3 ms·

I think the linked article answers your statements more effectively than I could. You should read it. But I'll try anyway. > begging undignified That's the po

I think the linked article answers your statements more effectively than I could. You should read it. But I'll try anyway. > begging undignified That's the point. It's so undignified that the people doing it likely do not consider it a choice. Saying "I won't give you what you want because I know what's best for you" is compounding that situation with infantilization/patronization. > Kantian BS/"Do no harm" The categorical imperative doesn't help you decide one way or the other here, because you have no information other than someone asking you for money. Giving the money could hurt or help. Not giving it could hurt or help. There is no clear "rational" (Kantian) or Hippocratic ("Do no harm") choice here. Absent that clarity, unless you want to defend defaulting to inaction, make a moral choice to preserve someone's dignity. > I don't give random strangers money normally. Maybe you should, especially when they are literally begging you for it on a street full of people who ignore them or treat them like shit all day.

Chris2048 9y ago
If a person is an addict, not giving them the object of their addiction is best for them. I do know this. If you want to call that "infantilization", fine - but you already agree they have little choice - so it is you choosing for them; So which is infantilization? The basis of "patronizing" is an invalid assumption of incompetence - in this case the assumption that an addict cannot rationally control their addition is perfectly valid. As for " I know what's best for you" - I'm sure the addict know what's best for themselves too - they just can't control the impulse to do not do it. > There is no clear "rational" (Kantian) or Hippocratic ("Do no harm") choice here > unless you want to defend defaulting to inaction, make a moral choice to preserve someone's dignity This appears to be a contradiction - there is no clear choice, but we should default to action? I don't see why "dignity" (which I don't agree with btw - I feel being drunk/high is just as undignified) is a winner over Hippocratic inaction. > Maybe you should You are ignoring the context of what I said. You suggested denying homeless money is not treating them like "people", but I don't give none-homeless strangers money either, so why would you consider refusing to giving a stranger money on demand as inhumane?

Chris2048 9y ago

If a person is an addict, not giving them the object of their addiction is best for them. I do know this. If you want to call that "infantilization", fine - but you already agree they have little choice - so it is you choosing for them; So which is infantilization? The basis of "patronizing" is an invalid assumption of incompetence - in this case the assumption that an addict cannot rationally control their addition is perfectly valid. As for " I know what's best for you" - I'm sure the addict know what's best for themselves too - they just can't control the impulse to do not do it. > There is no clear "rational" (Kantian) or Hippocratic ("Do no harm") choice here > unless you want to defend defaulting to inaction, make a moral choice to preserve someone's dignity This appears to be a contradiction - there is no clear choice, but we should default to action? I don't see why "dignity" (which I don't agree with btw - I feel being drunk/high is just as undignified) is a winner over Hippocratic inaction. > Maybe you should You are ignoring the context of what I said. You suggested denying homeless money is not treating them like "people", but I don't give none-homeless strangers money either, so why would you consider refusing to giving a stranger money on demand as inhumane?