Is Poverty a sin?

In his Preface to Major Barbara, George Bernard Shaw writes:

Seeing this play forced my brain to move in directions it had never gone before. I am still working on what I think of it.

What does this illustrous body think of Shaw’s ideas?

Well, the [Catholic Church has this to say](javascript:decide(‘http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/decalog.html#TEN’)):

They are they experts on the whole sin thing, some would say.

WADR, jmullaney, your quote would be more helpful if you would highlight the portion of that quote which is relevant to the OP, or at least summarize it in your own words.

I can’t speak for other religions, but in Judaism, one is only responsible for his actions, not for the circumstances he happens to be in. Therefore, being poor cannot possibly be a sin.

What is relevant is how one reacts to this condition of poverty. If one reacts by passing up a chance to get a decent job, and instead chooses to get involved with some illegal activity, that would clearly be a sin. But if one happens to have a very low standard of living, yet is able to keep himself and his family reasonably happy and healthy, what has he done wrong?

I have neither seen nor read the play from which the OP quotes. I’ve read this excerpt, but I’m rather confused by it. What does he mean by

This is rather puzzling. Is he complaining that a prosperous society would allow some of its children to starve, when it ought to institute some sort of welfare? Then what is the meaning of “force him to see his children starve”?

I think Shaw is pointing at the fact that, while Police Forces are designed to protect society from criminals, they often spend their time punishing the poor (incarcerating them, finding them guilty of “vagrancy,” etc.).

In essence, Shaw seems to be saying that we punish the poor, instead of helping them.

And specifically, that we prevent them from taking some of the idle people’s excess resources to relieve their poverty; rather, we expect them to “abhor and repudiate” the idea that their “first duty, to which every other consideration should be sacrificed, is not to be poor.” You can starve, you can see your children starve, but you mustn’t do anything about it that involves breaking the rules that richer people have set up to protect themselves: that, I think, is the message that Shaw finds “intolerable”. A poor person who obeys that message is “immoral”, says Shaw, because he’s ignoring what is actually his “first duty.”

So is he trying to justify theft?

Kimstu, you’ve got it exactly backwards.

Shaw is saying that you and I (and he) should make it our first duty, “not to be poor.”

Have you seen Major Barbara? The point seems to be, as I saw it, that it is society’s responsibility to use industry to allow every man to “not be poor.”

It seems that Shaw acutally exhorts both duties here: Each individual has the overriding obligation to secure his or her means of existence, and that all individuals (society) have the obligation to permit and support this obligation.

As I have not read the play, I base this analysis only on the paragraph offered. However, it accurately describes my own philosophy and values.

I thank sdimbert for trying to answer my confusion, but I have trouble reconciling that with this portion of the quote:

By explicitly using “poor but honest” as an example, he has totally confused me. Especially in this light, his statement that

makes it sound to me (as jmullaney wrote) like he will justify theft in order to escape poverty.

Considering Mt 5:3 I would say that sin is not only not a sin, but a virtue in the Christian tradition. Ex 22:25 would imply that Judaic tradition would not view poverty as a sin. My interpretation of Shaw’s words are that poverty is not a sin; moreover, that our system of government provide no resolution and cause further damage. Shaw’s assertion that we should avoid poverty does not equate with sin, rather, it gives us pause to consider the environment to which the poor are subjected.

sdimbert: *Shaw is saying that you and I (and he) should make it our first duty, “not to be poor.” *

That’s what I said. He also says that our society is shutting its eyes to that duty, and discouraging poor people from following it. Society exhorts us, “Be honest and law-abiding, even if you starve in consequence: it’s all right to be poor, as long as you’re poor but honest!” And society’s police forces back up that exhortation with physical force. That’s what Shaw finds immoral and intolerable. So Keeve is right in saying that (in this preface, at least) Shaw is implicitly justifying theft in order to escape poverty—or at least, insisting that submitting to poverty is at least as bad as committing theft to escape it.

*Have you seen Major Barbara? *

No, but I’ve read it.

*The point seems to be, as I saw it, that it is society’s responsibility to use industry to allow every man to “not be poor.” *

I agree with you.

Kimstu,

Thanks for clarifying - you’re correct. I misread you.

There is a line in the Third Act somewhere, where Underhill says something like, “I would rather be a wealthy thief than a poor workman!”

So, jmullaney, I don’t think it is that he is trying to justify theft… it’s more like Shaw is urging us to create a society where a determined man is not required to steal to avoid being poor.

To love God is to have good health, good looks, good sense, experience, a kindly nature and a fair balance of cash in hand.

–Samuel Butler