Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

Is is right or wrong to give money to the less fortunate?

Many believe that it is always right to give freely to those who have less, believing that those without should be helped by those with the means.
However, I consider this idea as an alternative.

Take your average encounter with a vagrant on the streets of a large metropolis. If I give this 20$ bill to the man on the corner asking for change, I have lost little of my personal value, while the man on the corner now has 20$ that he otherwise might not be able to get. Hopefully, this man takes that money and buys food, clothing, could rent a room for an evening, so on.

However, what if that man takes that 20$, and then buys and smokes crack-cocaine?
Some would say that I am not at moral fault, and that regardless of what the man on the corner does, I have at least attempted a good action.

In my opinion, the designation of blame and praise is trickier. Should I have realized that while this man might take the money I gave him and use it well, he might also do something quite destructive such as buying and smoking crack (if you do not believe that drug usage has negative effects for everyone and not just the user, this example will not convince you well)?

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

Is it sometimes the right thing to do to NOT be "charitable"?

[Sy Borg]

I used the live with a couple of welfare workers. When they saw homeless people, they would take them for a meal and then speak to them and see if they can be put into touch with a shelter. I also remember a lawyer at work coming in late after working to get a a homeless woman to a shelter.

As for me, I'm not so knowledgeable or good so I generally just toss a coin, if I have one handy.

As for you, it's your call. I won't judge. All of life is a gamble, all of life takes judgement in the moment as well as principles. Generally speaking, if you won't miss the money, you will probably do more good than harm on balance by passing over some money. Some might say, as with tipping, that such charity just encourages systemic neglect by alleviating its impact and making that neglect less visible. Then again, people say a lot of things :)

[Lagayascienza]

Be kind to each other. I think that's as good a guide as any for how to live. To me, that means being generous if I won't miss the money and if I think it will do more good than harm.

People become homeless because they are poor and not because they want to be homeless. And one can be born poor or one can become poor for all sorts of reasons.

It is sometimes difficult for those who have never been poor to understand this. And sometimes they're not interested in understanding it. For them, there is no help.

But death comes to all, rich and poor. And once dead, our individual histories are complete and unalterable..

I hope mine will contain more good than bad.

[Sy Borg]

In the end, maintaining a pool of homelessness is what many governments do. The Australian government brought in a record number of immigrants at a time when rental vacancy rates were less than 1%. It guarantees increased homelessness, and this is far from the only western government harming the most vulnerable with mass immigration.

Governments could reduce homelessness but they choose not to, presumably to boost GDP (because less weight is placed in the more important metric - GDP per capita) and to keep housing prices artificially high - because almost all politicians and corporate powerbrokers are deeply into property.

[Lagayascienza]

Equality is a pipe dream. But we could do more to reduce homelessness. I'm in favor of a UBI at a rate that would afford everyone a roof over their heads and food. If that would entail taking a bit more from the billionaires and making the giant multination corps pay their fair share of tax then I'm ok with that. A UBI will not happen in my lifetime, but with the rise of AI something like a UBI may become necessary just to keep the burgeoning masses of impoverished unemployed from storming the big end of town and government offices.

[Sy Borg]

A UBI that gave people enough to pay today's high rents would seriously harm a nation's economy.

Taking money from corporations, as described, is impossible. If they don't like it, they move. They are almost as powerful as governments and they usually have deep links through PPPs and dicey lobbying largesse.

The poor will end up in increasingly cramped conditions as they compete with the significant numbers of migrants being brought in.

Consider the line of the Steely Dan song, The Royal Scam, way back in the 70s, about the lives of Puerto Rican immigrants expecting a better life:

And they wandered in
From the city of St. John
Without a dime
Wearing coats that shone
Both red and green
Colors from their sunny island.
From their boats of iron
They looked upon the promised land
Where surely life was sweet
On the rising tide
To New York City
Did they ride into the street.

See the glory
Of the royal scam

They are hounded down
To the bottom of a bad town
Amid the ruins
Where they learn to fear
An angry race of fallen kings
Their dark companions
While the memory of
Their southern sky was clouded by
A savage winter
Every patron saint
Hung on the wall, shared the room
With twenty sinners

See the glory
Of the royal scam

"Twenty sinners" ... twenty to a room! I expect that kind of living arrangement will become more common as accommodation becomes harder to afford.

[Lagayascienza]

If all countries agreed to a UBI there'd be nowhere for corporations to move. But I know that won't happen.

If at least all the rich counties could agree on a UBI it would be a start. And I don't think it would punch much of a hole in their economies. Taxes on the rich, and on wealthy multi-national corporations who now pay bugger-all, wouldn't need to be increased by much, if at all. A UBI could replace social security - pensions, the dole and other payments - and, when account is taken of what would be saved in the criminal justice system and in health, we'd probably come out about even.

And it's not as if the poor could hoard their UBI payments - the money would be spent straight back into the economy and provide income for businesses and be taxed for GST/VAT along to the way.

With the rise of AI, we'll eventually have to do something like this, unless we're happy to just let unemployment, poverty and homelessness rip and start picking up the dead from the streets each morning.

