I would argue that yes, society does owe everyone a living. By that I mean the means to support themselves and keep themselves alive, not access to luxury.
Why do I feel this way? There are a number of reasons:
Firstly, natural justice: the natural order of things is that a creature is born and consumes what it requires from it's environment. Society prevents us from doing that. The simple presence of a society is an obstacle to a human being being self sufficient - or as near as it is possible for humans to be. In earlier times and in simpler societies today, small numbers of humans worked together to take what they needed from the environment in order to survive. Enclosing the land and allowing members of society to own it prevents this. Laws, created by societies, prevent us from simply taking the resources we require from another person. In return, I believe it only right and just, that society is required to provide at least the basics of survival.
Morality. It is completely wrong for an individual to consume a surfeit of resources, to have everything, while others may have nothing through no fault of their own. There is a creeping return to the attitude of Victorian times in which the poor are seen as poor due to their own faults, their laziness or lack of willingness to work. There are indeed those that will exploit any system and live off the hard work of others but, I believe, they are in a minority. Most people want the satisfaction, material things and opportunities that go with the acquisition of wealth through hard work. But not everyone can work. Not everyone can provide for themselves. Whatever effort they may make. I'm sure most people would accept that the disabled in mind or body should be supported by society. But what is ability and disability? A person may appear perfectly average but still be literally unable to provide for themselves. Ability is a continuum. We are all created equal in rights but are NOT created equal in ability. To argue otherwise is illogical and ignores genetics. Just because one person overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to succeed does not mean that everyone can. It is a myth that if you work hard enough, you can have everything and achieve anything. For every success story, there are ten others who failed, even though they may have worked as hard, expended just as much, or more, effort. Chance and circumstance play a far greater part in our lives than people are willing to accept. Those who say that we make our own luck are either incredibly lucky or incredibly stupid.
Then there is circumstance: A single parent with no family does not have the same opportunity to support herself and her child that a single person, with skills and a support network does. All very well saying that too many young girls get pregnant and then live off the state as many do, indeed, do in Britain. But what of the loyal wife abandoned by an errant husband or a husband whose wife has died? Everyone has a sob story? Some do make too many excuses but just as the majority of people are good and honest, so the majority of people would work to support themselves if their circumstances would allow it. It is simply unfortunately true that many people are hit by hardship that they have no control over.
My Christian faith: Obviously this doesn't apply to some people. Many do not believe. But I do. The basis of Christianity is love. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment was to love God, the second to love each other as family. Allowing someone to suffer through want, is the opposite of love. A Christian must always take the view that society owes every human being the necessities of life.
The least important reason for providing every person with a living is self interest. Britain is said to currently have it's lowest crime rate for more than 30 years. Have prisons been deterring more people?, have penalties been higher? No, the economy has been booming and state protection of the vulnerable has been high. What happens when we start seeing people as lazy and undeserving when they don't have a job and reduce their state assistance as is starting to happen now? Crime rates rise. So what do we do? We employ more police to protect us, we have expensive trials and even more expensive custodial sentences. I have lived through those governments that try to blame the unemployed for their situation, that try to reduce their assistance and force them into jobs that simply don't exist. I remember the riots, the high crime rates as the desperate did anything they could to survive. And so we make victims, not only of those that we do not help but of those they harm. And it costs us more to do so than it would have done to simply give the people the basic resources they need to survive! It's all very well saying that "I had a tough time and didn't turn to crime". Perhaps not, perhaps you were lucky enough to have a support network, perhaps you were able to scrape by, but it is a simple fact that during tough times, crime surges and so it is simple self interest to ensure that everyone has the right to life, food and shelter.
Yes, all who are able to should support themselves, should contribute all they can to society. But take a persons ability to support themselves, in whatever circumstances, and you have a duty to support them.
No comments:
Post a Comment