3 ms·

I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a con

I choose one out of the many, and it doesn't have to be every day - or every week; and I do this only when I have some real time to spend to talk, in case a conversation gets deep, which can happen and is a good thing. At least a third of the time I bring say cherries or a couple of bananas (scurvy from Vitamin C deficiency is not uncommon for homeless people.) The food donations would be more common except that I don't always carry food, and I try to avoid theatrical and practiced begging, since that's more likely to be for drugs so won't stop for the first apparently homeless person I see. I don't feel weird "giving to one and not the many," since I've read some Kant and know that I have no moral obligation to do the impossible; I don't even think I have an obligation to do so much that I start to hate doing it, and might quit. I don't mean to be unkind, but "I can't help everyone." and "It might feel weird" do seem like rationalizations to me. The guy I've sat with most had a serious (obvious impact) brain injury, and when I last talked with him, he was drinking while contemplating whether he should go to a meeting that had been set up with his son, who he hadn't seen since his childhood. He was very worried his now-adult son might not like him. I told him (on the basis of previous our conversations) that he should be proud of himself; he was shouldering a huge burden better he would than most of us would. That it didn't really matter whether his son "got that" or didn't; he should go to help his son understand the world, and understand himself. I have no idea whether he ever met with his son or not. Break some boundaries, experiment a bit, you don't have to go overboard.

Kalium 8y ago
Have you ever seen Schindler's List? There's a scene, near the end, where Oskar Schindler breaks down. He looks at all the little luxuries in his life, tallies their cost, and lists off how many more lives that could have saved. It nearly destroys him. To Schindler, "I have no moral obligation to do the impossible" would have come off as a self-serving rationalization for not doing as much as you can. For all that, you're absolutely right. Break some boundaries! Challenge yourself! Experiment! Just understand that some other people, having gone through similar processes, might arrive at personal conclusions that could in some instances perhaps differ slightly from yours. Perhaps you and I could be more careful in what we deem justified and what we deem a rationalization, knowing that those are intensely personal decisions.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  If you read carefully you will find that I have argued for doing as much as you can sustain doing. (I have edited slightly to make that clearer, now.) At the same time, unlike yourself, I thought it a best marketing practice to encourage people to get started with good actions, not to sell them on saintliness immediately. "First get a yes," as salesmen say. Perhaps that seems like a bitter trick to you, but Aristotle advises that establishing the habit of good action takes time. Also remember, you don't know my circumstances - I'm trying hard not to use a wheelchair now, for example, so I may not be as active as you. I'm not young. Kudos if your charity can be relentless. So do note that my argument was a limited one, I was arguing in favor of at least some action, not trying to define ceilings other than what you can sustain doing. Which, as it turns out, over time - is actually the greatest possible effort one could offer. Not to mention that homeless people are but one possible focus for charity so I can't accept your apparent insistence that I should devote all my energy to them exclusively; I spend far more time and effort trying to help the severely chronically ill in my own way and am not willing to give that up. If only because chronic illness often leads to homelessness.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
It's cool that you do this and I enjoyed reading the comment, but I'm not too keen on the idea of actively encouraging random strangers on the internet to try the same when they clearly are openly hostile. I can readily see that going bad places. When I was on the street, people sometimes treated me like a zoo animal they could gawk at and would waste my time and energy and violate my personal boundaries by peppering me with invasive questions. No, they weren't going to be a positive social experience for me. No, they weren't going to help me brain storm or problem solve. No, they weren't going to do anything for me. People who have nothing but contempt and excuses can just keep walking as far as I'm concerned. They don't need to listen to stories of how you behave, filter it through their mind and come to bizarre conclusions that are likely to just add to the problems of the poorest of the poor.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  I take your point, and it's a good one. My counter would be that I would like to encourage the less-narcissistic to be of a little help and make contact, in part because, just as you say, right now those who aren't homeless but are willing to interact with them are not always the best people - they often have selfish or trivial agendas. We need a few more making real contact who don't. You know, actual mature human beings. So I wouldn't want to think that I've encouraged "poverty tourism" (which has a long history, right back to Victorian slum tours, and probably further back than that.) I'm absolutely not trying to indulge my curiosity when talking to a homeless person; that seems exploitative at best. If a question would be intrusive and unnecessary if you posed it to a billionaire, it's probably not polite question for a homeless person, either. You've better expressed what I meant when I said I always made sure I had time to talk: sometimes homeless people are new to town, or just have something on their mind, and I'm happy to brainstorm (or help fix a bike one time.) But that's up to them of course.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I guess I would say your first three paragraphs (of the comment in question) were fine, but your closing sentence is of questionable value and veers into territory that concerns me. /unasked for feedback

