We have gone far from the beautiful and seductive theory that I outlined earlier. Is it possible to escape the evil consequences of a good principle? As far as I am concerned, I admit that I consider them inevitable.
Here, one stops me by saying: you suppose that, whatever the cause of the misery, the misery will be alleviated; you add that the public's assistance will relieve the poor from the obligation to work; this is to propose a doubtful situation. What prevents society, before giving assistance, to inquire about the reason for the need? Why should a work requirement not be imposed on a legitimately poor person who addresses himself to the public's pity? My reply is that English law has thought of these measures, but they have failed, and this is easily understood.
Nothing is more difficult to distinguish than the nuances that separate an undeserved misfortune from one produced by vice. Now much misfortune has been the result of both! What deep knowledge about a man's character and the circumstances in which he has lived are required to pass judgment on such a subject; what wisdom, what discernment, what cold and inexorable reason! Where could one find a magistrate who will ahve the conscience, the time, the talent, and the means to dedicate himself to such an examination? Who will dare to allow a poor man to die because his situation is his own fault? Who will hear his cries and deliberate on his vices? At the sight of the misery of our peers, personal interest itself is silent; will the interest of the public treasury then be more powerful? And the soul of the poor inspector remains inaccessible to these emotions, always beautiful, even when on the wrong path, will it remain closed to fear?
No comments:
Post a Comment