One thing is for sure, we need to get immigration down in this country. The poor countries are going to have to get their own houses in order and stop exporting their excess populations. They could start by reducing their birth rates and ending corruption.

We need to look after the people we already have and they need to start looking after theirs.

[LuckyR]

Is is right or wrong to give money to the less fortunate?

Many believe that it is always right to give freely to those who have less, believing that those without should be helped by those with the means.
However, I consider this idea as an alternative.

Take your average encounter with a vagrant on the streets of a large metropolis. If I give this 20$ bill to the man on the corner asking for change, I have lost little of my personal value, while the man on the corner now has 20$ that he otherwise might not be able to get. Hopefully, this man takes that money and buys food, clothing, could rent a room for an evening, so on.

However, what if that man takes that 20$, and then buys and smokes crack-cocaine?
Some would say that I am not at moral fault, and that regardless of what the man on the corner does, I have at least attempted a good action.

In my opinion, the designation of blame and praise is trickier. Should I have realized that while this man might take the money I gave him and use it well, he might also do something quite destructive such as buying and smoking crack (if you do not believe that drug usage has negative effects for everyone and not just the user, this example will not convince you well)?

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

Is it sometimes the right thing to do to NOT be "charitable"?

Well your title says "homeless" but your first line says "less fortunate". To me those two are not synonymous. Way before the pandemic, they were pretty similar, but not any more.

In my experience, at the current time, the homeless includes a substantial percentage of able bodied folks who have reconciled their outdoor lifestyle, prefer the freedom to do whatever they want and are not interested in legal employment leading to "climbing" out of their current circumstances. They're not interested in shelters, since shelters have rules whereas outdoor living does not. They have carved out an income stream that supports their lifestyle, usually through illegal means and perhaps panhandling.

OTOH, of course there are numerous of the less fortunate who just happen to have fallen on hard times, they don't have an illegal income stream and would use any assistance to get back on their feet since their goal is to recover to their previous level of economic security.

I go out of my way to help the latter since any assistance is likely to move that person farther towards a better situation.

[Pattern-chaser]

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

So your charity, your giving of a gift to someone less fortunate, is conditional? That he must use what you give him as you think he should? Is this properly described as "charity"? It is not what a Christian Bible would describe as charity, but perhaps you mean something different by "charity" than Jesus described?

[N.B. I am not a Christian; I just used it as a convenient example.]

[Pattern-chaser]

You have acted charitably when you have freely given a gift to someone that they can never repay.

[LuckyR]

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

So your charity, your giving of a gift to someone less fortunate, is conditional? That he must use what you give him as you think he should? Is this properly described as "charity"? It is not what a Christian Bible would describe as charity, but perhaps you mean something different by "charity" than Jesus described?

[N.B. I am not a Christian; I just used it as a convenient example.]

Is giving "conditional" if one chooses to give only in circumstances where it will do the most "good" under the giver's definition? Obviously no one has the resources to give in every circumstance, thus not giving in certain situations is not only normal, but required.

[HJCarden]

OTOH, of course there are numerous of the less fortunate who just happen to have fallen on hard times, they don't have an illegal income stream and would use any assistance to get back on their feet since their goal is to recover to their previous level of economic security.

I go out of my way to help the latter since any assistance is likely to move that person farther towards a better situation.

How do you know which ones are the latter? If I could discriminate between panhandlers and people who were genuinely on hard times, I would not be asking the question that I am. I assume myself to be ignorant of a persons real circumstances when just looking at them. So then I ask myself the question: will my charity create more good, or more evil in the world? And that is the question I come here with, asking about the right course of action in this scenario.

[HJCarden]

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

So your charity, your giving of a gift to someone less fortunate, is conditional? That he must use what you give him as you think he should? Is this properly described as "charity"? It is not what a Christian Bible would describe as charity, but perhaps you mean something different by "charity" than Jesus described?

[N.B. I am not a Christian; I just used it as a convenient example.]

I absolutely believe I am within my rights to care as to what the man does with the money. I believe that used in certain ways, the money that I give can actually create more total harm in the world than there would be if I had not given that money. This is actually a very normal way to judge actions. What about the case of charity makes it any different?

[HJCarden]

Be kind to each other. I think that's as good a guide as any for how to live. To me, that means being generous if I won't miss the money and if I think it will do more good than harm.

"Being kind" is not a moral guideline.

This is exactly the question I am posing. I am UNSURE if my action will do more harm than good. How can you really tell by looking at someone if they really need the extra money or not? If you have given money to a stranger who then took that money to buy drugs, which in turn funds gang, smuggling and human trafficking operations, have you really done something good?

So it seems to me that "being kind" in this situation provides no moral clarity.

[HJCarden]

If all countries agreed to a UBI there'd be nowhere for corporations to move. But I know that won't happen.

UBI will create a permanent underclass of citizenry who are barely being given enough to survive but not given any opportunity to advance socially, as they will become dependent upon the government, and the government will in turn be dependent upon them.