Poverty, Ethics and Justice

Hennie Lötter

• Publisher: University of Wales Press
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9780708325711, 9780708324004
• eBook ISBN: 9781783160273
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Ethics & Moral Philosophy

Poverty violates fundamental human values through its impact on individuals and human environments. Poverty also goes against the core values of democratic societies. This title describes poverty in ways that depict this devastating human condition. It shows why inequalities associated with poverty require our serious moral concern.

Part 1

The Complexity of Poverty as a Moral Issue

1 • Are We One Another’s Keepers Across the Globe?

Sometimes it seems as if most people care deeply about the fate of the world’s poor people. Pop stars present concerts for the benefit of the poor and thousands of the world’s well-off people attend these concerts, buy the recordings and applaud musicians who succeed to focus the world’s attention on the plight of poor people everywhere. Some governments in First World countries have impressive aid packages for poor countries that run into billions of dollars. Many regional and global organizations have made the eradication of desperate poverty in underdeveloped countries their top priority. They have invested in the best scientific research to understand the dynamics of societies where poverty seemingly cannot be eradicated. They have formulated plans and policies that can hopefully accomplish the impossible. Even at those rare events where leaders of most countries in the world gather, poverty has been treated as one of the most urgent problems in the world that requires attention and action from every citizen on our planet.

Yet, poverty persists. Billions of people still suffer the wide array of consequences that poverty brings despite the good intentions expressed by the millions of people mentioned above. Millions of the poor people on earth die prematurely and suffer unnecessary health problems. Many millions more have inadequate opportunities to develop their human potential. So many poor people experience feelings of being deprived of the good things in life that our human skill and ingenuity can conjure up from the vast treasures available to us as resources.

Why does desperate poverty persist on such a massive scale in our world? Why can the good intentions of millions and large amounts of money not eradicate the kind of poverty that sucks life from literally billions of people? There are many good reasons why poverty is such a difficult problem to deal with effectively. Part of this book offers a theory that can help us explain why poverty is such a complex affair that is so difficult to uproot. In this chapter I focus on one reason only: the intransigence of millions of well-off individuals who refuse to make poverty priority enough to eliminate it from human societies.

Why are so many well-off people so comfortable with their wealth and so little worried about the desperate poverty of millions? Why do so many well-to-do persons claim their money for themselves and refuse to give money, time, resources, skill and expertise that could rescue desperately poor individuals from their fate? Why do they – we – neglect the poor if ‘the extent to which we neglect the needy’ can easily and with wide consensus be described as ‘a serious moral failing’ (Temkin, 2004: 365)?

Perhaps one reason is the overwhelming scale of poverty. What can an individual do that will make any meaningful difference to the lot of the world’s billions of poor people? Although this sense of being up against overwhelming odds might be a reason for inaction, I want to explore another possible reason for the inaction of the world’s well-off citizens in the face of the plight of the poor: an individualism that justifies any existing inequalities.

Many well-off citizens firmly believe that they deserve their good fortune. They have a right to their good income as they have worked for it. For this reason they can use their money to provide for their own needs for food, shelter and clothing. They can also justifiably use the money they have earned through their talents and hard work to satisfy their most fanciful wants, such as acquiring a luxurious car with state-of-the-art technology, going on an expensive holiday in an exotic location, having dinner at an exclusive restaurant or buying front row tickets for a concert or sports match full of superstars.

How could this way of thinking be wrong? If people do lawful work for which society pays a just reward, why should they not spend their lawfully deserved income as they see fit? Surely no one has the right to interfere with their liberty to spend their income according to their judgement?

I first want to undermine the individualism of this position by pointing out the extent to which any individual is dependent on and forms part of a network of people. Such networks are interconnected to various other networks of people throughout the world. I argue that individual merit is only possible as a result of an individual’s deep dependence and reliance on many different networks of people who enable or facilitate what individuals do. If individuals can only function within various interconnected networks consisting of rich and poor people, educated and uneducated people, local and overseas people, then we will have to rethink our relationships with and responsibilities towards people everywhere.

Let me explain my view on the interconnectedness of individuals in networks by means of an imagined example that is true to life. Suppose we look at a CEO of a manufacturing business in a developed First World country. Such people often regard themselves as ‘self-made’ people who got to their privileged positions on their own steam. However, as babies they were dependent on care takers for everything: food, clothing, hygiene, income, care, love and so on. As children they relied on parents and guardians for income, food, shelter, clothing, educational opportunities, emotional nurturance and moral guidance. The roles of teachers and friends in their web of interconnected individuals are deeply significant as well. Similarly, the contributions of fellow citizens whose taxes paid teachers, constructed roads, built schools, developed parks and paid for sports fields cannot be denied, not to mention the efforts of the people who performed all these services. In the same way the work of the people who established the school and nurtured its traditions, as well as the large numbers of people responsible for the curricula and the knowledge found therein must be acknowledged as contributors to the success of our CEO. Obviously we cannot ignore the functions of cleaners and refuse removers whose work ensured that our CEO was not unnecessarily exposed to materials or organisms that could negatively affect his health.

