Some social
philosophers are against the idea of helping the poor with money and material. They
believe that, instead of giving them fish as and when they need it, it is
worthwhile making them learn how to do fishing according to their needs.
·
What is the apprehension behind the
social philosophers’ approach to the poor?
·
How good is it to follow their idea on
“fish and fishing’?
The idea on fish and the art
of fishing holds much true with regard to the poor and the help they receive. Obviously,
it is quite natural for social scientists to have some doubts on this
arrangement. It is always to better to be learning how to fish.
There is not doubt about the
fact that the poor need help. But if they are helped all the time, either with
money or material or any other supplies, they would pick the habit of dependence
and the same would always keep them away from being able to stand on their own.
For example, let us the take the case of a small boy who does not know how to
fill up an application form. If we help him all the time, he will never pick up
the niceties of this task.
On the other hand, it is
always better to make people learn something so that they will fall back on
themselves, and their life will be much easier and securer. The most
significant thing is that, if one is made to pick up a skill, that particular
skill, on the one hand, will keep him in good stead all through his life, and
on the other, and he will be able to impart that skill to the needy ones
around. This owning and sharing constitute social development. Here the idea on
the art of fishing and the poor, the latter would go better once they happen to
have a sustainable skill up there sleeve.
It may be said that help is
fine. But getting helped all the time is not going to help anyone for long, no
matter whether it is the poor or anyone else. The art of fishing for the poor,
instead of supplying them with fish, is worth following.
290 words
Ajaypeesdoc.
5.11.10
No comments:
Post a Comment