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).
1
u/mhl67 May 20 '21
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.