As I have previously pointed out, right-wing conformists tend to blame the individual for his or her problems whereas left-wing misfits tend to put the blame on society for the problems it causes to individuals (and the planet).
This touches on a broader phenomenon that distinguishes right-wing and left-wing people. Right-wing types kick downwards in conformity with established and prevalent hierarchical lines - according to which the unemployed, immigrants, even the disabled are at the bottom of the ladder as opposed to 'wealth-creating' business owners - whereas left-wing people tend to kick upwards in defiance of hierarchical establishments (as I have already pointed out in Considerations on the Right-wing Working Class Vote).
Thus, for example, right-wing sensibility looks down on and despises welfare claimants, "who get something for nothing", because they are kept afloat in defiance of capitalist logic and the employment ethic and are therefore seen as benefiting from unjust privileges that violate the rules of the (capitalist) survival game.
Left-wing sensibility will tend to look more kindly on welfare claimants, partly because welfare is usually claimed on grounds of disability or joblessness, and that welfare is therefore a form of economic redistribution, which redistribution of wealth is (or should be) a central left-wing concern and preoccupation.
Indeed left-wing people will far more likely look down on corporate employers - who, they will argue, also 'get something for nothing' through labour exploitation, paying their workers next to nothing, and State hand-outs (corporate welfare) as we are accustomed to witness in neoliberal states - and (hate) groups which proclaim their superiority over others and dehumanise those others so as to lay claim to the legitimacy of violating their natural law rights.
To right-wing sensibility, kicking upwards comes much less naturally for the simple reason that right-wing understanding interprets those higher up in the hierarchy as more successful and therefore more worthy; indeed, particularly in the United States, wealth and status are almost synonymous, so that the richer you are, the 'better' person you obviously are, providing as you do the most to society, unlike 'problem individuals' like drug addicts, petty criminals and the mentally ill who don't bring money in or create jobs.
Thus right-wing understanding tends to underplay and minimise the crimes and flaws of rich people so that, for instance, wealthy Wall Street stock brokers who do drugs, break laws and engage in mass subterfuge, will be cheered and applauded whereas black American gang members, who follow the same materialistic ambitions and psychopathic values as the aforementioned stock brokers (see, for example, The Wolf of Wall Street), will fall prey to the punishing hand of the law and generally be reviled by the public.
Ultimately, and this will come as no surprise to my audience, I favour kicking upwards because it strikes me as more noble and more courageous. As someone said, it is a good idea to judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable members or even, as Dostoyevky insisted, the state of its prisons!
However, abuses and violence occur on all levels of society, high and low, and while violence emanating from the top causes more widespread, long-lasting and significant damage, violence at the bottom is also a problem, and a far more immediate one for many people who live in violent, deprived areas.
For Moral Law, as opposed often to man-made legislation, binds everyone equally regardless of status and power. And just because those at the top abuse power and act immorally should those at the bottom follow suit - and vice-versa.
The test for moral action is always ultimately whether or not the action results in there being a victim, whether or not everyone acting the way you do would bring good or bad consequences for the planet and whether or not you're using people as means or treating them as ends.
In practice, of course, things get more hairy, but moral principles are useful and even essential templates which should be followed as far as humanly possible.