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

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?