Sympathy For The Poor In The Late 17th Century

During the mid 15th century to the early 18th century almost half of Europe’s total population could be considered poor and destitute. The attitudes of the clergy and the attitudes of the socially elite toward these people varied from pity to disgust, and their proposed solution to these problems differed. Some suggested helping all of the poor by giving them alms, some warned others to be careful of whom the money was given to and some people believed that being poor was a voluntary decision and if they wanted to get out of that situation, they do so without the help of others. In particular the clergy supported alms giving, government officials and the nobility advocated controlled giving, and some of the middle class were suspicious

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.

The novel, “The Working Poor” by David K. Shipler gives us an inside look into the lives of the lower class and he explores exactly what it means to do hard, exhausting but honest work in America. The working poor are working people whose incomes fall below the poverty line. While poverty is often associated with joblessness, a significant proportion of the poor are actually employed. Shipler teaches us that just because you have finally become employed does not mean that most or all of your worries are over, often times they are increased. Largely because they are earning such low wages, the working poor face numerous obstacles that make it difficult for many of them to find and keep a job, save up money, and maintain a sense of self-worth. Shipler did an amazing job bringing light to the “forgotten America”.

Within 15th and 17th century Europe, responses as of what to make of the poor varied throughout the timeframe, though the attitude towards the poor remained two sided: whether they are deserving or undeserving of charity. At the time, institutionalization of the mercantilist policy left nearly half of Europe’s population on their hands and knees, thus absolving the poor became quite a dilemma that questioned both religion and morals. The Europeans that found the poor to be deserving of charity sought both spiritual and societal progress through commensalism. Other Europeans decreed that the poor is undeserving of charity, as they do not contribute anything themselves. Over the course of the 15th to the 17th centuries, the responses to the poor transitioned from an emphasis on

Juan Luis Vives explains “women of eligible years put modesty aside and, no longer holding to chastity, put it on sale” and “children of the needy receive a deplorable upbringing.” He also states that “some know that they have a duty of charity to the poor” (Doc.3). In saying all of this, the poor is seen as sympathetically and Vives believed that it is one’s duty to care for the poor because of the dreadful living conditions they lived under. In Rembrandt van Rijn’s Beggars Receiving Alms at the Door of a House, a clergyman is shown to be giving alms to a poor family (Doc. 9). One of the reasons this is shown could be that the clergyman was sympathetic in seeing this family.

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

To some, being poor is embarrassing and shameful, but to a select group of people; being poor is something they’re grateful to be. They embrace it and use it to their advantage to achieve better lives

In Nickel and Dimed, Barbara talked on this topic. "To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else. As Gail, one of my restaurant co workers put it, 'you give and you give. '" (Ehrenreich 221). When people have expendable income, they have the ability to relax while still enjoying great luxuries in life. These people can take more for themselves. As a member of the working poor you aren 't given that option. You can only work and give of yourself in return for survival, nothing extra or to be enjoyed. This is contrary to the American Dream, which advocates for rewards and enjoyment for one 's hard work. But this is an unattainable dream for those working low wage jobs. The low wages also take away the option of resting or taking time off because the people cannot make it without the money for that day. This amount of daily work with no breaks can be very taxing on a person as Ehrenreich considers. "If you hump away at menial jobs 360-plus days a year, does some kind of repetitive injury of the spirit set in?" (106). Barbera is reflecting on the mental effects of this much work and stress nonstop over the entire course of ones life. She feels like the stress will have a negative long term affect on someone and their spirits. This all is an effect of the low wages paid to these workers. This also leads to a lack of choice for

The essay provides vital information about the social distinctions in the society but readers may disagree with the idea that the working poor may never get the opportunity to advance their lives, regardless of the effort they put. It is only right to argue that the working poor remain in the impoverished condition because their undertakings do not generate enough income to help them get out of the unfriendly situation. The working poor, however, may emerge to be

The lowborn workers toiled away for hours in physically exhausting jobs only to afford apartments that were sterile and cold. “There were some nine cots in the place . . . he was sick of the bareness and privation connected with his venture” (Dreiser, 304). The pay affected the men and woman’s own mode of life. They were forced to share living spaces with other families and more often than naught, had to bunk with complete strangers. The very comforts associated with a home, such as wood and furniture, were often too large of an expense. Even with Governmental/ Charity handouts the citizens had no money in which they could afford better living conditions. The rooms they were given to stay in were cold and sterile, and they were not guaranteed a place to stay every night.

It was obvious that the same new measures were needed primarily to save money on the rates but also possibly to tackle the causes of poverty. No solution appeared other than the complete abolishment of the poor allowance, which few wanted. Under the allowance system, one could work and receive outdoor relief in the form of cash payments as long as you resided in the parish of your birth. This system was said to encourage laziness as the poor would have no incentive to work hard or to respect their employers as they knew that their parish would look after them. The allowance system was regarded by the ruling class as an ‘unmitigated evil’.

It can be seen that there are a multitude of reasons that the poor tend to remain poor. Reasons ranging from the spending patterns of the poor to the health and nutrition of the poor all attribute to the creation of a poverty cycle that seemingly condemns the poor to being poor. Obviously this isn’t a rule of thumb but rather an accurate observation, it is not to say that the poor can’t become affluent but rather the conditions and environment that surrounds those who are poor severely impedes their ability to earn an income and move over the poverty

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.

During the early nineteenth century poverty was major issue, the Poor Law passed earlier in the Tudor period put responsibility on local parishes to pay tax to help the poor. However, over the years the financial strain on parishes became too much and in 1834 The Poor Amendment Act was passed. This was to help reduce the cost of looking after the poor and it was to stop the payment of tax unless you had special circumstances. If the poor wanted help they had to go in to workhouses and work, in exchange for clothes, food, free healthcare and a few hours of schooling for children. The poor had no choice but to go in there for help. On one hand The Poor Amendment Act 1834 was good as it gave the poor free food, shelter, healthcare and education for their children. However, the conditions in the work houses were made so awful that people would avoid going in there unless they were really desperate. The diet was bad, families were spilt up and the people in there had to wear uniform.

He suggests that money given to a charity could morally bring about the same type of satisfaction, than if going on vacation or spending money on a video games (Singer 336.) Singer also suggests that often time’s society is afraid of where their money will end up or how it will be use when donated. Singer names four charities that are in existence which are single-handedly devoted to improving the lives of those less fortunate (Singer 337.)