Home Twelve The moral condemnation of the poor
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Twelve The moral condemnation of the poor

  • Paul Spicker
View more publications by Policy Press
The idea of poverty
This chapter is in the book The idea of poverty

Abstract

Accepting that poverty is serious is only the first step towards accepting responsibility. The second step is to accept that something ought to be done. One of the most common strategies for denying that responsibility is the claim that poverty is the responsibility of the poor themselves. But the moral principles which lead people to accept responsibility are not, for the most part, affected or negated by the actions or behaviour of poor people. If poor people are suffering, they are not suffering less if it is their own fault. If we owe a charitable duty to God, it applies whether or not poor people are deserving. If poor people have rights, they have rights whether or not they have behaved badly. The only principle that is clearly affected by the conduct of poor people is the duty of solidarity. Solidarity changes according to the situation of each person. Blaming the poor changes the nature of the moral obligation between the people involved; it also turns poor people into something different from ourselves, and puts them at a distance.

By contrast with arguments about the seriousness of the issue, the moral condemnation of the poor gets much less academic attention. Here are some examples. The first is from Edward Banfield’s book, The unheavenly city:

The lower class individual lives in a slum and sees little or no reason to complain. He does not care how dirty and dilapidated his housing is either inside or out, nor does he mind the inadequacy of such public facilities as schools, parks and libraries; indeed, where such things exist he destroys them by acts of vandalism if he can.

Abstract

Accepting that poverty is serious is only the first step towards accepting responsibility. The second step is to accept that something ought to be done. One of the most common strategies for denying that responsibility is the claim that poverty is the responsibility of the poor themselves. But the moral principles which lead people to accept responsibility are not, for the most part, affected or negated by the actions or behaviour of poor people. If poor people are suffering, they are not suffering less if it is their own fault. If we owe a charitable duty to God, it applies whether or not poor people are deserving. If poor people have rights, they have rights whether or not they have behaved badly. The only principle that is clearly affected by the conduct of poor people is the duty of solidarity. Solidarity changes according to the situation of each person. Blaming the poor changes the nature of the moral obligation between the people involved; it also turns poor people into something different from ourselves, and puts them at a distance.

By contrast with arguments about the seriousness of the issue, the moral condemnation of the poor gets much less academic attention. Here are some examples. The first is from Edward Banfield’s book, The unheavenly city:

The lower class individual lives in a slum and sees little or no reason to complain. He does not care how dirty and dilapidated his housing is either inside or out, nor does he mind the inadequacy of such public facilities as schools, parks and libraries; indeed, where such things exist he destroys them by acts of vandalism if he can.

Downloaded on 29.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.56687/9781447342601-015/html
Scroll to top button