As someone who's experienced homelessness, I am where I am now through the kindness of strangers and doubt I would have made it otherwise.

Another homeless person went out of his way to get me a sleeping bag, someone else would stop and chat, offering ideas for how I may be able to get more help. Another offered me a place to stay until I got back on my feet, 12 years later he's still my best friend.

I never asked for money and was never offered it. I'd witness people who did ask with no second thought and, undeniably, they were doing so to fuel a drink or drug addiction (many of these people were also not technically homeless).

If you can really help a homeless person then go ahead and do it, that help is unlikely to materialize via a simple transfer of cash though.

Here's my answer to the "but they'll spend it on drugs" point:

Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain?

Yes, of course, escape from addiction and rehabilitation is the goal. But denying them temporary relief of the only kind they, in their addiction, are currently capable of, is just more cruelty. And nothing will drive them deeper into it than being ignored by everyone who walks past.

Of course, if you have time and means, volunteer, donate to a homeless shelter or charity. But if you, like most people, are not going to do that, and you just get the occasional pang of conscience when walking by, then by all means, give!

I think we can look at this in two ways, how to support the current homeless and how to prevent future homelessness.

Having worked in a soup kitchen, I've observed the current homeless are in their positions for many different reasons. Some had a long string of bad luck, some had one huge bout of bad luck (in terms of an unexpected bill, layoff, heath issue, etc.), some are homeless because of addiction/mental problems, some have addiction/mental problems because of homelessness, etc. So, all these different categories have to be addressed in different ways. There's no one size fits all solution, and pocket change is certainly insufficient in all categories. It's a tough sell politically to spend resources on this, and while religious and charity efforts can certainly "momentarily defer discomfort", they simply can't address all the underlaying issues all of these folks are having.

In terms of preventing future homelessness, that would require policy changes, like cheaper housing, a stronger welfare system, easier access to health care and more modern drug addiction treatments. Addressing these will be helpful for everyone, so hopefully it is easier to at least throw some political weight behind it for the future.

I sometimes give to panhandlers, but it’s mostly for my own benefit. I don’t believe my actions do anything to solve a problem, but I also don’t want to desensitize myself to the misery of others so much that I can easily ignore them. As far as I know, there is ample evidence that homelessness can be solved if there is sufficient political will to implement a structural solution.

I usually give when I see people. I've volunteered helping and met people in a variety of circumstances. The only thing I've learned that's common to all of them is they don't want to be in that situation.

I'm not going to judge someone on what they do with it. I have a fundamental belief that people are going to do the best they can with what they have. I'm going to put it all in the same level of self-determinism as the people who give me my income and what say they have on what I can do with it (none). If anything, by giving them that with no strings attached at least I gave them a little bit of dignity.

If you're not convinced, I encourage you to talk to them and make up your own mind.

Every situation is different.

I live in a city that had a huge influx of migrants. And with them, children. It feels different when those asking for money or trying to sell goods have children with them. Rather than someone who looks like they've struggled with addiction and homelessness for decades.

Everyone should do what they feel is the right decision at that time. One blanket answer for every context and every person out there isn't the answer.

Some people like to help everyone, others only in certain situations, and yet others never give help at all. And that's OK.

There is a homeless shelter in my town that we support. When a transient asks me for money, I direct them to where they can get food, clothing, shelter, and a job. They never seem interested. I suppose they already knew about it but didn't go. A few times some have appeared to be legitimately victims of unusual bad luck and I offered to buy them a meal, but each time they only wanted cash.

My Dad has always said the we should give money to people on the street. That we shouldn't worry about what they'll do with the money - that's their lookout; our worry should be about giving.

Now, that said, my Dad has also arranged his life so that he's rarely in a position where people are asking him for money. If he's out driving and see's someone he can pull over and ask them or he can keep driving.

I on the other hand am constantly accosted by people. I never have cash so that I can truthfully tell people I don't have money to give them. I avoid eye contact and have been embarrassed when a person asked me for directions and appeared to actually want directions to a place.

The thing I really suspect is that giving money really is about you not the person you're giving it to. That when I have had cash and handed it over it was because I actually interacted with the person acting and I just couldn't imagine myself as a person who would rudely tell another person asking for help "no" and then walk away.

