Perhaps then, your wording was unfortunate. Had you simply said that "it would help so much if the small percentage of humanity who has excess resources beyond those needed for mere survival, would bring assistance in various forms to those less fortunate, by which they could alleviate human suffering to some extent" would have been a more acceptable way to make your assumed reason for commenting.

Indeed there are even two possible views in this regard. If you fully accept the Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest, you would be hard pressed to make such a point. In fact the philosophic underpinnings of Marxist-Leninist political ideology does not contain any strong cause why such an undertaking should be addressed. Some proponents of a random chance biological system will also be similarly challenged to make any persuasive argument to assist the hungry. If you however, believe that the universe is a conscious system of some type, with a "moral imperative", then such a statement might be made with more persuasive force provided that the person reading the comment is not committed to a chaotic, random chance system! Natural selection seems to argue against helping the starving. The religious system built on these ideas, I find unacceptable as a human, but science can not yet support a better cosmological view! These remain matters of faith and conscience. I am committed strongly to the notion of the universe containing a mind and therefore a moral imperative, although our knowledge of this mind as a simple matter of scale, is very limited!

__________________
George Neeson M.D.