The idea of struggling against odds is stirring. Many people have memories or family stories of hardship that serve as inspiration. Overcoming obstacles is a pivotal life experience. But it would be unconscionable to allow segments of society to be exposed to preventable adversity in hopes that they might flourish under pressure.
And who would think otherwise? Well, recently in a comment on another post, I was asked for the liberal viewpoint on this question: "When it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad? Why or why not?"
I don't know that there's a liberal viewpoint on this, but it's an easy question to answer.
Yes. When it comes to poverty, all suffering is bad.
I don't know that there's a liberal viewpoint on this, but it's an easy question to answer.
Yes. When it comes to poverty, all suffering is bad.
Legions of people throughout time hold their humble beginnings as one of the best things that could have happened to them. Many have found poverty be a circumstance that forced them to fight for survival and success, to appreciate what they have now, and to be able to see others with more compassion. One of the most adaptive character traits a person can have is the ability to grow stronger from suffering.
But while overcoming the barriers set up by living in poverty can be empowering if certain variables are present, such as a strong family system, a helpful mentor, success in school, or an exceptional individual vision; it must be remembered that it's the act of overcoming hardship that promotes confidence and further success, not the hardship itself. When the means aren't there to convert hardship into fuel, overcoming it is not always a realistic expectation. The hardship itself, and the suffering it causes, cannot be viewed as a good thing.
But while overcoming the barriers set up by living in poverty can be empowering if certain variables are present, such as a strong family system, a helpful mentor, success in school, or an exceptional individual vision; it must be remembered that it's the act of overcoming hardship that promotes confidence and further success, not the hardship itself. When the means aren't there to convert hardship into fuel, overcoming it is not always a realistic expectation. The hardship itself, and the suffering it causes, cannot be viewed as a good thing.
One of the most important concepts explored in religion, philosophy, and psychology is the value of transcending suffering. This is a process supported by society when people face any kind of suffering, whether it be from dealing with cancer or grief, from violence or sexual abuse, from the loss of a job or a divorce. But is the same process possible for the suffering that comes from watching your kids go hungry? What if a violent event is not an extraordinary but a daily occurrence? What if the loss of a job leads very swiftly to the loss of a home? Being laid off may challenge a middle-class person to reevaluate their career or go back to school. For a low-income person, it could mean moving into a shelter.
People in poverty suffer from everything everyone else does, but with fewer resources. It is much harder to take a hit when you are already down. Lower-income people are more severely impacted by things that can strike anyone, like a natural disaster or the loss of a loved one, because there is often more financial devastation that occurs in the wake of these events. For example, a middle-class person who is in a terrible car accident is more likely to have auto insurance, medical insurance, paid sick time, a comfortable environment to recuperate in after leaving the hospital, and adults with flexible schedules and transportation who can help out. If you've gone through something like this yourself or with someone close to you, you know what enormous obstacles are faced at such times for people in any economic circumstance. Insurance doesn't come close to covering all the costs. There are things like physical therapy, co-pays and deductibles, lost work time not covered by benefits, and the many incidental expenses that rear their heads in a crisis. People without insurance, without a strong family structure, without any paid sick time, living in a small or ill-equipped home, may not ever fully recover. Injuries can become permanent disabilities.
There is always the potential for someone who has experienced any type of suffering to eventually learn to use it as fodder for growth. But I see absolutely, positively, no value whatsoever in allowing poverty to exist anymore than we can help it. It is simply much less possible to find meaning in being hungry or cold, especially over many years, without hope, than it is to find meaning in suffering on an existential level.
Moments of grace can take place when light is seen at the end of a tunnel. If one keeps trudging, it is possible to one day feel oneself to be the better for having walked through it. But if the tunnel only stretches further at each turn, or grows darker from additional burdens, how often can that transcendence occur?
So, when it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad? For me, the most fundamental answer lies in the philosophy that inspired the framework for this website, Abraham Maslow's theory of the Hierarchy of Needs.
Only when people have food to nourish their bodies should they be expected to turn their suffering into food for the soul.
People in poverty suffer from everything everyone else does, but with fewer resources. It is much harder to take a hit when you are already down. Lower-income people are more severely impacted by things that can strike anyone, like a natural disaster or the loss of a loved one, because there is often more financial devastation that occurs in the wake of these events. For example, a middle-class person who is in a terrible car accident is more likely to have auto insurance, medical insurance, paid sick time, a comfortable environment to recuperate in after leaving the hospital, and adults with flexible schedules and transportation who can help out. If you've gone through something like this yourself or with someone close to you, you know what enormous obstacles are faced at such times for people in any economic circumstance. Insurance doesn't come close to covering all the costs. There are things like physical therapy, co-pays and deductibles, lost work time not covered by benefits, and the many incidental expenses that rear their heads in a crisis. People without insurance, without a strong family structure, without any paid sick time, living in a small or ill-equipped home, may not ever fully recover. Injuries can become permanent disabilities.
There is always the potential for someone who has experienced any type of suffering to eventually learn to use it as fodder for growth. But I see absolutely, positively, no value whatsoever in allowing poverty to exist anymore than we can help it. It is simply much less possible to find meaning in being hungry or cold, especially over many years, without hope, than it is to find meaning in suffering on an existential level.
Moments of grace can take place when light is seen at the end of a tunnel. If one keeps trudging, it is possible to one day feel oneself to be the better for having walked through it. But if the tunnel only stretches further at each turn, or grows darker from additional burdens, how often can that transcendence occur?
So, when it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad? For me, the most fundamental answer lies in the philosophy that inspired the framework for this website, Abraham Maslow's theory of the Hierarchy of Needs.
Only when people have food to nourish their bodies should they be expected to turn their suffering into food for the soul.