Your dad is partly right. The main reason though is that we don’t care. Most people don’t care.

That’s the dark truth of it all.

Don’t worry about your kids or yourself. As usual most people won’t think so deeply about the matter and they will come up with some excuse to lie to themselves.

A few people will actually care enough to help. But these people are a tiny minority.

Among the people that don’t care most will be lying to themselves. Out of these people a small portion will be able to face their own intrinsic evil and literally say it like it is: I just don’t give a shit.

I’m one of those people. Anyone else like me?

I always give money if I have any on me, and I always try to have cash on me for this very reason. I do not want to live in a society where being inured to such a state of being is normal. And until we can figure out a way to convince other americans that everyone deserves a home, that we pay for if necessary, that's the best an individual can do.

Besides, kindness begets kindness. I have been on the receiving end of selfless help from uncountable people; to not do the same with the money I have would be cruel.

Being homeless is a state of mind and your money won't help anyone. Unless you found rare occurrence of homeless man who don't want to be homeless but some serious incident in life which did that to them.

In the past I was homeless for a month. I was young at that time (18 years old). After a very depressive period of 2 weeks I started to act so I won't be homeless any longer. Today I have 3 kids and a good job. It went well for me.

But usually, you will find people who are homeless and they like it. Or they don't want to change anything in their life to make a difference. For example, here where I live there are shelters for homeless people so they can find a place to sleep, take shower and wash their clothes. Also, they can get new clothes. But most of them don't want to go there as it is forbidden to be under influence of drugs and alcohol. Also, here is easy to find a job. Even if one has no special skills, there will be always something to do on the constructions. After one month of work and sleeping in the facility which I mentioned you can easily rent something and live normally. But being homeless, you don't need to work. That's it.

It is better to give to homeless shelters and food banks.

I once prescribed to the notion that it was wrong to give money to the homeless because it will just be used to feed some addiction. A friend challenged me on that by saying "who care?" Choose to give money or not to give money, who cares what they spend it on, or what they need to get through the day?

I think he was saying base the decision based on your own values and morals, but don't assume so you can make judgements about what they do with that money.

I honestly don't care if they spend it on drugs and think addiction is another ill of society like any other. Fear of giving money to an addict is an excuse we give ourselves. I always give them money, but I only do it once for the same person, so that the next person has an opportunity.

I give money to people on the street all the time, but it's rarely about the money. It's about stopping, asking how they're doing, showing them that someone cares even for just a minute or two, and then, lastly, giving them money that might be good for a slice of pizza or coffee.

There was a guy on my corner here in Brooklyn who I'd do this with a lot over the years. One night I was coming back from Manhattan and he clearly had just taken something -- he was in a totally joyful, high state. We say what's up, he's laughing, and then is like "can I have a hug?!?". And so we hug, he starts yelling "thank you!", and I ask him if he needed any money, to which he said "no money! just hugs!".

He's clearly been through an amount of trauma I can't even begin to imagine. If throwing a few dollars his way while chatting for a moment makes him feel like people see him as a human, then I'm going to keep doing it.

The author has jumped through many hoops to render himself into exhausting inaction. He isn't doing anything about a problem that bothers him, which includes the meta act of feeling bothered about his smug feeling of having thought about this problem in such detail.

It is really not complicated. It is not difficult to be generous at all levels to the extent you can. Give to the panhandler, give to a shelter, give to and volunteer at a soup kitchen, volunteer your time to public policy meetings. So many options that need neither your guilt nor gloat.

I don’t know why people tie themselves in knots over this. If you have money and you want to give it to a homeless person then do it.

I always come back to the this passage from john chysostom's on wealth and poverty:

> The almsgiver is a harbor for those in necessity: a harbor receives all who have encountered shipwreck, and frees them from danger; whether they are bad or good or whatever they are who are in danger, it escorts them into its own shelter. So you likewise, when you see on earth the man who has encountered the shipwreck of poverty, do not judge him, do not seek an account of his life, but free him from his misfortune. Why do you make trouble for yourself? God has excused you from all officiousness and meddlesomeness. How much most of us would complain, if God had bidden us first to examine each person's life exactly, to interfere with his behavior and his deeds, and only then to give alms? But as it is we are freed from all this kind of annoyance. Then why do we bring excessive cares on ourselves? A judge is one thing, an almsgiver is another. Charity is so called because we give it even to the unworthy.

