The omnipresence of charities and governmental assistance packages leaves little room for self-reliance to survive adversity. In about 300 words, state whether you agree or disagree with this opinion and explain the reasons.

It is advocated that the ubiquity of charitable organizations and government support packages hampers individuals’ independence to survive hardship themselves. From my perspective, I voice disapproval of the aforementioned, believing that philanthropy has fostered great moral values as well as brought about intangible benefits far outweighing its seeming disadvantages. In the

first

place,

such

humanitarianism marks a praiseworthy feature of morality that, under any circumstances, cannot be dispensed with.

In other words

, by mostly reaching out to the incapacitated and the impoverished, charities and government assistance packages assure that no one is left behind in the whole community.

Therefore

, it would be irrational to question whether charitable work has deprived the disadvantaged of so-called self-reliance, since receiving support cannot be equated with being deeply dependent.

For instance

, in view of severe food, health crises and water scarcities, the indigent Africans are in desperate need of global aid, which could by no means be judged as a lack of self-sufficiency.

This

substantiates the claim that charitable contributions are a sheer manifestation of humanity and benevolence with which self-reliance has nothing to do. What is more, charitable work and public aids are aimed not so much at specifically helping the underprivileged as offering them the means to survive adversities themselves.

That is

, rather than take their place to tackle difficulties, those institutions only provide them with the needed mental and financial support so that they could work out ways to help themselves.

For example

, as regards the inadequate children living in underserved areas, volunteers do not hand them money or relocate them to other developing residential areas, but rather offer them education and equip them with the essential life skills. Assuredly, the children cannot transform their lives unless they make great efforts.

Hence

, not only does charity not leave little room for independence, contrariwise,

such

philanthropies help foster it. All things considered, it is undeniable the omnipresence of charities and government assistance packages have brought about innumerable benefits, be they moral or materialistic.

Thus

, I stand convinced that the given statement is rather one-sided, claiming that humanitarianism is here to stay.