Poverty Vs Individualism Analysis

As Leon Trotsky once said, “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” What he says and implies is that any efforts that would make a beneficial goal come true should be used and mattered. One of such goals is to reduce poverty – an issue that remains as one of the few problems that remains unsolved today. Some people who address this problem focus on getting large groups of people out of poverty, while others focus on getting out of poverty a few individuals. When addressing poverty, utilitarianism should be prioritized over individualism, because this approach will greatly reduce the amount of people living in poverty, and because it will help the needy to get at a certain level in which their basic …show more content…
Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer’s principles of social hierarchy include the idea of priorities of different social classes. The middle- and upper-classes are more focused on satisfying their psychological needs, while lower classes put more emphasis on basic needs. In his article “The Singer’s Solution to World’s Poverty,” he says: “So much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health. Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.” What he indirectly says in this article is that the people in need prioritize meeting their fundamental needs, such as food, shelter, and healthcare according to Maslow’s pyramid of needs. Without these basic needs, a person wouldn’t be able to survive. Individualism prioritizes the moral worth and the psychological desires, while utilitarianism focuses on actions that maximize utility and benefit the largest amount of people possible. Approaching poverty through utilitarianism calls for utilizing the spare resources of the society or the higher classes for providing necessities for large groups of the hungry, sick, and homeless people. By providing the necessities, we enable these …show more content…
Barbara Lazear Ascher addresses this idea of the need in compassion for homeless by giving in her essay “On Compassion” a short anecdote of a woman with a baby giving a folded dollar to a homeless man to question whether the woman does this out of fear or out of empathy. The side that favors individualism argues that giving confidence in the lowest classes would alone drive them out of poverty, and that being empathetic with the poor would help them to satisfy their basic needs. However, this logic is not true, because the underprivileged need to have their basic needs met before they can move out of poverty and be able to care for and evaluate their psychological needs. What Maslow argues by coming up with his hierarchy of needs is that humans don’t care that much about getting empathy or love if they are in a situation where they have nowhere to live and nothing to eat for several days. The reason why individualists’ assumptions don’t work is because the poverty-stricken must have food, shelter, water, and medical treatment to survive this day and eventually move out of this penniless lifestyle. Even though psychological help can be good for a human, it is not a priority for a poor man while he is worrying about getting medicine or food. Moreover, suppose if a starving man is