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.
In the 15th Century, growing awareness towards the plight of the destitute led many to partake in almsgiving (charitable donations to the poor). Many well-off members of society took this as an opportunity to attain salvation, donating money--as Jesus advocated--so that their deeds might be smiled upon from above. A Catholic priest, in a sermon in France in this time period, cautioned against this, praising those who contributed money while in good health, but rebuking those who donated when they were sick or near death: "There is no great value in giving" when one will be dead shortly, and has no use for the money. While he encouraged almsgiving, he warned that God would see if selfish reasons existed. In addition to private donations, handled through religious institutions, civil governments also felt a responsibility to help the poor. A resolution, passed by the town council of Dijon, France, in 1482 stated that "[The town] will rent...a barn to put [the destitute] for the night," in addition to caring for the needs of the poor as well as possible.
This generou...
... middle of paper ...
...n in 1674 that the poor "have no worries." Excessive charity had given the destitute a carefree lifestyle: they had nothing to lose. Though he retained the harsh views of the 16th Century, the general attitude of the 1600's was one of sympathy and charity.
To conclude, three sets of views existed in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries regarding the destitute. In the 1400's, the poor were treated with sympathy and charity. In the next century, the poor were regarded with suspicion and hatred, which occasionally led to abuse. By the 17th Century, charity had resumed through private citizens and religious orders, though the wealthy still regarded the idle poor as worthless and undeserving of aid. These three often-conflicting sets of views had a profound effect on the lives of the European poor: they determined how the destitute were treated and socially regarded.
The Contribution to Change of Attitudes Toward the Poor by Charles Booth, William booth, Dr. T. Barnardo and Seebohm Rowntree
In the novel Poor People, written by William T. Vollmann asks random individuals if they believe they are poor and why some people are poor and others rich. With the help of native guides and translators, and in some cases their family members, they describe what they feel. He depicts people residing in poverty with individual interviews from all over earth. Vollmann’s story narrates their own individual lives, the situations that surround them, and their personal responses to his questions. The responses to his questions range from religious beliefs that the individual who is poor is paying for their past sins from a previous life and to the rational answer that they cannot work. The way these individuals live their life while being in poverty
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
The Impact of Legislation on the Problem of Poverty in the Sixteenth Century The legislation for poverty in the sixteenth century was affected by a concoction of factors. The most prominent ones being, the conducting of the legislation, the changes in belief, and attitude of the people and the economy. The impact of the legislation is so difficult to measure as there were a number of local schemes, which emerged at the same time. The evidence from this period suggests that the local schemes were like customised versions of the national schemes, some carrying out little of the national legislation. The way in which they adapted the laws was found to have consequences on their effectiveness.
Changing Attitudes Toward the Poor in Britain Paternalism underpinned the Old Poor Law, the perception that those in power should take responsibility for their workers. The Old Poor Law provided 'out-relief' for those in poverty as an addition to their weekly wage. By 1832, however, the industrial revolution had begun and capitalism was the leading system. A new approach of 'self-help' marked the demise of paternalism. This new attitude was the belief that poverty was the fault of the poor.
...I feel bad not giving to the poor, however, I do not always know what they will do with what I give to them. In today’s society, some money that we give to them might go towards buying drugs, alcohol, or something else that they may not need. For this reason, I prefer to give through an organization that I trust so that I know the poor will be receiving the kind of help that they need and not just hoping that they will buy the right thing. This way I am also in less of a risky situation, since I do not know the person, I do not know what they are capable of doing. Rambam addresses all these concerns and explains what we should do in each situation. Next time I see a poor person, I will keep in mind what Rambam has said, as well as what Professor Twersky has described about keeping in mind how we are performing the action and how it is perceived by the poor person.
Since I spoke about rich people, I should talk about poor people. I feel compassion, admiration, and generous when it comes to poor people. I feel they have a rough life but always tend to put on a smile and look happy. I always want to be kind and friendly to poor people and make them feel like they have a friend who will help and support them if needed. I think poor people are kind and generous. I previously said that rich people are stingy about their money, but poor people are the exact opposite. Even though they lack mone...
The idea that people of poor communities conform to a living standard and behavior is a concept described by Oscar Lewis as the culture of poverty. It is the belief that poor people consists of their own beliefs and values and behaviors. And more than 45 years later after the term, the culture of poverty paradigm remains the same: there is a consistent and observable culture that is shared by people in poverty. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the culture of poverty. differences in behaviors and values among those that are poor are just as significant as those between wealthy and poor. The culture of poverty is a construct of smaller stereotypes which seem to have implanted themselves into the collective conscience of mainstream thought as undeniable fact. However, as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth. Based on 6 most common myths of what defines poor from wealthy, I will provide evidence to the contrary.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Webster's English Dictionary defines "morality" as: the conformity to ideals of right human conduct. With this in mind, I wonder who determines right human conduct? Religion aside, there is no literary context that strictly states the rights and wrongs of human behavior. So who decides? Who determines what we ought morally to do and what we are obligated to do as a society? An Australian philosopher, Peter Singer attempts to draw the line between obligation and charity with the moral incentives to providing food for the starved in East Bengal. Although he presents many sound arguments, the reality of his utopian world is that it cannot exist. In the following expository, I will justify my reasoning behind this fact.
I bet it wouldn't take much effort for me to identify a time in my life when I was cruel towards people who were poor; critically judging them. Especially not knowing what their situation was. They could have had family or financial problems, maybe their house just burnt down. It could have been a number of things but any way you look at it, it was wrong.
Most people of the society still blame the poor for their own predicament. They believe that "if there is a will there is a way". However, they do not think about their government that might had made bad decisions and policies that could actually harm successful development. This causes of poverty and inequality are usually less discussed and often neglected. We must recognize the effects poverty could have on the society and seek ways to create better understanding and resolve the issue before it is too late.
Even in the ancient times, where our forefathers lived, they even experienced poverty. Today, we still experienced poverty, just like our forefathers experienced, but they have different kind of poverty than our generation today.
Race and prejudice toward the culture of poverty was manifest during the civil rights movement and even in the American society today.. This paper will rely on examples, borrowing from past examples in trying to explain the culture of poverty, and how it can create prejudice among citizens in society due to their level of income or low-caste groups, which are considered poor within our societies. This paper will highlight a couple of examples to support its arguments.
being unwanted. On the other hand the poor welcomed each other and tried their best to