Moral Obligations and Poverty

A review of the following article: 

Glover, Jonathan . "An Inconvenient Moral Truth." The Philosopher's Magazine. Winter 2006: 49-53. Print.

    In this article, Glover poses an interesting question that may or may not come to mind for some people. The question of whether or not we have a moral obligation to help people, more specifically help the poor, is raised. A concept of comparable moral significance suggests that if it is within our power to prevent something bad and we are not sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then we do have somewhat of a moral obligation to do it. However, the question of what is of comparable moral significance becomes an issue.  So what does this mean for people in poverty? Do we have a moral obligation to help them? Glover contends that much of poverty stems from the exploitation of poorer countries, the way stronger governments negotiate with weaker governments, and policies in place that prevent industries in the underdeveloped and developing world from competing with our own. The reality is that much of the misery in this world is preventable and caused by the economic conditions from which our country and countries with more wealth benefit; this is an injustice.

           

            The concept of exploitation and how it is connected with moral obligation raises a very important question. If poorer countries are being exploited and we as a society are essentially keeping them in poverty, what can we do to help them? Is it even possible to help such a large population of people? As Young (in Justice and Politics of Difference) describes in her chapters about the distributive paradigm and the five faces of oppression, much of injustice is rooted in the structure of institutions. This is touched upon by Glover as well, as he describes how society should work together and remove ourselves from the instinctive path of problem solving. Many people think that giving money to charity is the way to tackle poverty and help. Yet so many people complain that they cannot help impoverished people because they have their own families they need to support. This way of thinking makes us blind to other strategies though. Why sacrifice the money and resources to a cause when it is rarely effective and not tackling the root of the problem? A more logical way of thinking would be to each contribute by using our skills and intelligence to match what we like doing with what may help the problem. If someone is good at campaigning and critical thinking, then they may be able to fight poverty by proposing solutions and getting them implemented.

            The solution of thinking, participating, and utilizing one’s own skill set, is like that proposed by Young (p.37). Being a doer instead of just someone who recognizes injustice and does nothing about it. If we all recognize injustice and say it is not our problem, injustice becomes self-perpetuating. The exploitation involved in allowing poverty to pervade society reveals the coercive structure that gives weaker countries very few options to resist it. Glover introduces the topic of our perceptions of saints and heroes adopting self-sacrifice and doing things for the public good and asks if it is absurd to say everyone has a duty to act this way. But when poverty exists because of injustice we create, haven’t we already put ourselves in a position where it is our moral obligation to help?

            Maybe I am overly ambitious, maybe I am unrealistic, but I do not think that extreme self-sacrifice is necessarily unrealistic. No, we cannot all be saints and heroes, but as Glover said, much of the misery in this world is preventable. I do not understand why so many people resist helping others because they are a complete stranger. If we do things for the public good, would that not make the world a better place? And would that not make one happy to live in it? Glover’s article brought into perspective how my actions affect others, or do not affect others. I feel as though we as human beings do not have a duty or should feel obligated to help others, but that is what is morally right and if we were in a situation requiring someone to help us out of good moral, we would want someone to consider helping us because it was the right thing to do. No one has to be extreme, but I think that Glover makes a good point – if we all put together our thoughts and ideas and utilized our skills, we would be able to help more effectively and prevent injustice from pervading our society.