At this point our imaginary CEO will have to acknowledge that his development from a child into an educated adult was heavily dependent on a whole range of individuals who belonged to different networks of people, some forming his personal world of home, circle of friends, school or home town. Others are further removed, such as fellow citizens of a local government, fellow citizens of a country responsible for an educational system or creators of scientific knowledge scattered through various countries of the world. Without these various inputs of different people from several networks our CEO would never have developed physically, emotionally, socially, intellectually or professionally. His success not only depended on his particular talents, but especially on being enabled by numerous other individuals to use the opportunities made available through the individual and collective efforts of other humans interfacing with his world and impacting on his life.

‘But,’ our CEO says, ‘since my development into adulthood I have lived my own life. I have utilized opportunities through knowledge, insight, skill and hard work. I thus deserve my income as reward for smart and productive labour.’ Perhaps our CEO would sing a different tune if we asked him to operate his business in the middle of the Sahara desert. All of a sudden our CEO would realize how much he is dependent on suppliers of water, electricity, raw materials, equipment, space, labour and services to run his manufacturing business, or how much he relies on customers to sustain the viability of his business.

Perhaps some detail of his reliance on others might prove useful. Our CEO depends on both raw and refined materials for his manufacturing operation. Some raw materials come from underdeveloped countries, where unskilled labourers perform most of the physical labour needed for extraction of such raw materials. The success and profitability of our CEO’s business thus may depend on the reliable and cost-effective delivery of raw materials from mines in an underdeveloped country, based largely on the physical labour of unskilled workers. Don’t forget that in addition to all the forms of dependence and reliance mentioned earlier, our CEO now also depends on a huge number of networks to provide him with consumer products to sustain his health, to move from one place to the next, to manufacture his wares, to find entertainment and so on. His jet-setting, for example, is only made possible through numerous networks of humans involved with matters as diverse as the production of scientific technology to issues as mundane as cleaning airport buildings and keeping birds off landing strips.

If it is true that our CEO is no self-made man, but that his entrepreneurial success depends on the inputs, contributions and interactions of a wide variety of individuals tied into several interfacing networks, does he then owe any individuals in these mutually influential networks any moral obligation? Does he have any responsibility to turn mutually influential relationships into mutually beneficial ones? Suppose the unskilled mine workers on whom he relies for raw materials get paid wages on which they cannot properly support a family, should he intervene? Does his responsibility towards others end when he pays them for their products and services?

There are two obvious reasons why our CEO seemingly ought to be concerned with the well-being of all the people with whom he shares some kind of interconnected web of relations. One reason is that he cannot operate his business nor take proper care of himself without the inputs and contributions of others with whom he is interconnected, however remote those interconnections might be. He simply cannot operate his business in the middle of the Sahara desert. He depends and relies too heavily on networked partners to provide him with products and services of all kinds to not care about their well-being. His own enlightened self-interest dictates that his multiple webs of interconnected partners must enjoy a minimum well-being to enable them to continue playing their roles in his life. Although these roles are of varying importance to him, he relies and depends on them for his continued survival, success and flourishing.

Perhaps our CEO might object at this point. He could argue that he is not able to care about people that far removed from him through physical distance. Through evolution humans evolved to be aware of and in touch with fellow humans within the normal range of our senses, like eyesight and hearing. Moral concern thus ends where normal human interaction with fellow humans is not possible anymore. To be concerned about people whom you have never seen is just too much to ask. To take the interests into account of millions of people who live far away and are totally out of sight is too taxing. Seeing suffering with your own eyes in your own life world is far more engaging and touches your moral sentiments more deeply than getting to know about suffering far off indirectly through the media (see Cullity, 2004: 21). As a result many well-off humans all over the world, Fabre says (2007: 96), ‘allow distant strangers to live under conditions of deprivation which we would not tolerate at home’.

Is this objection valid in an era where instant communication puts us in contact with people from all over the globe? Larry Temkin (2004: 381), for example, claims that people can no longer ‘confidently claim that they are not responsible for the situation in other countries … as our causal powers have expanded, so, too, have the demands of morality and justice’.

The other reason why our CEO ought to be concerned with the well-being of all the people with whom he shares some kind of interconnected relational web is linked to his self-interest to have a good public image. Our CEO cannot publicly be seen to act as someone who dominates all people he deals with, or as someone who exploits business associates in a ruthless way. Our CEO would not want a reputation as someone who deliberately extracts his wealth through abusing the weaknesses or vulnerabilities of others. In our contemporary world with its glaring media spotlights ready to focus on any whiff of scandal, he would be hesitant to behave secretly in these ways as well. If he thus feels pressure to display a hint of fairness in his business dealings, he will have to consider the interests of those individuals with whom he interacts within his numerous webs of interconnected persons. Again, his self-interest dictates that he must be seen to treat people fairly.

