So I'm running into an inner conflict regarding charities. My family is looking into doing a charity for Indian children of lepers. You sponsor a child and this gives them the ability to move from the leper colony and into functioning society, an opportunity they would not have otherwise. I'm not usually one to lean toward charities, as I find most of the time I am funding a situation that could have been avoided and therefore condoning irresponsible actions. In this case though, the children were born into a situation that instantly put them in a state of arrested development, with no opportunity to advance within society, having been exiled with their parents. Should I just expect them to do what they can within their limits, to progress as far as their boundaries allow? I find myself viewing it as holding down the potential of a human being, withholding the right to the pursuit of happiness, leaving them in stagnation out of no action of their own, but by the choice of their parents to bring a child into a world they knew was closed off to them. Any opinions on this topic? Would contributing to this charity or similar charities be contradictory to the objectivist view?