People, Poverty, and Morality
Since a useful discussion ensuing from this post is more or less invisible if you’re not paying attention, I’ve decided to help it resurface here for potential continuation.
As I see it, the basic discussion has evolved into a debate over whether poverty serves a social purpose and if so whether that purpose is morally acceptable.
Jay is suggesting that poverty serves the social purpose of serving as “consequences” or “deterrence”. To my mind, he still hasn’t specified a positive formulation of what this purpose is, only a negative one. If poverty is a deterrence from particular actions, then this circumscription must define a positive set of actions (or set thereof). While awaiting a stronger description, I will presume that he means it drives people to contribute to society through economic activity (i.e., work) and not to sponge off the hard work of others.
TOB meanwhile is making a distinction between faith-based moral obligation to the poor and the Law. I presume by the latter that he means legislative policies for addressing poverty. I’m also not sure why he wants to separate the two. The separation of church and state (morality and government) doesn’t really make sense to me. Surely, we don’t want the organizations to be synonomous, and we have a democratic, constitutional (and moral) obligation to allow freedom of religion. [Side note: Little Mosque on the Prarie is a solidly funny sitcom.] But I don’t see how it’s possible to separate morality and law. The latter is based on a negotiation of the former. Morality and ethics drive law-making by sanctioning some actions and forbidding others. And, in the now classic sense, any attempt to deny the connection between the two is itself informed by morality.
So, now I’d like to argue that poverty serves absolutely no positive social purpose. Poverty, as a social tool, is unnecessary and ignoble. My argument is based in the faith that humankind can and should aspire to more noble pursuits than cash acquisition and that society can and must take precedence over base individual self-interest. Poverty is unnecessary as we now have the technical expertise and resources needed to provide everyone with a sound, secure life, and we have probably been able to do so for decades if not longer. We probably can’t provide everyone with an iPod and a supercomputer or gold-lined bathtubs, but we can provide them with quality housing, food, and education. As we haven’t yet succeeded in automating all of the construction and manufacturing of such items, some work would be required. But threatening people with starvation and poverty is a horrendously ignoble approach to getting work done. People respond to all sorts of motivations, as the ever mushier economic definitions of “utility” evidence. In addition to starvation, people can be motivated by social prestige, the joy of contributing to general or specfici wellbeing, the challenge of problem solving, boredom, etc. I contend that there are innumerable sources of motivation (for production) that can be tapped into that illustrate how ignoble and unnecessary poverty as a socially useful tool is.
In fact, I would suggest that it is a morally bankrupt tool that does serve a social purpose: enriching the few through the sacrifice of the many. (But you probably knew that’s where I’d end up anyway!)
I don’t buy a word of what you say. People of your political ilk would soon then be blogging that it is a damn shame that some kids have iPods and others do not…that some kids have cell phones and others do not…those that do not will be assumed to be in poverty. We now provide public housing…public schools…welfare/food stamps…all those things you demand now…and they are considered to be sub-standard. As long as someone has something better..someone of your ilk (I say this as a dear friend) is going to complain that it is not fair.
One family eating eggs and ham will be considered slighted because another family is eating steak and ham. It will never end. You will then demand more steak for others.
….I meant to say steak and eggs…..not steak and ham…steak and ham? Ha! That would just be damn greedy.
:) But I don’t know, I had some pretty tasty ham this past weekend… And you’re absolutely right: I’m a leveler. But leveling doesn’t mean conformity. And what’s wrong with that? If something isn’t fair, it should be fixed. And what’s the flip side? People are never satisfied because they don’t have enough. See? No one is ever happy!
As to the publicly provided support you mention, yes, we have a little, but it is far too little to do the job we need it to do. As you say, it’s considered “sub-standard”. So let’s make it better.
To be clear: in some ways, poverty can serve a useful social purpose. At the same time, it is far too often a systematic form of exploitation or simple neglect. Yet if you separate out the abuses, there is still a remaining role that serves a productive role.
First, we have to assume that people are provided opportunities. We have to assume that work is fairly compensated. (Of course, we know those conditions far too frequently are not met – those are the cases of what we might term “abusive impoverishment”.)
To the extent these conditions are met, remaining poverty is the result of personal actions. That is to say, those individuals have refused to care for themselves, and instead would be unfairly taking from others if they were not left impoverished.
Although the terminology is different, we all readily accept impoverishment as a legitimate form of social control to the extent that we endorse prisons. (Again, there are abuses to the system, but most would distinguish between poor practice and appropriate concept.)
Nor do I believe Marxism provides an alternative to poverty, as a practice of social regulation. I have not read enough Marxist theory to fully understand how it addressed this. Yet there must have been some consequences under any scenario to address people who refused to contribute “according to his ability”. Perhaps not the Gulag, but most penalties, certainly any eviction from the commune, would effectively result in impoverishment of the offending party.
This points to the actual root of a socially effective poverty. Wealth is produced by collective action (whether through a “free market” or a communist arrangement). Refusal to contribute to that action should result in a loss of the share of that wealth.