Poverty christian view point.

        Advertisers offer us no end of happiness-producing things our money can buy, and they offer us multiple ways to make the money to buy happiness.  One suspects that advertisers are merely offering us ways of satisfying our consumer demands, but are interested in creating demand itself – inducing us to desire things we did not previously desire.  Behind this view of money is the idea that money itself will bring happiness.  More money means more happiness.  One story of John D. Rockefeller, a famous and successful American capitalist of the early part of the twentieth century, was once asked how much more money would he need to be happy, to have enough. “One more dollar than I have now,” he replied.  Perhaps this kind of response does capture a cultural trait and proves that there is a need for responsibility of wealth.

        Business, of course, is concerned about the creation of wealth. Even the most hard-headed capitalist will admit when pressed that wealth creation is not an end in itself. Wealth is good because it provides in part for the relief of the basic human need.  It provides income, jobs, and revenue for government. Business and wealth creation also foster peace. Trading countries do not go to war with one another. The eighteenth century philosopher Montesquieu was among the first of many observers to notice that commerce softens people’s passions and causes them to overlook otherwise inflammatory differences as to religion, ethnicity and language in the interests of trade and prosperity.

        In his book, Whatever Happened to the American Dream, by Larry Burkett, Larry says this about poverty:  “…the more information I gather, the more convinced I have become that either these people are terribly naïve or else they are so committed to their environmental agenda that even the needs of the poor take second place.”  Interestingly, it is apparent that the wealthy need to take responsibility for some of the world poverty.  Something needs to happen so that the wealthy can see how important it is to help in the fight against poverty.

        The corporation in the world has become King.  Corporations are the reason why wealth continues to grow and prosper.  Little by little, the corporate shareholders extract more and more out of the world for themselves.  People invest in an organization to make money and the result is making money.  However, the fiction comes in and says, “…that the stockholders are the corporation, and the corporation itself is a person or an individual.”  Furthermore, the idea that property is owned is a fictional idea.  People recognize property as an economic power when it is really only land to live, work, produce and help towards the human well-being.  If a corporation is an individual, then it should be just as responsible to poverty as a real individual.  If both can generate wealth, then both equally share in corporate social responsibility.

        There have been many critics arguing that progress is too narrow in understanding the wealth of society. These critics want to look to the distribution of wealth, not simply how much of there happens to be; they also look to variables that indicate quality of life, not simply “quantity” of life. Whether critics of the growth ideas are able to achieve social justice goals and whether they have too much of an optimistic view of government in achieving quality of life, have been the subject of strong debate. Growth is connected to the traditional business model.  It emphasizes that profit is the single, ultimate, and fundamental purpose of economic enterprise. Shareholder value is the bottom line. Profit is the measure of the enterprise. Business may decide to treat their workers well, serve their communities, reduce environmental costs, but the traditional business model stresses that all these activities are worthwhile only if they advance the economic bottom line of the company. 

        The Corporate Social Responsibility movement strikes at the heart of the traditional business model. So far, responsibility implies both the bottom line thinking and stakeholder engagement, it represents moving away from the traditional business emphasis on profit.  Corporate Social Responsibility principles suggest that profit is one of several important goals of ethical business and that it cannot claim any sort of automatic priority over these other factors.  There is an inherent truth to giving.  The idea of how much and when is the argument.

        A good example of wealth comes from Saudi Arabia.  There are very few people within the country that own and run oil.  The fact is that oil in Saudi Arabia is very easy to pump and produce.  As a result, it can almost be considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world.  However, less than one percent of their population controls the oil’s abundant wealth leading to poverty all over the country.  A slight adjustment would provide that everyone in Saudi Arabia would live far above the world’s means if the wealth was distributed evenly. 

        Another interesting idea is that wealth is very hard for a family to hold once it is obtained.  Inheritance is very unlikely in today’s world.  It is a rare event that wealth comes from a generational benefactor.  Today, ninety-eight percent of wealthy individuals accumulate their wealth in their lifetime.  They spend it, use it, sometimes donate it and eventually spend it by the time their children come to inherit it.  Sadly, if large amounts of individual wealth and corporate wealth were used to better society, it would actually lift poverty and help many that are less fortunate.

