I think that if someone is well-off and yet they see a lot of people around them that aren't, it's pretty natural to feel uncomfortable about that. Like "why do I live in a house and not in a tent?" Luck plays a role, but that's not a satisfying answer. One way people deal with it is to construct a narrative to explain their success -- maybe they're smarter, or worked harder, or avoided the personal vices they see among the poor.

Those narratives aren't necessarily entirely wrong, and I don't see those people as particularly evil, they just might have a few blind spots. For instance, they might not realize that even though they worked hard for their success, they also had a lot of second chances when they failed and they might not have had some of the roadblocks to success that others had, such as serious health problems, or a bad family situation, or prejudice, or violence, or lack of education, or lack of leisure time.

I've never been to Delhi, so this is just based on my own observation of people in the United States. I assume this is probably one of those aspects of human nature that are more-or-less the same everywhere.

What do policies have to do with anything? This isn't global warming where the big deal is only in the aggregate.

That there are X million people you cant help even if you do all you can doesn't undermine the fact that if you make hundreds of thousands of dollars you could change the lives of many forever with not much of a lifestyle hit for yourself.

So, just to be clear, your position is that any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"?

What do policies have to do with anything?

I can't tell if this is a serious question. Policies are how we effect change at scale. Relying on countless people to each independently make the decision to follow your particular moral values isn't a practical solution for addressing inequality throughout the entire country of India.

I don't want to speak for the person you're replying to, but..

> any >=middle-class person who doesn't donate the majority of their wealth to charity is "evil"?

That is pretty much Peter Singer's position (who incidentally is Australian, and it appears the person you're replying to may be also), who is if nothing else at least providing serious and cogent arguments for such a position. You may disagree, but he argues fairly respectably, IMO.

I'm a bit on the fence on that one, but I think there's something to be said for the fact that there is at least some immorality happening if a person worth 100.000$ walks past someone worth 0$ and doesn't help them out at least a little.

If you're curious about this line of reasoning, here's a nice introduction: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/giving...