Summary of How to Get the Poor off Our Conscience
The polarization between the rich and the poor is the oldest and most fatal illness in American society. In the essay, the author tries to find a theory to get the Poor off Our Conscience which means how to make ourselves get rid of the guilty of the existence of the poor. In the essay, the author brings up five historical solutions and five current designs for getting the Poor off Our Conscience.
The first solution is proposed from the Bible: the poor suffer in the real word but are wonderfully rewarded in the world when they die. The second is the utilitarianism raised by Jeremy Bentham, which indicates that the right action of people must be self-centered. To put it in another way, the measure taken by people should help to promote the personal interest. So the American society should do its best in the interest of the rich, but not the poor. The third solution is Malthusianism. The supporters of the theory hold that the poverty of the poor is because of their excessive birth-giving. The next solution is Social Darwinism. It’s believed that the Social Darwinism. The rule—survival of the fittest, though often heard in the biological field, still applied to the economic life. So it demonstrates that American’s prosperity, to some degree, should sacrifice the interest of the poor. The rule is cruel, so it declines its popularity gradually and the public assistance to the poor –Roosevelt revolution is carried out. This is a truly change, but unfortunately it’s suspended. In presenting the five historical solutions, the author is implicit in his criticism.
The first design is that most of the things on behalf of the poor must be done by the government. But, the government is incompetent. In discussing the idea, the author implied his criticism for the national defense done by the government. And the
author believes that the government incompetence is just the excuse that it can take away the responsibility to aid the poor. The second argues that the help to the poor only hurts the poor. It destroys their confidence; it seduces the poor away from the profitable job; it damages their marriage. But the author firmly believes that if they don’t gain the public assistance, they will suffer more seriously. The third design holds that public assistance will make the rich lose their motivation to work and make the poor lazy. The author disagrees with this and thinks that belief accepted by people is always convenient and for their own serving. The forth is that helping the poor has adverse effects on the rich’s freedom. But the author considers that the gain of the poor is much more important than the loss of the rich. Finally, the psychological denial, guided by which people escape concerns for the poor. And supporter even thinks that suffering is necessary for the poor, because it will stimulate the poor to work. The author is implicit in satire on this point.
To make a conclusion, the author maintains that the social welfare is fashionable, not out-dated or conservative.
