After being introduced to Joe, a man who has suffered greatly after losing his job of 15 years and being reduced to homelessness upon the depletion of his life savings, certain thoughts come to mind. Namely, the first feeling that comes to one’s mind is a sense of déjà vu; the notion that you have quite possibly heard this story before, or at least similar accounts. Understandably, such stories as these are quite prominent in today’s economy, especially considering the length and magnitude of our recent economic recession. Needless to say, without any savings nor any means of replenishing his account, Joe is stuck in his current state of homelessness unless something changes. To make matters worse, the only change that seems to be taking place is his apparent growing alcoholism and the psychological toll being taken from being increasingly isolated from mainstream society, despite being in the midst of it. The sense of discouragement being felt by Joe must be tremendous, and he seems to be digging himself deeper and deeper into an abyss in which there is no foreseeable end or conclusion other than dying in the streets. The first logical question one may ask when considering all of these factors is what is Joe supposed to do? What can he do? If all possibilities have been considered and there is no clear answer, what is left? When the individual has done everything he or she can, the next step is where other people come in; what can other people do to help? Should they bother to help in the first place if Joe’s fate seems to be inevitable? I believe that society has a responsibility to help those in need, and I am going to explain why I think that is. But before I defend my own opinion, I will address the opposing views of others.
There is a school of thought out there that teaches the idea that all you need to do to be a good person is look after your own (be it family, close friends, associates, etc.) and should not be held responsible for the needs of those who do not fit into your exclusive circle of family and friends. There are also those who believe that since a fair number of homeless people suffer from various mental disorders, there really isn’t anything one can do to help them, since their lack of life skills will always eventually put them back on the street (Debate, 2013). Furthermore, even those amongst the homeless who do not suffer from any apparent mental conditions do not need to be helped either, simply because they were lazy and made poor life decisions that led to their failure and thus, they’ve given up. Some of those who have given up would even reject help from others since they know they deserve their fate. There are other people, still, who believe that aiding the poor and homeless as an individual is unnecessary because as long as there are enough wealthy citizens in any given country, their wealth will eventually circulate throughout the system and make its way down to those with lower income. Therefore, according to this belief, the wealthier the rich, the more stable the middle class and poor are going to be. Believers in such a philosophy also support lower tax rates for the rich because if the higher classes are the nation’s greatest monetary contributors to society, and therefore the most valuable, then they should not have to pay the same tax rates as the general population. This concept is known as “Trickle-down Economics” (Etebari, 2003), and it serves as justification by many wealthy people for their lack of involvement in charity and social programs for the poor.
The biggest problem with trickle-down economics is that it does not work as advertised. The reason why is that studies have shown that the correlation between tax cuts for the rich and gross domestic product (GDP), wage increases, or unemployment rates does not exist (Etebari, 2003). In fact, upon closer inspection of the charts, provided by Faireconomy.org (2003), one can see high and low tax rates for the rich seem to affect all of the aforementioned factors in the same way, which means that all of these secondary factors undergo trends of their own, independent of upper tax rates, which, in turn, indicates that GDP, wages, and unemployment rates are unrelated to upper tax rates altogether. If a person was to snap his or her fingers and toss a ball in the air, one could technically make a case for the two actions being interdependent and related to one another. But in knowing what is required to toss a ball, one can come to understand that the snapping of fingers is not required in order to perform such a feat. In other words, simply because two incidents can occur at the same time, it does not serve as evidence that one of the actions causes the other. The point I am making here is that there is no logical basis for trickle-down economics being a form of aid to the less fortunate.
Speaking in ethical terms, if the middle and upper classes are not actively involved in the process of helping others, then in the end, it is society that suffers. This is because if the majority of access to money and stability is reserved for the needs of a few, then the amount of poor and homeless people will continue to grow, and there will be a gap between rich and poor. If that gap continues to increase, then there will be a greater number of people born in poverty, meaning that entire generations will be raised this way. If this trend continues unchanged, then eventually, future generations will live in overwhelming poverty and society may not be able to sustain itself, especially if there aren’t enough healthy, qualified people to hold it together. A society thrives when it takes care of its own, and when the idea of making one’s own way in the world fails for some people, then those who have the most are obligated to help those who have less, or nothing at all (especially people like Joe, who has lost everything), in order for society to thrive. Deciding not to take action and aid the poor and unfortunate translates to growing resentment between social classes and greater stratification, not unlike a caste system. When this scenario takes place, the working class people resent the rich, the rich are indifferent to the working class, and regard the poor as lazy, while the poor despise the rich and feel ignored by everyone (Gunn, Rikabi, & Huebner, 2013). Evidence shows, that when people reach out to one another and act selflessly, there is a greater sense of community and the poor and homeless not only do not feel like outcasts, but they can come to realize that as long as they live, there is always a chance to rejoin society. This is apparent in publicly funded housing programs and homeless shelters that aim to help the homeless achieve just that (Zhao, 2012).
It would seem that the very structure and health of a civilization is dependent upon the actions of the current generation in power. Without the help of others, there is no survival. Helping one another is at our very core as a species; if those with the most power and resources never helped those with less, our predecessors would have never developed civilization in the first place. So in addressing the question of whether or not it is ethical to ignore people living in poverty, given the evidence presented, the answer would have to be a resounding “no”. If it is detrimental to humankind’s survival, and therefore to one’s own existence, then it would be most difficult to argue against the idea of inaction being unethical. The rich in the United States, for example, have mostly descended from immigrants and settlers who relied upon the charity of already existing inhabitants of the Americas, without which, their very lives may not have been saved at one point or another.
References:
Debate.org. (2013). Should We Help the Homeless?. Debate.org. Retrieved from: http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-we-help-the-homeless
Etebari, M. (2003). Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why it Just Doesn’t Work. UFE – United for a Fair Economy. Faireconomy.org. Retrieved from: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
Gunn, J., Rikabi, G., Huebner, C. G. (2013). Do You See Me? Ethical Considerations of the Homeless. Online Journal of Health Ethics. Retrieved from: http://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=ojhe
Zhao, J. (2012). Why We Should Care About the Homeless Vote. National Coalition for the Homeless. Nationalhomeless.org. Retrieved from: http://nationalhomeless.org/WordPress/2012/08/why-we-should-care-about-the-homeless-vote/
