Everyday Ethics

The compassionate, bleeding heart liberal in me is desperately clinging to a desire to help my fellow man as much as humanly possible, without regard to financial burden or legislative backlog.  This point of view seemed very simple during my undergraduate upbringing, especially considering the number of sociology classes that  I took.  Sociology is a discipline dominated by the postmodern view that human beings are largely the product of their environment, and that we cannot hold others responsible for their less than ideal life circumstances.

When one is a young idealist, it is a very short leap from this perspective to the simple conclusion that, as a society, we ought to help the less fortunate as much as possible.  Safely confined in the marbled halls of academia, I was an outspoken defender of the downtrodden, pushing more compassion, more understanding, and more money invested in the welfare state.

But now, having spent several years working with the human realities of this conundrum, I find myself at an ethical crossroads.  The compassionate, understanding optimist is staring the hardened cynic squarely in the face, both uncertain of who will ultimately prevail.  The question at hand is this:  How much effort should society put into helping its lowest rung?

It would be exceedingly difficult to do justice to this topic in such a limited format, so our focus will be more appropriate if we simplify ask if government, and society as a whole, is responsible for the welfare of its least fortunate citizenry at all, without regard to the degree of or limits on such assistance. I believe that, for a variety of reasons, we do have some degree of responsibility to aid those in need, and that to fail to do so is simply poor governance in addition to being immoral.

First, some of my idealist dreams have been shattered by a cold, harsh reality, but I do hold that people are primarily shaped by their environment.  Although negative circumstances can be overcome, to do so is a difficult task requiring patience, support, and resources.  Further, from a strictly societal perspective it does not make good sense to allow the poverty stricken to drown in their misery because it has a negative impact on the societal whole.  Utilitarian considerations weigh heavily on such an issue.

People will not simply lie down and die when life becomes a challenge.  Rather, they tend to go outside the box and resort to criminal behavior or other undesirable means in order to survive.  The crime-poverty connection is well documented and not worthy of debate.  As ethicists, we should ask if it is morally appropriate for a society to cause, however indirectly, an increase in crime and crime-related issues due to a failure to act against poverty.  Obviously, aside from being unreasonable, such inactivity is not morally appropriate.  From this, I feel confident in stating that societies and governments are responsible for aiding the needy of the world to at least some extent.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan with his wife Laura, his son Brandon, age two and a half, and two cats, both of whom are mentally deranged.