The Ethics Of Poverty

The Ethics Of Poverty I will begin this delicate topic with some information about poverty and then I will explain the differences between those who believe it is not our duty to provide support to the impoverished and those who do. Regardless of who is morally right or wrong or who is responsible for helping the poor, poverty will always be a part of life in this world. There will always be wealthy people and there will always be poor people. It is a fact of our life struggles that corresponds with Darwins theory, only the strong survive. With the economic condition of the world today poverty is a concern that is becoming a greater issue; despite its being overlooked around the world for many years. Most people would rather turn their heads and ignore the fact that there are millions of individuals who live in some state of poverty every day. It is easy for those who are well off to ignore the realization that poverty does exist; because those who choose to remain ignorant about poverty are not worried about where they will sleep that night or where they will get food from. They are also not forced to live in extreme conditions every day or wonder where they can get a shower or clothes, because they have their basic necessities in life. Maybe if they understood what those poverty stricken people were going through, they might reconsider their outlook on poverty. In the United States, poverty is measured by poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines. (Wikipedia, 2011) According to numerous surveys at one time or another, over forty percent of Americans have had to deal with some type of poverty caused by hardships, such as job loss, financial strains, natural disasters, death, divorce, poor economic conditions, and even war. According to the United States Census Bureau, poverty in the U.S. has spiked to an all-time high surpassing fourteen percent. (CNNMoney.com, 2010) According to National Public Radio online, poverty has not been the main issue for many Americans and in fact it has slowly faded from the headlines. (NPR, 2001) So with all that information; I will pose some questions that are always being asked about who are actually responsible for the lack of attention the poverty issue has received. Is the U. S. Government to blame? Do we blame Globalization? Who in the world can be the sole individual to blame? Do we blame Americans because our nation is more advanced than those third world countries? Whose duty is it to help those in need? These questions are the ones that many human rights supporters and their opponents are quarreling over. Despite this information and the questions I presented; there are Americans who believe poverty is a big problem and they are all in consensus that something should be done about it. Many of those individuals also agree that any aid our government/country gives to those in need is only done because it is in the best interest of our national government and not because the government feels they have to. If our government felt it was their duty as a nation to give continuously to the impoverished, then we wouldnt have poverty stricken people or homeless individuals here in the United States. The worlds poverty numbers would diminish extremely if our government felt it was their duty to help all those in need. There are many philosophers like Peter Singer, Ayn Rand, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky and numerous Human Rights Activists such as Thomas Pogge and Simon Caney as well as other humanitarian organizations that believe wealthy people have a moral obligation or duty to help those who are severely destitute. If the well-to-do opt not to help those who live a life of severe poverty, they are considered human rights violators and the same Activist protest there should be some kind of condemnation for ignoring those who are suffering from poverty. (Saddia, 2010) For example, Peter Singer suggests that if the well off have abundance and are well to do then it is their moral responsibility to assist those in need. (Wikipedia, 2011) Helping those in need comes down to ones beliefs and moral values. It really is up to individuals to decide for themselves as to whether or not they want to help the needy. If they feel bad for those in need, then the answer would be yes, those individuals should help the poor. But, if there are no deep feelings of sorrow, then the answer to whether they should help, would be no. Like I previously stated, it is what the individual believes in their mind and heart. Their moral judgment will give them the answer they are searching for as to whether they are wasting their time and money in trying to help the needy or if they feel helping the needy would make them feel better as a person. In the case of poverty, I believe an individuals morals are based off emotions, reflexes and what they feel in their hearts. Most individuals depend on these emotions, reflexes, and feelings to help them make decisions. There is a possibility the world could benefit from those who help the needy; the total number of impoverished families and people in the world might be reduced with help from the wealthy. But there are too many poverty stricken people in this world to help, that it would take much longer than we have on this earth to see the positive changes. All individuals have a right to basic necessities such as food, water, clothing, and shelter; however, providing the basic necessities to the needy should not be the sole responsibility of those who are better off. An individual who is well off can only do so much for so long and after helping those in need, individuals begin to assume they are being taken advantage of and they start providing less and less assistance to the needy. They tend to find a mindset of why am I the only one helping these people and why should I help them. Other individuals have concerns as to where their monetary assistance