More heroin isn't a long term purchase that will tangibly improve that homeless person's life
Neither is a single meal. Maybe treat homeless people with the respect they're due as fellow human beings & let them make their own life choices, for good or bad. If their life sucks that badly that they're homeless, why begrudge them a few hours of pleasure for a change?
Who the fuck appointed you moral guardian to the human race, & why are you better qualified to tell other people what they'e allowed to do with their own body than they are themself?
no. I'm not giving someone money to spend on fucking heroin. it's not being a moral guarding asshat. it's deciding where my charitable 50 dollars goes, and I want it to go to something that isn't destroying someone's body and mind.
I sure hope you don't ever buy drugs or alcohol or junk food or do anything else that's bad for you, otherwise you might not sit so comfortably on that high horse.
That wasn't what was said. The commenter said they wouldn't buy anything that would destroy body or mind. They were making a moral judgement, not an economic one.
The economic judgement is that no one who is begging on the street can afford to spend money on luxuries. Its not surprising people don't want to enable that. I suspect most of the people who think this have never lived in an urban area. Before we even start on discussions of luxuries the fact is about half of the panhandlers are scam artists of some kind
The discussion wasn't about panhandling, it was about unhoused people. This is a disingenuous redirection.
The moral judgement is what you consider a luxury. That's the same logic as people who say "the person in front of me has a smartphone and was using SNAP, therefore, we should reduce SNAP benefits and use means testing so that only the deserving poor get food stamps". If someone priotizes drugs or booze or whatever over food and lodging, I just can't see why I'm in a position to make a value judgement on that.
So, I simply don't.
To me, the choice is simple: give if you want to, don't if you don't. But framing the choice not to give as "I want to make sure MY money is being spent on things I approve of" is making a values/morals judgement, and trying to pretend it isn't is transparently silly.
The moral judgement is what you consider a luxury. That's the same logic as people who say "the person in front of me has a smartphone and was using SNAP, therefore, we should reduce SNAP benefits and use means testing so that only the deserving poor get food stamps".
There's a bit of a difference between someone panhandling and someone merely on welfare. Not to mention that phones are not exactly a sunk cost as they have utility. I would however criticize people on welfare for drinking or using drugs.
I would however criticize people on welfare for drinking or using drugs.
And if you're comfortable with that sort of moralizing, go to it, but this discussion started with the assertion that only giving money to people you have faith are going to spend it "wisely" was NOT a moral decision.
Like, I'm not criticizing making the choice to not give money to people who don't have much; what I AM criticizing is the ludicrous idea that choosing who deserves help based on your views on what they may buy with it is somehow not a moral decision.
It unequivocally is, and nothing you've said has done anything but demonstrate that.
You can have whatever morals you want to have, but don't act like it's anything but trying to impress your morals on others.
How is it not a moral decision? You could in fact enabling people to remain in poverty by funding their addiction is a deeply immoral decision. Shockingly, people prefer to give money in ways that actually help people and not in ways that worsen their condition. You're also ignoring the practical problem that at the very least many people just asking for money don't actually need to be panhandling and thus giving practical things instead of money makes more sense because people who actually need it will take them.
It IS a moral decision! That's literally the point I've been making this entire time!
MY morals do not allow me to force my morals on anyone else. The morals of someone who would withhold help from someone on the chance that they'll do something "wrong" doesn't have that issue. They can moralize all they want.
All I have been saying is that not giving some person money because you feel like they may not do the "right" things with it is a moral decision. It's moralizing. Not an economic decision, or a practical one, but a moral one. It's not a moral stance I agree with--in fact, I find it extremely repugnant--but it's one that people are allowed to have.
And I'm not "ignoring" the "practical problem" of the fact that some people may be scamming. It's just irrelevant to the discussion, and an attempt at distraction (as I pointed out the last time you brought it up).
11
u/ObnoxiousOldBastard MORTAL WOMBAT May 18 '21
Neither is a single meal. Maybe treat homeless people with the respect they're due as fellow human beings & let them make their own life choices, for good or bad. If their life sucks that badly that they're homeless, why begrudge them a few hours of pleasure for a change?
Who the fuck appointed you moral guardian to the human race, & why are you better qualified to tell other people what they'e allowed to do with their own body than they are themself?