Is poverty a moral failing...

[pErvinalia]

I don't understand Brian. Why is he waisting words on such an inane thread when he could be contributing thoughts on my blog posts, or indeed writing his own (non-inane) blog posts?

Hmm. I find that discussing this with others is useful. Exploring these issue properly is something that really deserves some proper study, not just a dashed-off blog post shouted into the howling wind of indifference which is the internet. What I'm interested in is representing by views and understandings clearly and honestly. Trying to do that through places like this helps me navigate similar discussions when I have them with real people in real life, where my real work is undertaken. If you think this topic or discussion is inane rEv, don't read it. I'm not here to garner your or anyone else's approval.

Yebbut it's still an inane topic. Surely you can manage better than this.

I disagree. Attitudes to poverty and the poor inform the public consciousness with regard to the merits of economic and social policy in many areas (and not just to do with welfare programs), economic and social policy as proposed by those who cite certain judgements and assumptions about what kind or type of people comprise 'the poor' in justifying calls to political action.


thegreatwelfarescrounge.wordpress.com

What does that have to do with whether poverty is a moral failing?

[JimC]

It has a lot to do with a right-wing/populist media political push to portray poverty as the fault of the poor, and portraying them as parasites on the community in a very Sethian fashion...

[Brian Peacock]

...
I disagree. Attitudes to poverty and the poor inform the public consciousness with regard to the merits of economic and social policy in many areas (and not just to do with welfare programs), economic and social policy as proposed by those who cite certain judgements and assumptions about what kind or type of people comprise 'the poor' in justifying calls to political action.


thegreatwelfarescrounge.wordpress.com

What does that have to do with whether poverty is a moral failing?

In response to that I'd simply ask you to use your imagination.

My comment offers a little of why I consider this an important issue, and the image offers an example of what I've been talking about - about how some quarters seek to pass certain kinds of moral judgements into the public domain: here that those in need or hardship embody morally questionable personal traits, variously describing a nominal group as feckless, workshy, skivers, and scroungers, etc. The moral appeal here is to one of fairness, an appeal rooted in the assumption that a great many people in the UK who are in receipt of income-related assistance, perhaps even the majority, don't really need help and are just trying it on. Assumptions of this nature stand as justification in calls for assistance programs to be made more difficult to access, or for them to be rolled back or withdrawn for everyone, as a means of ensuring that the feckless, workshy, skiving, scroungers do not get anything they don't deserve.

By my lights, this kind of attitude is entirely based on a view about the moral status of poverty as a personal failing - even where those forwarding it might acknowledge or accept that anyone can find themselves in such a state through no fault of their own. The general 'get out' for that moral paradox is to talk about those in 'genuine need' as being a distinct exception from those who are merely faking it - those whose reported need is questionable, counterfeit, illegitimate, or otherwise dubious. We hear similar talk about so-called 'genuine asylum seekers' as compared to a presumed majority of illegitimate, deceiving immigrant simply looking for handouts or to undercut the low wages of the working poor. In both cases the spectre of innate moral dubiousness within the nominal groups is cited in justification for remedial action which, imo, unduly and adversely impacts on those whom assistance programs are predicated on supporting.

The OP of this thread is not intended to pose a question requiring a response in the form of an absolute moral fact (Is poverty a moral failing, yes or no?), and I earnestly hope that discussing this issue can avoid being drawn into such simplistic and, frankly, pointless reductions.

[pErvinalia]

The question you should be asking is - Is neoliberalism a moral failing? Your more recent posts are actually addressing this.

[pErvinalia]

....

[Brian Peacock]

If you want to start that thread I might chip in, but the question I'm asking is the one on the table. I'm talking about a specific issue, not an entire political ideology here. By implication, I'm also forwarding a view that a more, shall we say, compassionate, utilitarian approach to this corner of social and economic policy is both morally defensible and more practical in terms of achieving its aims and securing and maintaining the well being of society as a whole.

[JimC]

I'll chip in one thought, though. Given that the "work-shirker" label for people on benefits is a gross exaggeration, it still remains true that a certain (small) proportion of people make a life-style decision to roll with a non-work lifestyle. What attitude is reasonable to have towards that segment?

Additionally, I would be fairly certain than long-term dependence on social benefits can lead to a form of fatalist, apathetic depression, at least in some, which makes it difficult for them to re-engage in gainful employment.

None of this, of course, misses the point that much poverty and unemployment is structural, or that governments should be doing a lot more in the area of training for example.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. And I think that we also have to remember that for any number of people in assistance programs a proportion will have and retain severely reduced capacities to contribute to the wider economy - either due to particular social-economic or individual circumstances. To describe these people by the catchall of 'feckless shirkers' not only speaks to weakness of The Puritan Work Ethic mentioned earlier, but often appears to me as little more than a deliberate campaign of dehumanisation.

[pErvinalia]

The ideology of neoliberalism perfectly explains the "specific issue" that you are referring to. I might post an excerpt later from my blog post on the morality behind neoliberalism in Tero and my blog thread.

[Hermit]

Moral opprobrium concerning the unemployed preceded neoliberalism by a long shot. The Act for the Relief of the Poor, enacted in 1601, defined four classes of poor people. One of them consisted of "the impotent poor", i.e. people who were unable to work, typically because they were lame, impotent, old or blind, and they were cared for in almshouse or a poorhouse. Another were "the idle poor". They were lumped in with vagrants and sent to Houses of Correction, sometimes to prison. The poor laws were modernised in 1835, which remained in effect until social welfare systems were devised after WWII, but broadly speaking retained the same classification.

[Svartalf]

I'm no feckless shirker, I did my share and took my pension, I'd have worked longer to get a bigger pension had I been able.

[pErvinalia]

Moral opprobrium concerning the unemployed preceded neoliberalism by a long shot.

So what? That says nothing about whether neoliberalism explains moral opprobrium of the poor in today's times.

[Svartalf]

neoliberalism in anglo country is the direct heir of the puritan work ethic, ergo the wealthy are 'blessed' and the poor are tuh Eebil

[Brian Peacock]

People have always thought that bad things happening are some kind of punishment for bad things done.

[Svartalf]

Can be understood in places where the local religion has a concept like Karma, not in civilized areas where Reason is the order of the day.