If we transpose the simplified example of our CEO to the complex interactions and interwoven webs of interconnected relationships between communities, countries and continents on many more levels than just trade, such as politics, science, technology, entertainment, sport and communication, we can easily imagine that our well-being as humans on earth have become so deeply linked that we cannot ignore one another’s well-being any more. The significance of our webs of interconnected interactions show clearly in the fragility of local to intercontinental transport systems to fuel shortages and terror threats. It also manifests in the vulnerability of economic systems to failures of supporting systems or shortages of core resources that occur continents apart.

Thus, we can care somewhat about other people if we talk about our self-interest and public image at individual or collective level, but can we talk about ethics? Is it enough that we determine the nature of our interaction with other human beings only by taking them into account as far as they affect our self-interest? Should we merely consider other people’s interests if they affect our livelihoods or if our public image might be tarnished if we treat other people inappropriately?

Throughout history some humans have been concerned about their impact on other human beings. Most sets of ethical values known to us attempt to take other people’s interests and well-being into account to some extent. Thus, choices about how to live one’s life are informed by what we judge a suitable balance between our own interests and the interests of those whom we affect. The kind of impact we allow our actions to have on others says a lot about the quality of human life we set ourselves out to accomplish. Blackburn (2001: 1) says we are ‘ethical animals’ that find our ‘standards of behaviour’ in our ethical values that give us our ‘ideas about how to live’.

It is characteristic of our species that we have no innate instruction manual or instinct that determines how to live our lives or interact with others. We are born into communities where we are taught appropriate behaviour towards others and are exposed to various options of what meaningful human living might be. As we grow up, we question, interrogate, modify and revise available options as we select and appropriate parts of our culture in the process of designing and building a life of our own.

What are the matters that we take into account and the issues we resolve when we decide our ethics, that is, the guidelines for how we ought to interact with other people or the impact we might legitimately have on their lives? Let us join our imaginary CEO on his quest to develop an ethical life. He has now become aware of his impact on other people in addition to his variety of interactions with a diverse number of people: he is now aware of the way his actions influence and affect what happens to others and how his choices have consequences for the well-being of many people. He knows that those impacts are sometimes negative and sometimes positive. For example, he knows that the lack of adequate safety measures in his manufacturing plant can significantly harm a worker through injuries to his or her body. He knows that his attempts at saving costs through less frequent maintenance of his vehicles might lead to accidents that cause injuries to people’s bodies or damage to their vehicles. The consequences of serious bodily injuries to workers could mean that those people suffer mental distress and reduced opportunities to engage in productive work that enables them to care properly for their families. Loss of income can have a knock-on effect on the accident victim’s children whose chances are now diminished to develop their full potential through engaging in activities that require costly education or training. Thus, besides the physical pain brought about through bodily injury, our CEO’s negligence may cause significant emotional distress in the worker’s family. This family must now deal with the consequences that the impairment of physical functions necessary for gainful employment has on their lives that leaves the children with a smaller range of options available for their personal development into competent, mature adults.

In other cases the CEO finds it difficult to decide whether the negative impact of his actions should be avoided or endured. Suppose he has the good intention to mine sand dunes in a developing country to provide employment for a struggling poor community of thousands of jobless people. His project will benefit hundreds of families in the short term by providing jobs with good income. The project will advantage the children with much better educational opportunities in the longer term. Unfortunately, the environmental impact of this development will cause significant destruction of a unique ecosystem and endanger the continued existence of several rare species. The mining will also spoil the scenic qualities of a relatively intact wilderness area that will diminish the ecotourism potential of the area.

Our CEO now discovers that some human actions have multiple effects and consequences, of which some have a negative impact for some interest groups whilst others have a positive impact that increases the well-being of other interest groups. Now he will have to learn to weigh the impact and consequences of his proposed mining project so that he can be clear whether he can justify proceeding with the mine or not. He intends to use his entrepreneurial skills to alleviate the rampant poverty within this jobless community and realizes that his failure to do anything will continue the suffering resulting from large-scale unemployment in the community. However, if his intended job creation plans are to continue, he will have to find ways to resolve the conflict between the positive and negative outcomes in a way that will be fair to the interests of everyone involved, the fragile ecosystem included.1

Suppose our CEO successfully explores all possibilities of how to redesign the mining development to limit the negative impact it might have on the fragile ecosystem. He thus invests in the mining project, now to be accompanied by an ecotourism project as well. The ecotourism project will offer further opportunities for locals to utilize the natural resources of their immediate environment for their benefit.

Our CEO pats himself on the shoulder as he experiences deep satisfaction about his accomplishments through such projects. Not only has he employed his talents to engage in meaningful work through which he could properly care for his family, but his work had a positive impact on the life of an impoverished community. Not only could he help reduce their suffering that resulted from a lack of jobs and income, but he could also promote their well-being and enhance their flourishing through the consequences brought about by his project that enabled them to use their natural resources productively and wisely.

The rosy picture of the turn...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part 1: The Complexity of Poverty as a Moral Issue
• Part 2: The Complexity of Moral Ways to Eradicate Poverty
• Conclusion: A Theory of Poverty and its Eradication
• Notes
• Bibliography