Secondly, it is the government that has a responsibility to help the poor. Developed countries may not be bound by law to help poor nations, but they have the responsibility - and the power - to do so. Rich people do not have a "responsibility" to "help" the poor, and it is somewhat inaccurate to characterize the situation in this way. If poor countries continually accept food and money they might become lazy and expect hand-outs. It is only in a primitive society that the rich help the poor. However, there are times when the rich should not feel a responsibility to help the poor. Help or assistance could come in a number of forms but let’s limit the discussion to monetary donations either directly to underprivileged people or through intermediary organizations like charities that then dispense the money. The wealthy do have a responsibility to help the poor. Third, the social responsibility approach might argue that those who have resources have a moral obligation to help others in need, not out of charity and good heartedness but out of obligation. Advertisement Alvin … The responsibility, however, is of a human character. That is how tax should be used. The rich deserve to enjoy their wealth because they worked harder. The poor can stay on welfare. Through shared humanity we all have a responsibility to help those in need. Even if their success is due to their luck, it is their turn to have fun. When questioned, I will admit great respect for Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth, in which he addressed the new phenomenon of wealth inequality in the later years of the 1800’s. On the other hand, some people feel that poor countries should learn to help themselves and it is not the responsibility of rich nations to help them. Moreover, a society that cares for all its members and avoids huge disparities in wealth is in everyones interests. Each model along the spectrum is answering the question as to whether the rich have the moral responsibility of helping the poor.