Analyze Attitudes and Responses Toward the Poor in Europe in Between 1450 and 1700.

The Europeans between the 1450’s and 1700’s held many negative attitudes towards the poor themselves and the idlers who they believed were a menace to society. Also during this time period the Europeans had many responses like in England where they put them in poorhouses or tried to heal them or in others places where they tried to give them alms.

     In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.

The historical definitions of worthy and unworthy poor come from the early 1600’s for dealing with the poor. Family was expected to take care of other poor family members (Hansan, 2011). The worthy poor are to be considered true victims of poverty. They were pregnant women, people who are truly unwell and unable to work or someone over the age of sixty. These were the people that were allowed to beg on the street since the government deemed them worthy (Martin, 2014, p.21). The unworthy poor were the legally defined drifter, or beggars. If people were able to work but they were without a job, they were whipped, marched through the streets, returned to where they came from, or thrown in jail. Repeat offenders of begging often had ears cut off or were killed (Martin, 2014, p.21).

Between 1450 and 1700, attitudes toward the European poor changed dynamically, roughly following a three-part cycle. In the late 1400's, the poor were regarded with sympathy and compassion; generous aid from both public and religious institutions was common. By the 16th Century, however, the poor were treated with suspicion and harsh measures, to ensure that they were not becoming lazy, using welfare as a substitute for labor. Beginning in the 17th Century, the attitudes toward the poor again shifted, returning to more sympathetic views and responses, though many members of the upper-class still retained the negative outlook on the destitute of the 16th Century.

Peasants were members of the lowest class, those who work. They were the most common class. They were the millers, blacksmiths, butchers, carpenters, farmers, and other trades people. Peasant women in particular, spent much of their time taking care of children, making clothes, and cooking meals. They also tended gardens, took care of animals by tending chicken, shearing sheep, and milking cows (Cels 16). Within peasants, there were two main groups of people, the serfs and the freemen. Both were employed by the lords. And serfs were people that paid more fees, and had less rights. Freemen on the other hand paid less fees and had more rights than serfs (Noiret). While freemen could leave the manor when at whim, serfs were not allowed to leave

DBQ: Analyze attitudes toward and responses to “the poor” in Europe between approximately 1450 and 1700.

According to Carnegie, the responsibility of those who receive charity from the wealthy is to give the money only to those who deserve it. In 1889 Carnegie wrote an essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” in which he argued against what he called “indiscriminate almsgiving.” He began with the statement that there is a valid and significant difference among worthy and non-worthy poor. Some people, Carnegie argued, are poor through no accountability of their own: sometimes situations puts one in an undesirable position, making it hard to advance despite one’s best determinations.

People in authority tend to disregard those who and that which does not benefit them, since the poor did not seem to benefit anybody, people in authority found them useless. For instance, Emperor Charles V wrote an imperial decree for the Netherlands in 1531, where he stated that alms should not be given freely to the Europeans living in poverty, in doing so not only does he believe they will fall into idleness but he thinks they will take advantage of this and live their lives based off of alms, and that it will soon lead to all evils (document 2). He states that “beggars and their children will abandon their trade or occupation for a wicked and contemptible life… above all those who are poor and sick, and other indigents unable to earn

This act set up local 'parishes' that were responsible for taking care of the poor in their own district. However, the government provided no funds to facilitate this program?the parishes were responsible for levying and collecting taxes to finance their programs. Though it would be considered a very primitive form of welfare by today?s standards, it was a large step toward government-mediated welfare compared to the English system 250 years before that. In 1349, Parliament forbade charity on the grounds that it might encourage laziness. Since then, public attitudes have changed about the responsibility of the citizens and the government to provide for the assistance of the needy. Limited federal assistance was given to war veterans and their families beginning during the Civil War, but large scale assistance to the general needy community was not available for almost 75 more years (Komisar 48). A large contribution toward the assistance of the poor in the United States came during the Progressive movement around the turn of the century. Activist groups championed not only workers rights in the form of unions, but also the right of every citizen to have access to decent living conditions (Komisar 67).

The society is in such a way that it falls into categories of people who belong to different social classes and this creates a difference in the way individuals lead their lifestyle, and in the way individuals interact with each other. The working poor refer to a social group which develops as a result of the social inequalities which exist in the society. The population comprises of individuals who put a lot of effort in their activities but still fail to witness growth and development in their socio-economic being. It is normally wrong to categorize such persons as being lazy, and instead, one may argue that nature dictates the fate of these beings.

The concepts of “worthy” and “unworthy” poor came about during the English Poor Laws that were introduced in the 1500’s. The English poor laws classified poor or dependent people into three major categories and established many requirement before aid was provided. Dependent persons were categorized as: vagrant (nomadic; with no permanent home or employment), the involuntary unemployed and the helpless. In effect, the poor laws separated the poor into two classes which were the worthy and the unworthy. The worthy were classified as orphans, widows, handicapped, or the frail elderly. The unworthy were the drunkards, suspicious, or lazy. (Hansan, J.E. (2011). Poor relief in early America)

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

Singer in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty” provides a solution for solving the issue of poverty by donating all excess money for the needs of poor people. He urges readers that everyone, who have sufficient household income, is required to give away all their unnecessary money to overseas aid organizations. Moreover, he argues that if people fail to do so, they are living unworthy immoral lives (5). In this paper I will argue that by giving extreme examples and information of aid agencies Singer makes us feel forced in donation of excess money, whereas this action should be voluntary and it should not be considered if we are not willing to give away all excess

Singer’s arguments rest on the simple assumption that suffering, from lack of basic resources, is bad. Accordingly, his argument is that the way people in prosperous countries respond to situations like that in Bengal is not morally justified. His argument is that if we have the power to prevent bad situations from occurring, “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,” (Singer, 231) then we have a moral obligation to do so. In order to get people to give the appropriate amount of money Singer insinuates that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Moreover, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. Thus, his

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.