"There should be no rich religious people as long as there is poverty." I will examine eight points of view and explain them in and what could to those opinions then, based on those, come to my own conclusions.

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

There Should Be No Rich Religious People As Long As There Is Poverty.

“There should be no rich religious people as long as there is poverty.” I will examine eight points of view and explain them in and what could to those opinions then, based on those, come to my own conclusions.

‘Religious People Could Do More’

Religious people in that 10% are prone to having spare money, yet not much is done. If they were to donate enough money poverty could be brought to an end in a variety of places. This would mean a lot of money being donated, but if you have the responsibility given to you by your God to look after your neighbour you should obey with no reluctance. That is, if you are truly religious. The religious people would fund-raise and donate.

‘Everyone is responsible to help the poor’

Any religious person should automatically agree with this on the basis that many religions state that those who follow its teachings should give to the poor, let alone just normal people with no particular beliefs. This particular phrase also says that you have a ‘responsibility’ to help the poor, and if your God gives you responsibility for something you should carry it out without question let alone doubt. Therefore, financial help is included so Religious people who are rich having a responsibility to give money to the poor.

‘If everyone had received equal shares of all the world’s money everyone would have enough.’

This is a good idea but it would only enable the greedy an un-deniable advantage financially; people would become poor fast because business men would use their money to set up business that would take other peoples money within days. Even more of the world’s population would become destitute, and poverty would spread even more, except for countries where the business minds are from. Also, only 10% of the world’s population are rich. There wouldn’t really be enough money to go round. Religious people ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘If everyone had received equal shares of all the world’s money everyone would have enough.’

‘Why Should People Who Work Hard Have To Be Poor Through Giving All There Money Away?’

It also isn’t very fair. If a dustman had kept a few streets clean for two months and a brain doctor that had saved hundreds of lives during an extensive medical career were to have £17,000 and £180,000 respectively, taken from them and given £53,000 each it wouldn’t be fair as the surgeon would’ve had to worked really hard to get to where he is while the street-sweeper may have got his job for the asking. All religious people have to do is give their spare money, but not what they need. If they work hard, why should they if they are not doing it so that they can get by?

‘There’s no point in everyone being poor’

This seems like a totally selfish point, and any religious person would agree. It is however, a sensible point, only in the sense that it coincides with the two points made above. The only two alternatives to this are everyone having an equal share of money (Greed prevails. More poverty spreads to a level worse then before.) Or us becoming poor through giving so much and it going towards so little because of how bad the situation are in poor countries and how much it costs to repair. Religious people should not be rich, neither poor, which once again, means they should give what they could spare.

‘Laziness’

Maybe the countries in aid already have what they need, it’s just that the government is too corrupt and lazy to do anything. Idi Amin had millions of funds and he was president of Uganda, yet the people of Uganda suffered terrible poverty. If the government organises itself and recovers the money left over from the ‘Amin Tust Fund’ the Government could sort its own problems out.

‘Rich People make Up 10% of the Worlds Population. They shouldn’t waste money when a little can help anyone.’

Another Statement linking directly to charity and charitable causes, emphasizing the importance of giving money, because it also reveals how some of it is wasted on so much when a little of it (the wasted portion) could go to helping so many people who are in poverty. Rich people would obviously have spare money and if they were religious they would definitely not waste money when it could go to help others. So if there were rich religious people, that should mean that there is no poverty…

‘Poverty is caused by Governments that are corrupt’

The best example of this is Idi Amin, an evil greedy dictator who shifted Charity funds donated to his government into his bank account. He spent money to help his people on himself. What is the point of giving money to a charity if it is just going to be spent on mansions instead of water pumps for villages? This should only increase reluctance to donating to charity, so it is in a sense, acceptable to not donate money, so maybe it is possible that there acceptable circumstances for a religious person being rich if they don’t want to give money to the greedy, not the needy.

Looking at these different views, I see that there are plenty of reasons for there not being rich people while there are not poor people. However, I think there should be rich people while there are poor people because that everybody having the same money is merely a dream. It wouldn’t last long, greed would take over and we would find ourselves where we are now, if not worse. I believe rich people should give money, of course. It’s just that giving all or most of their money will render them in poverty too, and with corrupt governments the donation may have been worthless too.