[fatdave]

I don't think you can make such an absolute argument as it being either about money or about dying children.

For example:

Which is the greater good:

A) Donating $12,000 to save 12 third-world children directly

B) Donating $12,000 to save 1 American child (not a life-time total; pretend it's an important medical bill that will save their life)

C) Donating $12,000 to a school

D) Adopting a child (of any nationality) and raising them to live up to their best potential, while staying within your monetary means.


I personally think that (D) is the "best" option, in regards to both the adult and child's humanity, internal value and respect. I also think that (C) runs a close second, because you are affecting a larger number of individuals over both the short-term (say, the school year) and long-term (their entire lives being affected by their educational experience).

Additionally, I don't think that paying money to help somebody stay "alive" is the same as helping them "live". I think you may need to consider the morality of helping somebody stay alive in a less-than-desirable environment, as opposed to helping them live in an environment where every aspect of their personality and well-being can flourish.