"Property is not the sacred right. When a rich man becomes poor it is a misfortune, it is not a moral evil. When a poor man becomes destitute, it is a moral evil, teeming with consequences and injurious to society and morality"

Lord Acton challenges the traditional view of property as an inherently sacred right, separate from its social context. He distinguishes between the misfortunes that befall the rich versus the poor, emphasizing the moral consequences that arise from destitution. Wealth, he suggests, is not inviolable; a rich individual losing his property suffers hardship, but this event lacks moral dimensions in itself. The loss is an unfortunate turn of fate but not an ethical failing. For Acton, the misfortune of the rich is personal, its impacts largely contained to the individual and perhaps those within his immediate sphere.

The transformation of a poor man into one who is destitute, however, transcends mere personal misfortune and enters the realm of moral concern. Acton asserts that such extreme poverty is "a moral evil, teeming with consequences", highlighting that it harms not just the individual but ripples outwards to affect society and the very fabric of morality. Destitution erodes dignity, undermines social cohesion, and introduces desperation, which can lead to greater societal harm, crime, unrest, suffering, and a breakdown of trust and empathy.

By differentiating the loss experienced by the wealthy from the destitution suffered by the poor, Acton subtly critiques social systems that prioritize property rights over human welfare. He implies a social responsibility to prevent or alleviate destitution, because widespread extreme poverty is not only a personal tragedy but a threat to collective well-being and ethical standards. Wealth, therefore, should not be protected for its own sake; the true moral imperative lies in guarding society against the corrosiveness of destitution. Acton's moral calculus elevates the alleviation of deep poverty above the mere preservation of wealth, suggesting that laws and institutions ought to concern themselves more with preventing destitution than with safeguarding the interests of the affluent.