Kalium 8y ago

Have you ever seen Schindler's List? There's a scene, near the end, where Oskar Schindler breaks down. He looks at all the little luxuries in his life, tallies their cost, and lists off how many more lives that could have saved. It nearly destroys him. To Schindler, "I have no moral obligation to do the impossible" would have come off as a self-serving rationalization for not doing as much as you can. For all that, you're absolutely right. Break some boundaries! Challenge yourself! Experiment! Just understand that some other people, having gone through similar processes, might arrive at personal conclusions that could in some instances perhaps differ slightly from yours. Perhaps you and I could be more careful in what we deem justified and what we deem a rationalization, knowing that those are intensely personal decisions.

Nomentatus 8y ago
If you read carefully you will find that I have argued for doing as much as you can sustain doing. (I have edited slightly to make that clearer, now.) At the same time, unlike yourself, I thought it a best marketing practice to encourage people to get started with good actions, not to sell them on saintliness immediately. "First get a yes," as salesmen say. Perhaps that seems like a bitter trick to you, but Aristotle advises that establishing the habit of good action takes time. Also remember, you don't know my circumstances - I'm trying hard not to use a wheelchair now, for example, so I may not be as active as you. I'm not young. Kudos if your charity can be relentless. So do note that my argument was a limited one, I was arguing in favor of at least some action, not trying to define ceilings other than what you can sustain doing. Which, as it turns out, over time - is actually the greatest possible effort one could offer. Not to mention that homeless people are but one possible focus for charity so I can't accept your apparent insistence that I should devote all my energy to them exclusively; I spend far more time and effort trying to help the severely chronically ill in my own way and am not willing to give that up. If only because chronic illness often leads to homelessness.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

It's cool that you do this and I enjoyed reading the comment, but I'm not too keen on the idea of actively encouraging random strangers on the internet to try the same when they clearly are openly hostile. I can readily see that going bad places. When I was on the street, people sometimes treated me like a zoo animal they could gawk at and would waste my time and energy and violate my personal boundaries by peppering me with invasive questions. No, they weren't going to be a positive social experience for me. No, they weren't going to help me brain storm or problem solve. No, they weren't going to do anything for me. People who have nothing but contempt and excuses can just keep walking as far as I'm concerned. They don't need to listen to stories of how you behave, filter it through their mind and come to bizarre conclusions that are likely to just add to the problems of the poorest of the poor.

Nomentatus 8y ago
I take your point, and it's a good one. My counter would be that I would like to encourage the less-narcissistic to be of a little help and make contact, in part because, just as you say, right now those who aren't homeless but are willing to interact with them are not always the best people - they often have selfish or trivial agendas. We need a few more making real contact who don't. You know, actual mature human beings. So I wouldn't want to think that I've encouraged "poverty tourism" (which has a long history, right back to Victorian slum tours, and probably further back than that.) I'm absolutely not trying to indulge my curiosity when talking to a homeless person; that seems exploitative at best. If a question would be intrusive and unnecessary if you posed it to a billionaire, it's probably not polite question for a homeless person, either. You've better expressed what I meant when I said I always made sure I had time to talk: sometimes homeless people are new to town, or just have something on their mind, and I'm happy to brainstorm (or help fix a bike one time.) But that's up to them of course.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I guess I would say your first three paragraphs (of the comment in question) were fine, but your closing sentence is of questionable value and veers into territory that concerns me. /unasked for feedback