Van Wyk - World Hunger and the Extent of Our Positive Duties

It seems that Van Wyk's piece reflects somewhat closely to Singer. He seems to suggest that western, developed nations should produce aid for those in impoverished third-world nations. I feel that we should do what we can to help, but I have another aspect of the piece that I would like to see addressed. By the assumption of all of these moral philosophers, the United States is at the best position to aid other nations and their people in raising them above the poverty level. However, I don't understand how we can be the "world relief fund" when we have plenty of citizens within this county that are poor? It seems as though we should concentrate on our own people first. However, this leads into another issue when dealing with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. If we raise taxes, pool funds, and give money and resources to the poor, what is motivating them to do anything out their poverty? In the case of welfare, by giving money to those who have no other source of income, they have no incentive to help themselves unless they are forced to do so. If you were given free money for no reason wouldn't you quit your job? This is an extreme example of course, but entirely plausible.

I believe in the Kantian theory that people should be treated as means and not end, but if you are sacrificing your well-being for those who could be taking advantage of you, couldn't you argue that you are being used as a means instead of an end? I just feel that if we are to help those in need, we need to hold them accountable.

Certainly many corporations indirectly contribute to the poverty of others and I feel that they are morally accountable for their actions, especially if they achieve wealth in the process.