Philosophy Essay
Introduction
One must have to understand the difficult situation poverty creates. Nevertheless, the root cause of poverty could not easily be pinpointed but the wide-ranging and often devastating effects are constantly determined. Poverty is simply defined as the condition of having insufficient resources or income leading to the lack of basic human needs. Aside from social stratification wherein societies are divided in terms of hierarchy of wealth, power and status, more profound arguments surrounding poverty are built upon the extent of individual responsibility other than that of governments’. The question now is how an individual are going to justify own caprice and vice despite the staggering state of poverty in the world today? Another perspective that people should ponder on is our individual responsibility to contribute in the eradication of poverty. These issues will be explored in this essay.
Materialism and poverty
Contextually, having more than one pair of sunglasses is but a symbolism but beyond such is the idea of materialism or being materialistic. Materialistic is that person who values material things such as money and possession more than spiritual, intellectual and cultural domains. What is much frightening is the fact that materialistic values are overpowering social equality. Kasser (2002) points out that insecurity is the key to materialism. Materialistic persons usually experience fewer positive emotions and materialistic pursuits decrease the quality of life and existence (p. 12). High levels of materialism are commonly associated with low levels of self-actualization, acceptance and vitality, leading to anti-social behavior and self-destruction. The paradox is that materialism is a commonplace in people whose childhoods were made less secure by poverty (Gallaway, 2003).
As such, materialism is increasingly becoming the central construct where satisfaction and dissatisfaction is based. The sad truth about materialism is the fact that it breeds possessiveness, non-generosity and envy (Fournier and Richins, 1991; Hunt, 1996). Possessiveness is simply the demand ownership as an indicator of possession. The unwillingness to share such possessions is known as non-generosity while envy is the desire for others’ possessions, all of which negates the idea of sharing and mutual helping. Kasser (2002) concluded that one solution for making the world materialistic and improving contentment is through eliminating poverty. This could be true since poverty leads to materialism and well-being by failing to satisfy needs for safety and sustenance. But when it comes to levels of affluence and willingness to help others, this may not be the case.
Individual responsibility and poverty
Though we cannot blame those people who are intentionally unwilling to share their possessions to others, we can say that their actions of not to share would not justify their actions to be materialistic. People will spend money onto themselves especially when they work hard for that money (Payne, 1997). Poverty and how it should be mitigated, materialistic will reasons, is not an obligation of those who are wealthy but of the government’s. Somehow, a realization is that the money spent on worldly desires would not have any detectable effect on a person’s contentment and happiness. While they may give to the hungry, ill and oppressed a portion of what they have, these people must satisfy their needs, wants and desires (Chatterjee et al, 1995). Which is what is actually happening in reality; poor people cannot expect rich people to give money to create opportunities for those who are in more need especially if it means sacrificing own desires.
Hence, materialism destructs man from higher ideals. In the materialist understanding, being poor and/or the reasons why people live poverty were produced by the combination of environmental and personal choice (Patterson, 2002). While this may be true in some instances, materialist are also human who have the right to choose. If they choose not to help, it is their right. Poor people, on the other hand, are left with no choices but to depend on the assistance of the wealthy, by which is another justification why some if not the majority of well-off are not giving. Underprivileged has the tendency to depend on dole-outs instead of working their way out of poverty. The thing is that poor people have the power to overcome poverty while materialists have also the power to overcome materialistic conditions (Phillips, 2007). So, both have the right, power and the choice the only difference is that the latter have the incentives and resources to do while the former has none.
Because possessions create an identity, the desired identity, in the eyes others and self, materialists are increasingly becoming object-oriented. Materials are equated with profile or simply self-enhancement (Flusty, 2004). Acquisition is fundamental to their lives but this aspect situates the materialists in distorted behavior patterns. I say this because they are making themselves believe that some portion of the global populace with be inevitably poor. Such justification is exacerbated by the belief that although poverty may be beyond the control of people yet they are behaving in ways that may perpetuate their poverty (Phillips, 2007). Another thing that may exacerbate this is the belief that poverty reflects the failure in social institutions, which are not created by the wealthy. Since they believe this, they are not obliged to give to these people especially that they will not receive something in return.
From a materialist’s perspective, what we can do is to provide them the chance to live a sustainable life. This means that poor people should be given an access to education and labor because if people and even governments are going to satisfy their short-term needs their long-term needs would be sacrificed (Schmidtz and Goodin, 1998; Phillips, 2007). I am not saying to abandon the provision for basic necessities for them but to prioritise initiatives that will provide them with choices now and in the future. For instance, if we are going to educate them – send a child to school – then we could give that child the possibility of landing in a respectable job in the future. Individual responsibility is indeed a way to ensure that poor people could live in a way that their self-respect could be maintained (Bicknell, 2005; Winfried and Pogge, 2008).
Sharing is an altruism that is natural and inherent among people. Altruism in humans is a necessity compared to that of the animals because it is an acceptable fact that human needs to cooperate with others for the purpose of individual growth and development (Moore, 1984). Although the minds of the materialists are clouded by worldly intentions, there are still self-sacrificing behaviors that are evident. Like buying things that could be perceived as a way to keep a business alive, for example (Richins and Dawson, 1992; Murphy and Margolis, 1995). Even materialists could consider behaving altruistically given the chance to do such.
Conclusion
This paper is taken from a subjective perspective; nonetheless, the rule is simple – live simply if you want others to live simply. The problem is that there are many justifications as to stay a materialist. One is needs satisfaction while second is the cycle of poverty which when given, the poor also subjects themselves to more severe conditions or the tendency to remain poor because rich people are giving them the reasons to do so. One clear aspect is that the poor are not asking for it, even though every circumstance is pointing to that direction, the willingness will be much more important. If we want people to be self-reliant we must first strive at communal efforts. To wit, those who are materialistic are not also forced to give or give up something as well but just to live simply as a way to dignify the poor. Living a lavish life in times of poverty is a direct insult to those who do not have the means.
References
Bicknell, G. (2005). What YOU Can Do to Make Poverty a Thing of the Past; Every Three Seconds a Child Dies as a Direct Result of Poverty. Daily Post, 27 January.
Chatterjee, A., Hunt, J., & Kernan, J. (1995). Materialism as personality: When people are what they have. Unpublished manuscript, Temple University. School of Business and Management.
Flusty, S. (2004). De-Coca-Colonization: making the globe from the inside out. Routledge.
Fournier, S. & Richins, M. (1991). Some theoretical and popular notions concerning materialism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 403-414.
Gallaway, T. (2003). The High Price of Materialism (Book Review). Journal of Economic Issues, 37(3): 831-834.
Hunt, J. M. (1996). Materialism as Social Cognition: People, Possessions, and Perception. Journal Title: Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(1): 83-89.
Kasser, T. (2002). The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Moore, J. (1984). The Evolution of Reciprocal Sharing. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 5: 5-14.
Murphy, M. F. & Margolis, M. L. (1995). Science, materialism, and the study of culture. University Press of Florida.
Patterson, O. (2002). : Beyond Compassion: Selfish Reasons for Being Unselfish. Daedalus, 131(1): 26-34.
Payne, J. L. (1997). The Smart Samaritan. Policy Review, 83, 48-52.
Phillips, M. (2007). THE GREAT POVERTY MYTH; the Way We Were. The Daily Mail, 21 July.
Richins, M. & Dawson, S. (1992). Materialism as a consumer value: Measure development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.
Schmidtz, D. & Goodin, R. E. (1998). Social welfare and individual responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Winfried, T. & Pogge, M. (2008). World poverty and human rights: cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Polity Press.
0 comments:
Post a Comment