History Of South American Poverty And The Development Of Liberation Theology

Even though many Europeans saw only the idlers as the problems, many others had negative attitudes to all poor people. Juan Luis Vives who was a Spanish humanist wrote in, On Assistance to the Poor, that when a family becomes poor that the men begin to steal, the women become prostitutes, and their children grow up and become accustomed to this lifestyle while those with money believe the poor to not deserve their alms (Document 3). The POV of Vives is that of a humanist who feels they know the deeper meaning of all human, and he sees them as deplorable creatures who when pushed against a wall become thieving animals while those with money don’t even try to better these poor peoples’ lives by thinking that the poor don’t deserve their charity. Jean Maillefer, a wealthy French merchant, wrote to his children that the poor have grown accustom to being poor and they cannot leave due to them having no cares, bills, and fears while they feel great independence (Document 11). Maillefer’s POV is that the poor have no worries and are independent because they have no job which comes from him hearing them talk about and also from how he works long and hard every day while fearing that he has to pay rent and taxes

Further, Herbert J.Gans brings to light the ten defenses for the poor which are of crucial importance. He focuses on the non equivalency of moral failure to poverty.He also stresses on the poor not being responsibly treated by society leading to anger.

The populist governments, seen in the 1950’s and 1960’s in South America, spurred industrial growth and a sense of “consciousness” amongst the inhabitants of the Latin American countries. The industrial growth greatly benefited the middle-class and the working-class; however, the poor were driven into shantytowns and rural areas. To illustrate the great poverty of this time in Latin America, people living in “shantytowns” resided in vast settlements built of cardboard and other available materials such as metal and sheets of plastic. These “towns” frequently lacked proper sanitation. One could imagine how living in these shantytowns would degrade the human spirit and foster a sense of worthlessness. The abrupt shift in the social classes

The essay begins with Henry George referring to his audience as ladies and gentlemen. He then goes on to state that poverty is a crime. A crime not committed by the poor, but rather the poor as victims of the crime. He also does not wholly blame those perpetrating the crime, he also gives a kind of notion that the victim has a hand the situation he or she finds themselves in. He says the poverty is a curse that not only the poor have but is on every level of society even the rich. He says the rich also suffer because it is like the air all the community breathes. They too must breathe it.

Picture living in a community where every minute of every day you were hungry, under-clothed, and afraid death because you are poor. A world in which child dies of hunger every 5 seconds. Now imagine waking up and your biggest problem was which sweater to wear with which jeans. Even though this seems hard to imagine, this life of poverty has been a reality for most people for ages. Before the1900s, few wealthy people would ever think about poverty. Two prominent authors were Garrett Hardin and Peter Singer, who wrote essays about human poverty. They questioned whether to confront the issue of poverty or to ignore it. The first essay is "Life Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" from the

In this case, England seems to be at an economic advantage in relation to poverty compared to third world countries. This quote can be related to the economic base portion of Marxist theory where welfare is promoted and a high percentage of the population uses it. Much like America, England encourages a capitalistic economic base. They believe the people under welfare housing will soon prosper and become a key component in the working class in the future. By providing them with such resources such as shelter, food, and medical care just to name a few, they shall soon overcome this tough phase in their life and break free from the cycle of poverty. However this is not the case. Many people stay in these welfare housing units for generations and are not doing their part to help leave their state of poverty, rather their succumbing to the presumption that things are not going to get better for them and they should just enjoy the free ride. The people living in poverty in England are given the necessities of life such as food, shelter, and even entertainment. When you think of poverty however, these do not come to mind. Usually you would think of the economic state of the

I am only thinking about myself and have been conditioned by society that the poor are beneath me. Just as hooks states in her book, “Society is telling them that poverty and nihilism are one and the same. If they cannot escape poverty, then they have no choice but to drown in the image of a life that is valueless” (hooks, 198), we have been taught by society to believe that poverty and nihilism are synonymous, but this is not true. Just as it takes a village to raise a child, I believe it takes a nation to resolve the issue of poverty. Our society needs to dig deep to reignite the morals that generations in the past taught us; sharing our resources, whether monetarily or charitably, through understanding, kindness and generosity to those less fortunate. We all have to be ready to share liberally and recognize the fact that there are those who struggle and deserve attention paid to their struggles. By helping others who have not, we keep our humanity intact and maintain our ability to empathize and show compassion towards others. Our culture is based on working together and helping our neighbors. We need to stop considering the poor invisible and instead take personal steps to keep our communities thriving via good will towards others, and lending a helping hand. The poor, just as our environment, are our responsibility, and the sharing of resources is crucial to bringing an individual from poverty to a more

The author, for example, states on page 379 in paragraph six that “If time is the most precious thing, wasting time must the major prodigality as Richard says. Lost time is never recovered and time is never sufficient. Let us get up and engage ourselves in a variety of activities with less perplexity. Every person should strive to wake up early because laziness cases poverty. Poor Richard says that early to bed and early to rise makes one wealthy and wise”. The paragraph is ironical in nature because the speaker is a pauper yet he knows what it takes to be successful. The statement means that the working poor may not advance their status regardless of their knowledge on how to become

The author is able to draw his audience in emotionally by speaking of such countries, and how it eventually ties in to the United States, stating that “(if) a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich,” (3) concluding the connection between the U.S. and those countries who have a lower living standard.

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

Philosophers, Peter Singer’s and Onora O’Neill’s attempt to draw connection between poverty and moral philosophy and how aid should be directed towards groups in absolute poverty. The aim of this paper is to provide an extensive analysis on the work of both the philosophers’ while outlining some of the limitations each of the theories has.

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

Introduction: In the essay ‘’Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor,’’ Garrett Hardin argues that wealthy and more prosperous nations of the world should not be responsible for supporting the poor. I completely disagree with the idea of ignoring the needs of the poor nations. People that have better lives and live in wealthy countries should use their power and privilege in order to help people in need. Everyone deserves a chance to create a good life and immigrate to a developing country.

Therefore, it is pivotal that the poor especially, and all creation, are always accounted for in the decisions that a country makes regarding its economic and political future. Because of this, there