is actually going. People who help out by donating money to those charity organizations that support the impoverished, wonder if their monetary support is actually making it to those in need in a third world country or if some organization leader is keeping a majority of the donated money to help cover costs of that organization. Like me I wonder the same thing, because I know there are millions of people and charity organizations who are helping the impoverished, but we cannot assume that all the aid is going to those needy because nothing is really changing for those who are poor. It seems those who support the poor are fighting a losing battle. On the other hand, there are many people world-wide who believe the well-to-do do not have a moral duty or obligation to provide support or provide assistance to those who desperately need it. Individuals who think this believe they have worked too hard to for what they have, that they shouldnt have to just give it away because someone else in another country is not working hard enough to alleviate their plight. They also believe that it is not their concern or their fault that people in other countries are so poor. Forcing the well-to-do to share their wealth with the poor would be considered a violation of their rights since they are not being allowed to choose whether to give or not. If we continue to just provide assistance instead of resources for them, to the impoverished we are just causing more problems down the road, because those who are poor will continue to expect support instead of using the resources to better themselves. Needless to say, the poor continue to reproduce at a greater number than the rich. So those third world countries are practically doubling in population and if we continue to provide some sort of safety net in the form of support from the wealthy, then how can the poor population ever recover. I dont want to venture into religious opinions, but the Bible does state there will always be poor amongst us. Yet many Archbishops state, the rich should help the poor. Garrett Hardin a philosopher as well was opposed to Peter Singers theory that the rich should be influenced to help the poor. There are many well-to-do individuals who claim they have no responsibility for the millions of poor people across the world, because it was not their fault the poor people ended up in that situation. Yet there are those who believe we have several options: we may be tempted to try to live by the Christian ideal of being our brothers keeper, or by the Marxist ideal of to each according to his needs. (Hardin, 2003) Those who believe we should not supp ort the poor are said to have more of an individual egoism (Philosophy Basics, ) which means they are more inclined to act in their self-interest. So with all that being said, what is the morally right thing to do and whos duty is it to help those in need? There is and always will be different views on who is to blame and who should help the impoverished. The absolute fact is that there will always be poverty stricken people in this world no matter if we as individuals feel it is our duty to help those in need or not. From the beginning of time to the present day, people have fallen into two categories, they are either hunters or they are gatherers. Those who fall into the hunter category or have the hunter persona are individuals who fight hard to ensure their families have the basic necessities and more if possible. Then you have those individuals who fall into the gatherer category or have the gatherer persona; they expect others, particularly the hunters to feed and take care of them. There are several reasons as to why people are severely poor and those people who are capable of helping would probably make the better decision and help those who fell into poverty because of a natural disaster, job loss due to businesses downsizing, or even medical related problems which keep people from working. Extreme reasons like that affects individuals differently and they are more inclined to help those who fell into poverty. But for someone to say we should help those in need because they fall victim to drugs or violence is not a severe enough reason to entice someone to help. People are not sympathetic to those kinds of reasons. I however, dont believe it is the rich mans responsibility to take care of the poor simply because we choose our own path in life and there is always room for change. Staying in a state of poverty just because there is a small amount of help is not a justifiable reason to avoid changing their situation. I also dont if someone who was extremely poor suddenly became rich, that they would turn around and give their money to the poor. I believe they would possibly donate some of their money to certain charity organizations or maybe give a little money to friends or family who helped them through the tough times. But how long would they continue to give their earnings to the poor is unknown, because they possibly would become tired of having to continuously support those who have less. So in the end, who is really to blame for the poor being poor? I believe their governments should rise up and do more to alleviate the poverty issues in their respective countries. For example, Africa is known for being a continent with a majority of the population being impoverished and not having basic necessities. Yet they export oil, diamonds, and other goods which would increase their Gross National Product and they could use the increase to help the poor. If the country where those needy live has a failing economy, then who is responsible or who do we blame? Do we blame it on Globalization? I believe the American welfare system does not help the poor or improve their situation, it merely allows them to get by and because of this they do not put enough effort into improving their status. It is true to this day, the rich get richer and the poor, poorer.