| Poverty and Ethics |
| Do We Have a Moral Obligation to the Poor? Absolutely. In our society of conspicuous consumption, we have more than enough to go around, and more than is necessary for our essential needs. If we gathered all the wealth we possess, used it to improve the lives of the poor here and worldwide, poverty and hunger would become a thing of the past. Sadly, we're not willing to give up our luxuries and comforts. Who does extreme wealth really benefit? Nobody but the select few who possess such vast resources. There is a psychological dependency upon excess--we "need" the SUV, the Gucci purse, the $200,000 home. But how much do we truly need to survive? Surprisingly, not much. It is not that wealth is evil, per se. It becomes evil when it is pursued only as an end in itself and adds up to nothing more than a flamboyant display. It certainly shouldn't be obtained at the expense and exploitation of others. Sadly for some, power and status are worth more than life itself, should be had regardless of who is stepped on. This is when human beings are used as things and discarded. No, to have more than one needs isn't an evil itself. It's what one does with possessions and power that counts. Surplus is meant to be shared, even minimally. I don't recommend that we revert to a communist system or that people should have the exact same things at the exact same time, but that we put our resources to better use than we're doing now to aid those without. Why should it be that some people have everything while others have nothing? One person's life shouldn't be counted more worthy than another's. While altruism is alien to human nature, it doesn't take a proverbial "bleeding heart" to give to the poor. It must be done out of necesity. As a wealthy nation we are obligated to to help those who go without food, clothing, adequate medical care, and education. Until we give more, we have no reason to accumulate such wealth while feeling like good, moral people. No man is an island; we're connected to others in this world. There is no morally justifiable reason to amass wealth just for ourselves and "to hell with 'em all." What contribution are we making when we have to have the most money, the best toys, etc? What message is that sending? What does all that "stuff" do? It sits there, merely so others can see it and maybe be impressed. Sits there until it's replaced with bigger, better stuff. Imagine: a nation in which a good proportion of its wealth goes to the poor with everybody's life benefiting from it. Just imagine that. Perhaps this idea is too demanding of us on an individual basis. Yet it is precisely what philosopher Peter Singer endorsed as a solution to poverty. He believed that our luxuries are not as critical as death by starvation or preventable illness. He's quick to criticize our reasoning when we condemn a wealthy person for not giving to the poor, because we ourselves can make contributions of our own and don't. He points out that we'd rather keep our material comfort while others starve than be inconvenienced while saving the life of a poor child. It's easy not to give because we have little connection to the poor. They're a face in a T.V commercial filmed in a distant country. Those living in middle-class suburbia have little opportunity to look into a poor person's eyes, as geographics separate up from the poor in this country. Singer states that we have "follow-the-leader ethics", that is, we don't give because we see the vast majority of others not giving. We then can justify our reasons for not doing so. A.) We don't have to think about the poor out there somewhere and B.) it's ok not to give because nobody else does. Try explaining that to a homeless man, a family on welfare, the children without winter clothes. Unfortunately, the poor have no way to voice their agony. It is therefore up to us to be their voice. Another enemy of the American poor is the concept of Rugged Individualism. People are rich because they work hard; the poor are that way because they're lazy and chose that lifestyle, so we should abandon them. Rugged Individualism is flawed because many of the richest people either inherit fortune or devise easy (and illicit) schemes to make money, while many poor people hold 2-3 jobs at once just to make ends meet. Who can you say works harder? You might be asking what role the government plays in eliminating poverty. It plays an enormous one! It can't be solely up to individuals to aid the poor. Our government has plenty of money but skewed priorities when it comes to social welfare. Money spent on issues such as changing French fries to Freedom fries, or a Congressional debate over what day should be designated National Pretzel Day could be put to much better use over critical issues. Now that the war with Iraq yielded no WMD's, the billions Bush asked for could have gone to fund education, welfare reform, or to ease unemployment. Poverty activists need a louder voice and renewed effort to show Capitol Hill the plight of the poor right here in America. Do we have a moral obligation to the poor? You bet we do. |