[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes this 3rd world argument a bad one is that it doesn't, at the surface of it, takes into account the shere size of the numbers. You humanly can't help all of them. So whatever you do, you can only do a limited piece of good. But with that acknowleged, the whole argumentation changes considerably with regards to that one limbless child that we were originally talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Under your moral code you should give all that you can to help as many as you can. Size has nothing to do with it.


[ QUOTE ]
From a practical point of view, there is (btw. that's why I said: in one sense yes, in many others, no. - I agree that philosophically, the two kids demand the very same ethical response from you.)
One resaon is, that you have a life of your own and a right to that life. Also, you probably have people around you, wife, kids, friends etc. Those (at least your kids and wife) have some sort of right to your existence as well.
If you now very nobly sell all your ownings and donate it to food for the world and silently die naked in the next forrest, you help them, but at the cost of your life, which is one thing. Just very, very rarely can you form a coherent argument that morally obliges you to give your life for others. But more, you also ruin the life of your wife and kids. So helping those African kids in this extreme way is out very easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well under your morales you don't give EVERYTHING you have obviously. You give everything that you don't need to sustain yourself and your family or until there is no one left to help. What you are arguing for is communism.