We do not need to care for people in poor countries. It is a nesesacy casualty of our system.

You're right that, if the roles were reversed, they might not feel bad about it.

Even so, you point to “luxury” as something necessary when it isn’t, justifying indifference toward those countries and communities as a “necessary evil”; however, “luxury” refers directly to an unnecessary amount of goods or, more specifically, to goods that aren’t necessary for a dignified life, but simply symbolize a pompous and excessive lifestyle.

Based on that, sacrificing communities for “luxuries”—by setting them aside and turning a blind eye—is not justifiable.

In fact, I live in a developing country, so I understand very well what those people are going through; it’s true, I’m not starving or “struggling to survive,” so I’m not going to tell you things like “You don’t know what it’s like to suffer that” (which is clearly true); however, I see the struggles many people face practically every day—I see hunger on the streets, I see children shivering, and I try to help whenever I can, but I can’t do it alone.

That’s my point. I’m not asking you to give up your luxuries or your privileges because that won’t solve anything—in fact, you have every right to enjoy them. But closing ourselves off and ignoring others—whether other people or other countries—will only drive us further and further apart, until we reach the point where everyone looks out for themselves and we devour one another.

I repeat, you’re not obligated to help, but saying “I didn’t do it, let them fix it” is a belief held by many people and one that, unfortunately, leads to communities and governments abandoning others; indirectly causing that when those governments, communities, or people need support, people with that same ideology—“I didn’t do it, let them fix it”—will turn their backs on them.

If one day your country (which I sincerely hope never happens) were in this situation, wouldn’t you want someone to help you—not out of a “moral obligation,” but simply because you and others are human beings too?

You make a great point—we can’t help others if we’re struggling ourselves. The idea of first allocating my resources to my own country and then being able to help others makes sense, and I honestly support it.

But there’s a big difference between dedicating my efforts to helping my country before helping others and sacrificing other countries so I can live a life of luxury.

Remember that the debate began with the following: “We don’t have to worry about people in poor countries. It’s an inevitable consequence of our system. If everyone were as rich as in the West, no one would enjoy luxury. The people who made our clothes go on vacation. They’re poor, and if they want to stop being poor, they should get into politics or something like that.”

I support the argument you made: help my country first, and then consider helping others. But didn’t you start by saying that the poverty of others is necessary and even irrelevant? What determines which country has the right to those luxuries and which other country must struggle to get ahead?