Poverty

ESSAYS
on
The Society of HumanKind

THE POOR

SUMMARY
Social difference is dismissed as either natural to, or inherent in, the human species . The attitude of the Society toward such differences where they nevertheless exist is then discussed. It is concluded that the Society has obligations to the poor and disadvantaged which are limited only by its commitment to its Aim. It isalso found that the enduring poor gain and enjoy moral superiority over their more fortunate contemporaries.

The moral stance of the Society of HumanKind on social difference in human society rests on the Principles of Unity and Peace. Those Principles, and other implications of the Axioms and Dogma, are applied to this aspect of our social lives in the Treatise on the Individual. The Treatisedismisses the possibility that social difference is natural to the human condition or inherent in our species. The conclusion must be that such differences as do exist in our societies, whether based on standing, status, power or on any other criterion, are a consequence of our own actions, or of our inability to control all those factors in our environment that have an influence on our sociallife.

The uncertainty of all human knowledge and understanding, set out in the Treatise on Knowledge, reinforces that conclusion. The limit on our ability to understand ourselves, or grasp all that affects us in our environment described in that Treatise is such that it leaves open the possibility that we may never be able to determine fully, or control effectively, the structure and outcome ofour relationships with each other. In effect, the Treatise suggests that we may not have the faculties or abilities required to eliminate difference between individuals within our societies.

In sum, the first founding book of the Society, the 'Foundations', rejects difference between individuals as an inherent or natural condition of human society while accepting that it may nevertheless beunavoidable. However, 'Foundations' does not then go on to discuss the question raised by that conclusion, i.e. that of the attitude of the Society toward that aspect of our social order where it exists. That issue is examined in this Essay.

It is best to begin the discussion by repeating the inference drawn from the Axioms, Dogma and Principles in the Treatise on the Individual. Acceptance of theAxioms and choice of the Dogma removes the possibility of there being any necessary correlation between the social position of an individual and their merit or value. The Society will reject any implicit judgement of the worth of any individual based on their occupation of any particular position in our social hierarchy during life. Final adjudication on that issue must always be deferred to theperiod beyond the achievement of the Objective of the Dogma.

However, as has already been noted, that stance does not address the problem of the attitude the Society of HumanKind and its membership should take toward social difference. In particular, it provides no advice or guidance on whether they should tolerate hierarchical systems of social relationships or willingly accept any socialposition other than one of their own choosing.

To the first of those issues the Principle of Progress applies. It requires adherents of the Society to accept the need for a level of social order which is compatible with the maintenance of the Conditions of the Dogma, a demand also directly derived from an acceptance of the Axioms and choice of the Dogma. When the effect of the Principle of Unity isadded to that of Progress it is clear that social difference can properly be tolerated by those who choose the Dogma. The Society and its adherents can therefore accept such distinctions where they can be seen to be necessary to maintain the level of social order required by the Conditions of the Objective of the Dogma and the Aim of the Society.

If however, human society ever progresses to...