI;797194]
Quote Originally Posted by Carpe Coma View Post
I cannot think of anything less moral than allowing people to die when it is possible to prevent it. All the more so when it is easily possible to prevent it.
I can think of many things which are less moral! Killing someone without just cause (and yes, I know you don't believe there is ever a just cause) for one.

But morality is a slippery slope. It is far too subjective for real discussion. One person's morality is another person's sin. Don't you think those terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9-11 thought they were morally correct in their actions? I'm sure they did!

[QUOTE]As for your assertion that charity removes the risks of "behaviour", I cannot understand the concept of poverty as a form of behaviour. Behaviour is a response to some kind of stimulus. What is poverty responding to or reacting against? Wealth?[QUOTE]
Actually, poverty is a symptom of, among other things, ignorance (not to be confused with stupidity.) People who don't know any different, who aren't aware that there may be ways out, are inclined to stay right where they are. I've seen, right in my own area, people who are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck who could really pull themselves out of the hole by selling a fraction of the land they own. But they won't do it. It was handed down from their father, or grandfather, or whoever, and they just have to hold on to it. So they starve themselves out of a sense of "tradition". Which is about as ignorant as you can get, in my book.

It might impoverish the donors somewhat at first, but both giver and recipient will benefit in the long run.
No, it will tend to move everyone to the same level, which would be far below the standards the donors are used to and far below the standards the poor would aspire to. Nobody wins, everybody loses, and there's nobody left to donate food or clothing. We all starve and freeze. Back to nature!!