You shouldn't live someplace that, to first order, has homeless people.

The unhoused are not a fact of nature; they exist only because of a deliberate choice as to the nature of the social safety net.

It depends on the individual. Any generalized answer will have cases that don't seem to fit.

Personally, if a guy looks like he's in rough shape and asks me for a drink, I might oblige him. Not because I think it's helping him in the long run, but because it could help him feel better now.

if that’s your argument on this, you can help by buying from people selling things in the street, they often are the homeless people that are trying to get out of this situation.

Short answer that is missing: we pay taxes for welfare.

The real reason you should not give money to panhandlers is because it incentivizes panhandling. You should give money if you want to see more panhandlers.

What does it matter if they spend the money on drugs? Their lives suck. I can hardly blame them for wanting drugs and if it makes them more comfortable for a short period of time, that is probably the best I can do for them. I’m powerless to change their situation. Even if I had the resources to house and employ such a person, I have no way to cure their mental and emotional issues that prevent them from being a stable person.

I want to take this essay seriously.

One major weakness of consequentialist ethics is that ethical actions require a non-trivial amount predictive power from agents:

Should we spoil our pants to save a drowning child? Sure. Should we wire a significant amount of money to a Nigerian prince who has informed us that he is setting up an organization to save drowning children? Probably not. Would we save baby Hitler? How could we ever accurately predict that a child will become Hitler?

The interplay between prediction accuracy here is tough when it comes to giving money to homeless folks. It's entirely possible that giving money can do harm, but in other cases it could also benefit. This indeterminacy is a huge problem for consequentialists (I am one), and creating a reasonable discount rate for lack of knowledge about outcomes generated is a very important part of creating a consequentialist ethical theory. Dealing with general rules for difficult-to-predict decisions is the realm of deontology, not consequentialism.

“Homeless” people (including people sleeping rough but not for the fun of it, and panhandlers) are part of a moral economy. The OP is considering their own moral position. This isn’t just about money, or “help.” It’s about self-respect and respect for others.

It’s even about patriotism.

There is no right answer— I can’t see the truth and don’t know the consequences of my actions. So, my policy is: I usually ignore them, and once in a while I offer the help they request.

The first time I visited Paris I saw a man begging on a street-corner. He had a dog. I gave money to help the dog. I soon found that nearly every street corner had another guy— with another dog! I wondered if this was a scheme by the men or if the dogs started it. It was harder to not give money to dogs, but I had to steel myself or I would go broke and be forced to get my own dog.

During a class discussion, one of my fellow students said the classic, “but they will use the money to buy drugs.” And the teacher responded, “So what?”

I think I agree. Drugs are bad, but withdrawal is also bad. Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.

YES, to the article in general - though many of the government systems which interact with these people are profoundly dysfunctional. At least around here - Michigan, USA.

For those who are intermittently homeless, due to mental health issues, and served by the public mental health systems - there seems to be no priority given to "find things that work for this client, then STICK TO THAT". Example - I've lost track of how many times a friend's niece has gone completely off the rails - because her latest gov't "psychiatrist" decided to switch her meds yet again, and she didn't like the new/different/worse side-effects.

There's also the issue of organized homeless encampments. NIMBY's and most of the government seem virulently opposed to those - even if well out of sight on low-value public land, and more orderly and safe than many traditional (but bottom-end poor) neighborhoods and housing complexes. Why? Does a "better" homeless encampment fail to provide enough boogeymen and government interactions and head-bashing opportunities for the politician and bureaucrats and cops?

> sounds like a lot of mental masturbation to simply justify your selfishness and unwillingness to occasionaly do a kind thing for someone less fortunate than you. At least you feel a sense of superiority – short lived though it is.

accurate

For less than the price of a candy bar you can feel better about yourself for the rest of the day. Small acts acts of kindness are rational even if the guy does go buy a bottle of gin.

