Introduction
The question of the ethics of poverty does not necessarily decide whether poverty is right or wrong. The responsibility of caring for others regarding proper receipt of the necessities for life may not be as black and white as reminiscent of virtue or vice. As a result of psychological and historical factors, poverty can be assessed in terms of qualities such as utility, existential standpoint, or functionality.
Utility quality emphasizes helping most people avoid suffering as much as possible. Therefore, utilitarianism considers whether it is realistic or practical and whether anything can reasonably be done to salvage others from pain (Häyry, 2020). The existential or egoist perspective assesses whether the potential exists to assist individuals in living out their best destinies.
Ethical Theories
Existentialism
The discussion delves into the three theories of existentialism, functionalism, and utilitarianism to explain the ethical aspect of poverty. Existentialism or egoism supposes that humans must create their lives, selves, and values and have the freedom to create meaning (The Ethics Centre, 2018). People are born without a destiny, which is upon individuals, meaning they are condemned to be free.
Political liberty, material prosperity, and the struggle for bare existence and survival have increased the effort to find genuine meaning for existence (The Ethics Centre, 2018). Existentialism reinforces the idea that for nobility to thrive, there must be less fortunate people. Nevertheless, this idea shows the negative qualities of economic inequality; if there is an inevitable caste system, one must be an outcast.
People with unique qualities that would benefit a whole society would instead be left to waste away due to birthright. The current system awards virtues over others and aids certain personality types to get ahead instead of rewarding individuals based on their hard work or contribution (The Ethics Centre, 2018). No virtue should be embraced over any other in a fair and just society because it immediately indicates a form of bias. Even the self-centered ethical ideals of egoism, as expressed by its proponents, equal opportunities to achieve happiness are of the utmost importance.
Utilitarianism
Aside from any arguments on the rightfulness or wrongness of monetary gain over poverty, it is possible to suggest complete nonsensicality over the terms of the concept of utility. Utilitarianism theory holds that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the most significant number (Häyry, 2020). From a utilitarian view, members of society would be working toward the common goal of providing the most pleasure for the highest number of people (Häyry, 2020). Utilitarians believe that all people are morally equal and should be treated impartially. It sounds wasteful when one hears of millions of empty homes denied to people without homes because they do not have the means to get the money.
Functionalism
The functionalist theory assumes that a society’s structure exists because it helps the society function and maintain stability. The theory argues that stratification exists because it is functional and inevitable for society (Beck & Grayot, 2021). Functionalists will say that poverty, even though it negatively impacts several people, is not only beneficial for society but also inevitable.
From a functionalist perspective, society needs poor people for it to function. Therefore, some people are poor because they cannot gain the skills and knowledge necessary for high-paying jobs. While this may be a disadvantage for some people, it presents advantages to others.
Theories Comparison
Functionalism looks at poverty from a broader perspective, focusing on how society as a whole is impacted by poverty. The theory maintains that poverty exists to benefit the community because people can never be equal (Beck & Grayot, 2021). After all, individuals have varying incentives to succeed. On the contrary, utilitarians suggest that the more happiness and less suffering resulting from human actions, the better the action (Häyry, 2020). Therefore, any other activity that causes suffering, like poverty, is morally wrong.
Unlike functionalism, which attributes individual effort to poverty, utilitarians imply it is the collective society’s responsibility to minimize poverty. Existentialism and functionalism are similar since they suggest that personal determination toward success contributes to social status in the community. Therefore, those working hard deserve all the good life that comes alongside it, and people experiencing poverty deserve their place in society to function. While utilitarians advocate for assisting others for society’s greater good, functionalism and existentialism, suggest a vested interest in neglecting poverty to ensure its continued existence.
Reform vs. Acceptance
Functionalism and existentialism do not offer any solution for how society can change to reduce poverty. Rather than accepting poverty as something that provides some function, utilitarianism claims poverty is unsuitable for the community and can be minimized through good gestures towards one another. It is neither necessary nor inevitable to have poverty in society because it is something the society has produced and can be changed.
Functionalism and existentialism imply that people with power may take advantage of their position at the top of society to stay there, even if it means oppressing those at the bottom. Therefore, as existential theory suggests, it is all about humans’ responsibility to make the right choices in life for themselves and others (The Ethics Centre, 2018). While utilitarian theory recognizes structural barriers that prevent individuals from achieving upward social mobility, it emphasizes the need for collective responsibility, like existential theory, to achieve the greater good of society.
Which Theory Best Addresses Poverty?
The following conclusions can be drawn, having observed the three ethical theories and their possible treatment of poverty issues. Existential and functionalism theories conclude that there is no basis for helping people experiencing poverty. Utilitarianism looks for practical use and proposes that it benefits society. Whichever perspective one subscribes to, people are living in poverty without access to resources, not because of their own inadequacies but because of the government’s design, which stems from ethical principles (Häyry, 2020). Realizing a solution to poverty would require a subconscious consideration of all the applicable ethical philosophies, including those discussed in this context.
Utilitarianism theory offers much more to explain poverty than the other two theories. It is a simple theory with a universal application built on happiness. Each action a human takes should aim to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. The theory works well in moral dynamics, such as poverty. According to the theory, helping others overcome poverty is everyone’s ethical responsibility to achieve the greater good in society (Häyry, 2020).
Often, people experiencing homelessness live under poor conditions, yet there are unoccupied houses. The theory suggests that it is morally right to take away those houses to give to others to relieve them from suffering, even if it means denying the property owner the right to earn from their investment. In summary, utilitarianism theory offers a better approach to dealing with societal inequalities rather than promoting individualism.
References
Beck, L., & Grayot, J. D. (2021). New functionalism and the social and behavioral sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(4), 1–6. Web.
Häyry, M. (2020). Just better utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 1–25. Web.
The Ethics Centre. (2018). Ethics explainer: Existentialism. The Ethics Centre. Web.