William Ellery Channing, in his 1840 lecture on the Elevation of the Laboring Classes, discusses the objections of the day to his program to elevate the laboring classes, and I have no problems with them, but he seems to me to place too much faith in humanity. In other words, he starts from the proposition that laboring classes have been kept down, and that lack of opportunity is what has doomed them. It is clear from his points that he isn’t requiring physical things that they can’t afford- books, fine clothes, etc… but an elevation of the mind by teaching them to gain wisdom in whatever areas they have in front of them.  

But if there is nothing hindering a working man from elevating his mind by changing some habits, then it certainly can’t be the outward effects that are holding him back. The only thing holding him back is his own set of habits.

This illustrates a classic dichotomy between conservative and liberal thinkers. Conservatives tend to hold a dimmer view of humanity, where our troubles are essentially due to human nature. The left tends to see the problems holding humanity back as external, i.e., If circumstances could be changed, the problems of humanity could be cleared up. The two sides seeing the root causes of problems as different means the two sides see the solution of those problems differently. Conservatives tend to focus more on personal responsibility, liberals on external structural problems.  

This of course isn’t to say that conservatives can’t see structural problems, or that liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility, but the tendency will definitely be to see solutions much more in terms of one at the expense of the other.

The example of the laborer seems to lean towards the conservative view. If nothing holds a laborer back from bettering himself, and he doesn’t do it, then his lot is self-chosen. Even if he were given tools and encouraged, we must admit that he may simply choose the easier route and not better himself.

As a conservative, I tend to think the responsibility lies within each individual to better himself then.

But I understand there will also be structural forces working against them.

One that Channing takes seriously is the fact that for some, the labor is so hard, they barely have energy to put in to self-betterment.  

I also take the point that we as a society owe it to our members to do what we can to minimize any structural forces holding individuals back, and that our focus, as a society, can only really be concentrated on the structural forces, since the individual effort applied is up to the individual, not society. Applied to the example above, we have a societal duty to make sure that labor laws protect workers from being abused to such degrees. Business owners themselves need to recognize that pushing workers to such degrees is degrading, dehumanizing, and ultimately counterproductive to any betterment of society. Profit is an important and valid incentive for business, but it can’t be the only motive. Taking care of workers is as important as profit.

For the liberal, recognize as well that the mere existence of individuals within society that don’t achieve as much is not, and can’t be, wholly attributed to external factors. Any group will contain members on a spectrum of ability, diligence, intelligence, and perseverance, and other factors, which means there will always be stratification in achievement. That’s unavoidable without purposely hamstringing those that would do better, and society is not best served by bringing every achievement down to the lowest common denominator.  

To be fair to Channing, he forthrightly acknowledges the difficulties, and that his program may not work for some of the reasons mentioned- people can choose to do better…. or not.