Helping the out-of-towners
I have a pondering: suppose you had a fairly wealthy relative who is also charitable.
Let's say his own brother is married and has a family of three kids, all of whom live in a 3-bedroom trailer in a depressed town. His brother is not well off, in fact, he's been out of work for about ten years due to an accident on the job. He gets some government support, but barely enough to live on. His wife works very hard at the local supermarket, but is working under deplorable conditions and making very little money. They can't afford to move, two of the kids have chronic health problems, and they went last Christmas without electricity because it got shut off.
On the other hand, there is a family in your relative's town who also does not have it so good. A single mom with 4 kids on welfare. There are two fathers of the kids, one in jail, and the other dead in a drug shooting. She is living with her boyfriend, who has been treated for drug addiction, and is violently abusive. Social services has gotten involved more than once. It's obvious, without passing judgement, that the family is highly unstable. One of the older kids has already been arrested for bringing a weapon on school property.
Your relative decides to give the 4 kids in the local town full college scholarships instead of his own nieces and nephews. Assume for this example, that he does not dislike his brother, but explains that his brother's kids have it better off socially than these other kids. Whereas his brother could get all kinds of assistance, grants, and whatnot, nobody will stick up for the other kids, so he decides to do so. It's his money.
How would you feel about this decision?
I ask because I often wonder about so much money going to aid in unstable foreign countries while we have so much poverty here at home. I have no presumed answer to this.
Let's say his own brother is married and has a family of three kids, all of whom live in a 3-bedroom trailer in a depressed town. His brother is not well off, in fact, he's been out of work for about ten years due to an accident on the job. He gets some government support, but barely enough to live on. His wife works very hard at the local supermarket, but is working under deplorable conditions and making very little money. They can't afford to move, two of the kids have chronic health problems, and they went last Christmas without electricity because it got shut off.
On the other hand, there is a family in your relative's town who also does not have it so good. A single mom with 4 kids on welfare. There are two fathers of the kids, one in jail, and the other dead in a drug shooting. She is living with her boyfriend, who has been treated for drug addiction, and is violently abusive. Social services has gotten involved more than once. It's obvious, without passing judgement, that the family is highly unstable. One of the older kids has already been arrested for bringing a weapon on school property.
Your relative decides to give the 4 kids in the local town full college scholarships instead of his own nieces and nephews. Assume for this example, that he does not dislike his brother, but explains that his brother's kids have it better off socially than these other kids. Whereas his brother could get all kinds of assistance, grants, and whatnot, nobody will stick up for the other kids, so he decides to do so. It's his money.
How would you feel about this decision?
I ask because I often wonder about so much money going to aid in unstable foreign countries while we have so much poverty here at home. I have no presumed answer to this.