Dallas has put up signs around the city saying "Say No to Street Charity," as in, don't give cash to panhandlers. I'm reasonably sure this campaign isn't managed by cold-hearted bigots who simply think everyone out there is a worthless drug addict that doesn't need help. Some sort of study has been conducted indicating cash from strangers contributes to problems more than it helps and there are better solutions that the city itself, along with whatever charitable organizations are addressing this, are doing their best to provide.

I was like this woman when I was a teenager as well. I not only did what she did, but I went well beyond that. When I got my first car, I drove into LA's skid row at night and handed out whatever cash I had to whoever I could find, at least once a week.

Much later in life, nearer to now, I actually lived in a major city downtown district. Frankly, the experience left me feeling hopeless in the face of a problem the scale of which no single person could ever hope to have a meaningful impact on. I started walking for several hours a day as part of my spinal rehab 8 years ago and I'd be stopped every 50 feet at times by people asking for money. This wasn't even just homeless beggars. It was often fundraisers for political campaigns and charities. This left me not only with the impression that I could spend the entire day handing out cash and all that would happen is, as much money as I make, I'd end up broke giving out thousands a day, and still not make any dent, but more practically speaking, I'd get no actual walking done. Being stopped three times a block by all the people demanding just a minute of my time adds up to a lot of minutes, leaving nothing for anything else.

It's a similar problem to retention marketing. Every single business you have ever done business with or even looked into doing business with puts you on a permanent list to send you updates of every promotion they ever run. To them, it's perfectly rational. Some evidence suggests the rate at which this turns leads into sales exceeds the cost of sending the messages. Collectively, however, if you even bothered to read all the e-mail and SMS and answer the phone calls, you'd have no time left to do anything else. You wouldn't even be able to eat or sleep.

To me, the only rational response left is to turn off and ignore all of this. I don't have the capacity to do individual triage. If I tried to evaluate which beggars need money the most or which spammers trying to buy my house might make a worthy offer, that would take even more time than simply listening to or reading all the spam. Even if I wanted to do it, it's not logistically possible.

This is probably not "optimal" altruism or anything, but fair or not, I've just retreated back into the circle of family and friends I already know. Plenty of them are hurting for money at times and I have never once hesitated to give it to them. I'm well aware there is no moral universe in which they are more deserving of charity than some distant kid in an impoverished, war-torn nation, but there are tens of millions of such kids and I can't get to know them the way I know my own family. I already pay taxes, and as far as I'm aware, though governments do a far from perfect job of this, their basic purpose is to address these kinds of large-scale coordination and knowledge problems that individuals can't possibly hope to address on their own.

when therapy talk is used to justify being an asshole, it's really amazing—like, "i also can’t endorse subjecting yourself to the mental load." therapy language repurposed to justify self-centeredness, dressing up selfish behavior as a form of "self-care" or boundary setting really feels like a hallmark of our era.

it would be much easier to say, "i am a bad person, and i don't care," and own it. that would help develop a less hypocritical vision of ethics and the functioning of society. confronting the banality of our own evil would humanize the evil in others.

probably even better than offering food, which is the most patronizing and offensive move (just offer money, always, please—and if they use it for drugs or alcohol, good for them). If people ask money, give money please. don't be an ass.

Don't give them food either.

If you live in a western country, or even most developing nations (India in particular has a great culture around this) food is available to the homeless.

When you give them food they have to eat it on the cold wet ground often with filthy hands, not at a table with a knife and fork like they had gone to the shelter or soup kitchen. They don't get to feel human. They don't get to experience dignity.

The soup kitchens are strategically located, often in areas where begging won't net you much. This is intentional, its set up to drive the homeless into the arms of the social workers and help them stay sober so that they might have a moment of clarity whilst talking to them.

If you want to help volunteer, make the toast or wash dishes so the social workers can spend more time trying to reach their clients.

You aren't trained to help so don't try. Its a more complex problem than you are equipped to do anything about. Trust the people who dedicated their lives to this work.

> And I still have no idea what I’ll tell my own children when the time comes.

of all sad words

of tongue and pen

the saddest are these:

dad was right again