The existence of absolute poverty today points to the indifference of many in the rich worldby AC Grayling / November 19, 2013 / Leave a comment
Boarded up terraced houses, Salford, Manchester
© Photofusion/UIG via Getty Images
In this essay, the philosopher AC Grayling disentangles the many meanings of poverty, paying particular attention to the distinction between the “absolute” and “relative” construals of the term. Both kinds of poverty should concern us, Grayling argues. They both involve “suffering, the loss of human potential, and barriers to opportunity”. Poverty, therefore, is a moral matter.
There are many kinds of poverty, and although some of them are related to the standard economic form—which in its simplest terms can be defined as a debilitating insufficiency of resources—not all of them are the result of lack of money. Even rich people can be poor: in time, in the quality of their relationships and in meaningful connection with the society around them. Doubtless there will be those who regard those forms of poverty as very bearable in the presence of wealth. But among other things this point relates to the saying of Lao Zi, that “he is rich who has enough”—the implication being that the person content with little is better off than the person who has much but is discontented.
There is an allied point. People who have great stores of wealth but never use it, who n…