Poverty One of the Many Pressing Issues in Our Society - Essay Example

?Poverty has been one of the many pressing issues of our society. This particular social issue has been the source of social anxiety and there are many perspectives that aim to answer the unrelenting question of how to deal with poverty. On one side of the fence, there are people who believe that poverty is caused by the social structure and it can’t be helped. On the other, there are individuals who believe that poverty can be alleviated and to help out the poor is one of the moral responsibilities of the society. This paper explores these sides and aims to make the reader see our own moral and social obligation when it comes to dealing with poverty. As one of the many life-threatening social issues, poverty is associated to many deaths, including diseases and violence, especially in the underdeveloped countries. (Pogge, 2010).  A great factor in the increase of poverty is the unequal distribution of wealth, which leads to social inequality. The economic inequality skews the economic opportunities of people to gain the financial stability they need to ensure a life without poverty. The more unequal the distribution of wealth is, the greater number of people there is at the bottom of the economic and social structure. Pogge’s argument on helping the poor simply explains that the lower the poverty level is, the higher the sustainability would be. Helping the poor means the society needs to exert its efforts on the redistribution of wealth. This is a very big and idealistic step in the eradication of poverty. Since poverty is caused by the unequal structure, specifically economic, of the society, completely taking out poverty is next to impossible. Pogge suggests a number of points on how to deal with poverty, thus helping out the poor people, and, as a result, helping out the society and the environment in one blow. In this regard, Pogge suggests that the society have a moral obligation to help the poor just because it will result in everyone’s self-preservation. One of the main arguments of Pogge’s perspective is that of Rolston’s. Rolston actually criticizes the point of Pogge that the society has the moral obligation to help the poor. He insists that helping out the poor, and the quest to eradicate poverty will paralyze our society. It’s not that society has no resources to help out the poor but in focusing more on eradicating poverty, the resources would be used up and the society won’t be able to answer to the other challenges that the society is facing, such as financial capability and ecological burden. Rolston suggests that if the society aims to eradicate poverty, it would need to look into the following challenges as well: redistribution of wealth, economic sustainability and population control (Rolston, 1996). Although affluent societies have the resources to answer these social issues, most poverty-stricken countries don’t have the capacity to do that. And the lingering question would be: would the affluent societies pursue the value of preserving the life of other societies while maintaining their own? Would they have the courage to redistribute their wealth to ensure that other societies would have the financial capabilities that they are enjoying? Rolston even suggests that most individuals protect what they value most, even if it results to the demise of another, taking it to account that it is beyond their control (Rolston, 1996). This is similar to Newton’s law of cause and effect. Every decision that we make affects other people, whether directly or indirectly. Rolston’s point shows that one of human natural characteristics is self-preservation, and this could have a result in the downfall of another. Another point that contradicts Pogge’s perspective is the problem of population. Rolston suggests that feeding the poor is like feeding cancer (Rolston, 1996). It will only result to more problems later since the poor will only give birth to more poor later on. This correlates to his perspective that if the society intends to eradicate poverty, it should also work on the redistribution of wealth. If wealth is not distributed, then the poor would continue on becoming poor, and they will give birth to more poor people, and the cycle continues. This will cause a greater damage to the financial capabilities, or limitations, of the society. Rolston’s argument depicts a utilitarian perspective, wherein, the society should only proceed on eradicating poverty if there is a gain (Patten, 2005). If there’s none, what’s the point in focusing all efforts in helping out the poor. He actually rejects the idea of Pogge that the society has a moral obligation to help the poor since he believes that morality does not require us to feed people first before saving the nature (Attfield, 1998). Pogge’s perspective on helping the poor actually answers two main challenges of dealing with poverty. There are two correlating factors with poverty: population and ecological burden. The argument is if society completely takes out poverty, there will be an increase in population. Since poverty is related to mortality rates and longetivity, poverty indirectly helps in population control. The death rate in poverty-stricken countries is high because of the limitations of their lifestyle (Risse, 2012). Since the people have limited financial capabilities and limited financial resources, a lot of life-promoting behaviors are being neglected. One of which is putting an importance on health. Poor people have less financial capabilities to go to specialists and ensure that they get the right treatment for their degrading health. Without poverty, people would be able to maintain their health and guarantee themselves a longer lifespan. This, in turn, increases the ecological burden or damage. Since people have a longer lifespan, there is a possibility for overpopulation, which results to an overuse of the natural resources and an eventual destruction of the environment. This, in the end, results to the death of the entire society. Pogge suggests that there is a countermeasure for these challenges. He proposes that if poverty is eradicated, everyone would be able to save, as what affluent people can do. If this happens, people can focus more on taking care of the environment. As a result, there will be less ecological burden. This indicates that Pogge’s argument is based on a shift of perspective and values. Since everyone has the financial capability of preserving their lifespan, there will be a shift of values, wherein the next value would be in preserving the world they live in, as part of preserving their lifespan. Looking at a value judgment perspective, Pogge does not claim that the society has a moral obligation to help the poor just because it is the right thing to do. He claims that doing so has value, and as humans, we protect what we value. Pogge understands that there are a number of things that should be taken into account when dealing with poverty. That is the main reason he pointed out his proposals to counter the arguments of his critics, mostly on population growth and ecological sustainability. Helping out the poor has its pros and cons. Pogge’s perspective on the impacts of eradicating poverty is very convincing, although it will take much effort to shift the values and perspectives of the entire society. Pogge has his points, which is outlined in this paper. His main response to his critics is to counter them with the proposals he has made to highlight the positive results of eradicating poverty. Works Cited Attfield, R. (1998). Saving Nature, Feeding People and Ethics. Environmental Values 7. Pp. 291-384. Patten, A. (2005). Should We Stop Thinking About Poverty in Terms of Helping the Poor. Ethics and International Affairs 19(1): 19-27. Pogge, T. (2010). Keynote Address: Poverty, Climate Change and Overpopulation. GA: Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law. Risse, M. (2012). On Global Justice. NJ: Princeton University Press. Rolston, H. (1996). Feeding People versus Saving Nature? Eds. Aiken, W. & LaFollette, H. World Hunger and Morality, 2nd ed. Pp. 248-267. Read More