        At a certain age, every person can easily see what is meant by a moral obligation.  Every person decides what is okay and what is not okay.  These choices are all based on moral obligation.  Some people feel morally bound to do certain things and not morally bound to do others.  There is a point where everyone asks himself whether he should morally perform certain actions or not.  Ought or ought not is the easiest way to understand what is individually meant by a moral obligation.

        Individually, people have a variety of ideas and thoughts of what their actions should be to any number of situations.  Moral obligation can come from a family value or some life altering experience that constituted a belief.  Another great factor people can gather morale from is through a spiritual connection.  People who covet a spiritual connection generally have stronger and more moral obligations than their counterparts.  It is important for people who are strong moral believers to teach those who are not.  Reducing poverty starts with an individual and builds to others.

A great example of individual moral obligation is that of Bono from the famous band U2.  Bono as an individual has single handedly developed and networked a campaign that has reduced Africa’s poverty by over thirty percent.  Because of Bono’s hard work and dedication, other people have stepped up to help and become aware of the world problem.

Society is directly responsible for many of the ways that people act and feel morally obligated to help others.  Society as a whole has the power to initiate the way people go about doing things in their everyday lives.  Society’s moral obligation, if any, is to be the universal example setter.  It is the right and responsibility of the people to follow these examples and laws set forth in writing and in spiritual values.

        Every society has its own way of connecting and morally helping a poverty stricken person or place.  The US government for example, in June of 1999 passed an Act called: “The Debt Relief For Poverty Reduction Act.”  This allowed some spending on behalf of the US government to go towards relieving debt in small ways to make families and people all over the world feel respected through human dignity.

        The world continues on a trend in which the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer.  There is not yet a true and unique way to understand poverty and how it can truly be reduced without forcefully dispersing the wealth to everyone.  Moral obligation says that people will generally give or they won’t, it’s a chance that people are willing to take.  It is in the benefit to all to take poverty seriously and to reduce it, if not eliminate it from the planet.  Every person has a divine right to learn and given the equal chance, prosper too.  

        Individuals are constantly faced with the question, “should I?”  This is a very good question to be asking too.  The response to this question is based on a person’s moral obligation to society.  Because people make up society, and society essentially influences people, standards need to be implemented and thought of so that our future generations to come can enjoy what the world has to offer, just as we have in our present time.  

        Here are three specific goals that will help people become morally obligated to better assist in the need to overcome poverty.  First, teach at a younger age how to care.  Just how not smoking is taught to young children today; it would be beneficial to all if every child grew up with the notion to care about someone else other than himself or his parents.  Secondly, not all poverty is uncontrollable.  There are many people who run themselves into poverty problems because of bad hobbits and personal choice.  These are the people that are unworthy of helping.  These are the people that need to find serious help so they can stop their addiction and move on to a normal lifestyle and begin to help others.  Lastly, awareness of poverty should be much more important than the fact and knowledge that it exists.  If all children were given the chance to attend school, learn and grow, then everyone would be on a much leveler playing field when it came to being in poverty.  

        It is very difficult to determine what is in society’s best interest when it comes to world poverty.  Many suggestions can be made and people can learn about reasons why they should help better society.  However, the only way everyone can live without poverty is if every individual’s moral obligations are in perspective and are willing to help in any way that he or she can.

        Corporations also have the social responsibility that are inherent to the obligation of poverty.  Everyone in the world should be contributing to the ethical dilemma that is prominent in poverty today.  If individuals and corporations both took the time to rethink their gains, perhaps living off a little less would not be that difficult.

        In 1 John 3:17 (NIV) says, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”  Those of us who are blessed with wealth beyond our need have a responsibility to share generously with the less fortunate.  We should view our wealth as a gift from God, entrusted to us to carry out his work on earth.

        

---

Endnotes:

---