First, I must state that economic wealth should definitely not be the only way to evaluate a country's social structure. Why not look at other aspects such as, religion, ethnicity, or level of education? Some may argue that by looking at a group's economic standing, the aforementioned aspects could also be determined, but this leaves room for error, since there are always exceptions. Some of the least educated citizens could actually make part of a pool of the wealthiest.
Second, I must agree that a society that works to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor is a healthy society. Governments that worry about poverty issues are usually the ones that spend much money on increasing welfare or social programs that benefit the needy through other means such as, educational reforms or financial aid that allows students to receive a higher education. So what exactly does this treatment of the needy mean? It shows that society cares. It shows that there are people concerned with the well-being of their constituents and it shows that everyone can benefit from their country no matter what their economic means are.
It can be argued that all these programs that are created to aid the less economically wealthy could just be a way for a society to push its own personal agenda. Say for example, a government spends money to increase educational programs in areas where education is not successful, therefore more kids get involved in school and go to college. Though it's great for a government to be so caring and kind to those who need it, their personal agenda for this whole educational movement was actually to increase the number of people getting a higher education so that their economic means could improve and could therefore have extra cash to spend in the economy. (I really hope this is making sense.) However, one can hold a personal agenda and still be able to benefit others. So yes, the way the poor are treated is a good way to determine how healthy a society is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I think the points you raise are valid. Many of them are similar to the ones I blogged on but one thing you brought up was the issue of personal agendas and benefiting from others. This is interesting and true in many situations. In my psychology class, I learned that the possibility of someone doing an act for no benefit to herself whatsoever is extremely rare. My question to you and anyone reading this is how true do you think this is in today's society? ... Do you think that we mainly go through life doing things for other people to someway benefit from it? Can you think of any time when we do a deed solely for the benefit of the other person?
I am confused by your blog post because initially you state that you do not think that "economic welath should definitley not be the only way to evaluate a country's social structure," but you go on to prove why ensuring that the poor are not overlooked is important, too. This confuses me because wealth and poverty are intertwined and contribute to the overall status of a country's economy, so shouldn't their combination be a way to measure the standing of a country overall? Maybe, I misread your argument. But, it just seems like you are arguing against Bellah's point and then for it. I do however, agree with your second paragraph in that the government should care about the well- being of all of its citizens and not just a select few. Equality is integral and should reign in any society.
Post a Comment