Theodore Dalrymple is a critic and psychiatrist who has written articles on various controversial topics. In one of his many essays, What Is Poverty, which was published in 1999, he argues about the definition of poor. The author states that the perception of poverty has changed in recent years; however, it transformed not on a global scale, but only in welfare countries. The purpose of this paper is to present his point of view and analyze it by applying philosophical concepts.
The author demonstrates his understanding of poverty by saying that nowadays, it does not mean that someone lacks enough money to eat or pay for healthcare. According to Dalrymple, being “poor is just having less than rich” (p. 1). He explains it by noting that these changes occurred due to industrialization; thus, those who earn less can be considered poor even if they can afford to satisfy their basic needs. However, the author also argues that since the welfare system has advanced in recent years, people started to take it for granted and sometimes even exploit it (Dalrymple, p. 2).
He argues by bringing up his personal experiences as an example. Dalrymple compares how people in first-world and third-world countries behave towards doctors by sharing some stories. He talks about how doctors from India and Philthe ippines were astonished to see the ungratefulness of English people who received treatment. Although doctors and nurses provided intensive care, some patients were rude to them and behaved like they were kidnapped. At first, foreign doctors considered such situations to be unusual, but later they were surprised to find out that such an attitude was the norm.
To create a contrast, the author then tells about his experience when he worked in Africa as a doctor. Unlike in England, people in Africa were grateful to receive treatment and made every effort to receive it. In these countries, there is a big disparity between the rich and the poor, but Dalrymple states that he “never saw the loss of dignity, the self-centeredness, the spiritual and emotional vacuity” (p. 9). He considers welfare to be the core of the problem because the definition of poverty has changed in rich countries.
Such a statement is disputable and may raise a number of heated discussions. However, it would be difficult to agree with the author. Poverty is unjust in any form, and the fact that the definition of poverty changed is good because it means that the standards have also gone up. Moreover, even though people in Africa appreciate healthcare and any help in general, the fact that there is a disparity between ordinary citizens and government workers is unfair. According to Kantian views, such inequality threatens freedom because it creates a dependency of one individual on another (Hasan, p. 16). Moreover, the philosopher suggests a solution to redistribute the resources “up to the point that the poor have some means of their own” (Hasan, p. 16). In European countries, people can afford not to rely on those who have a higher income, for example, employers and government workers. Therefore, the argument of the author can be considered prejudiced, and some philosophers, including Kant, would disagree with it. Equality is essential in society, and for this reason, every person should have easy access to welfare, regardless of their attitude to it.
References
- Dalrymple, Theodore. “What is Poverty?” City Journal, 1999. Web.
- Hasan, Rafeeq. “Freedom and poverty in the Kantian state.” European Journal of Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 3, 2018, pp. 911-931.