In every society there are those who have and those who have not. There are those who can and those who cannot.
For the haves and the cans life is always going to be relatively easy. The problems face the have-nots and the cannots.
The attitude of those who are more fortunate towards those less fortunate marks out a society, and some would say that the more positive, constructive and helpful this attitude is, the more enlightened and civilised is the society.
It is easy to think of extreme examples. In ancient Greece male children were considered more important than females; healthy children more important than the unhealthy; and, we are told, it was often the case that parents would leave unwanted children out on a cold hillside at night so that nature would take its course.
In Bushman society, during a migration from one water source to another, if a person was not able to keep up, particularly if that person was ageing or infirmed, rather than slow down the progress of the group towards a vital resource, s/he would be left behind, again to allow nature to take its course.
As Gene Roddenberry wrote for Spock: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.’
The two examples above seem callous to a modern day society, but it would be easy to think of other similar examples.
How do modern, so called civilised societies measure up on a scale of looking after the have-nots and the cannots? In answering this question, in some people’s eyes, we would come up against considerations of political dogma. For example if we say it is society’s role to look after the have-nots and cannots, some would level accusations of socialism which, they might say, is not their preferred political stance.
But in a modern, developed society, whose role is it to bear this responsibility? Is it the family? Is it neighbours? Is it friends? Should people be left alone and encouraged to look after themselves?
Some people have no family, no friends and no-one they could call a neighbour. Others are not able to look after themselves for reasons of health or low intelligence. So do we allow nature to take its course? Do we consider that natural selection, in a human context, should be left to weed out the weak and leave the strong to inherit society? Would this be a civilised society?
Every group will have members who are less able to cope, and the group as a whole either looks after them, or they will continue to suffer as a consequence.
The group may be a family - but how many families these days are prepared to take the time and trouble and suffer the inconvenience of looking after one of their number in need of constant help? How many friends or neighbours would be prepared to do this? Examples of those who are willing are so relatively rare that they mark people out as very special.
So, if not family or friends or neighbours, who? Society as a whole has this responsibility.
Everyone deserves shelter, an affordable food supply, and available health resources when needed. These are unalienable human rights, and it is one of the responsibilities of those who govern to provide them.
Would this make a government socialist? Perhaps, in some people’s eyes. But are we prepared to accept the alternative - a society of haves and cans who are so comfortable and selfish that the have-nots and cannots are forced to look after themselves? In some countries, which would call themselves civilised and humanitarian, this appears to be the case.