4 ms·

I don't like how articles like this beg the question and assume that it's morally wrong for people to accrue wealth while simultaneously there exists homelessne

I don't like how articles like this beg the question and assume that it's morally wrong for people to accrue wealth while simultaneously there exists homelessness nearby. I certainly don't think there is any kind of consensus on this ethical question, and I would even say that it's quite tricky and the answer isn't at all clear to me either. That's not to say it's certainly OK, morally, to have huge concentrations of wealth and homeless people existing on the same city block, but I can't imagine it's decided that it's certainly not OK, especially when the people living outside refuse the help available and refuse treatment for their addiction and/or mental illness, so 'helping' them would require stripping them of their rights and 'helping' them by force.

danaris 7y ago
Except that a significant percentage of the homeless in America are not chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted: they are people who were getting by paycheck to paycheck, and then some catastrophe happened (medical emergency, tornado struck, got sued by the RIAA for more money than they make in a lifetime, got laid off, etc), and suddenly they could no longer maintain their house. And without a house, they lost the ability to find a better job or make a down payment—or even the first-and-last-months-up-front for a rental. And even for those who are chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted, far from all of them outright refuse treatment. For many, either no treatment is available, or the treatments that are available are either ineffective for them, or are so unpalatable for them that they would rather suffer. So please don't try to excuse those making tens of millions of dollars a year their societal responsibility to care for their fellow man by trying to paint everyone who is destitute as somehow deserving their fate.
- slx26 7y ago
  I agree with your comment, I just want to add a thought regarding "social responsibilities". Sometimes I think about it, and I believe the first problem is that a lot of people fail to even help themselves, to be responsible, at least in some aspects, for their own lives. And when I reflect about this (and I think this happens to people regardless their wealth levels), I just can't expect people to realistically "respond" to social responsibility in a way that would match our moral ideals.
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  You are just making unsupported assertions. I think you are repeating the usual 'facts' used to support the homeless by well meaning but not necessarily well informed people. I think to analyze this you have to break down what we mean by 'homeless'. There are people who are temporarily homeless, in that they don't have their name on a lease somewhere. This spans everything from living in their car to couch surfing or staying with relatives, all the way to staying in a battered woman's home or other form of homeless shelter. Homeless advocacy groups love to intentionally misrepresent things and highlight this group, which is a tiny minority of the homeless population living 'on the street', and who mostly have proper shelter, just not a permanent place to live. I'm all for helping these people in every possible way to make it easier for them and help them maintain stability while they figure out a long term living arrangement, especially if children are involved. They may have had some bad luck or more likely have a bad situation they are running away from, but fundamentally they are capable of taking care of themselves and holding a job once they get passed their current difficulties. If you look at the huge homeless encampments all across California you will find approximately 0 people fitting this description in any of them. While people who are temporarily homeless make up most of the overall 'homeless' population, they are mostly living inside some form of shelter since they are stable enough to seek and accept help. Again, these are not the people you see crapping on the sidewalk, although they do need our help and we should provide anything which would help them. Then there are chronically homeless people, people that live in these large encampments. These are the people we are actually debating. Sleeping on buses at night, panhandling, living on the street long term, and almost universally suffering from severe mental illness or addiction. It's convenient when someone points at the people who are chronically homeless and causing a lot of problems in cities to defend them by pretending people who are temporarily homeless due to some situation are somehow the same group as the people living in these tents by the side of the freeway, but this just isn't true. If you look at the statistics, over 80% of people who are chronically homeless have serious long term substance abusers, and over 60% have serious long term mental health problems (close to 100% are suffering from one or the other). https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/66286/310291-Homelessness-Programs-and-the-People-They-Serve-Findings-of-the-National-Survey-of-Homeless-Assistance-Providers-and-Clients.PDF https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/66286/... look around page 48
ptah 7y ago
to answer this question for yourself you may need to engage in one of these VR experiences :)
crdoconnor 7y ago
Accrual of vast amounts of wealth through unearned income and homelessness seems harder to reconcile. Especially since a lot of unearned income is essentially predicated on keeping downward pressure on wages (wages and profit are often in conflict).
- anbotero 7y ago
  While your “unearned income” argument is usually technically right for the billionaires of the world, these days it’s commonly assigned to pretty much everyone but homeless, which irks me. It’s like no matter what you do, even if you work hard and you are a law abiding citizen (and some moral compass to help), you’re still the worst person in the world for not actively helping homeless. At some point in my country I had so many experiences with homeless using the money I gave them for drugs/booze or rejecting food because it was not money, that yes, I eventually just ignore them. I cannot know their background, but should I actively try to find out? I don’t feel like that’s what I like to do with my life. Am I a bad person because of it, according to the article? If so, well, I am.
  - throwaway713 7y ago
    > homeless using the money I gave them for drugs/booze In grad school, I didn't have a whole lot of money myself, but a homeless person came up to me and asked for $20. I gave it to him, and—curious what he would do with it—proceeded to follow him at a distance. He walked into a gas station and purchased a six pack of beer. Today I was waiting in line outside a bakery in San Francisco and there was a kid about 10 years old in front of me. A homeless guy walked up next to him, pulled his pants down and proceeded to scream "asshole" loudly. Everyone in line did their best to pretend the guy wasn't there and he eventually wandered off. Call me callous and lacking empathy, but dealing with that particular "flavor" of homelessness is probably near the bottom of my todo list on ways that I can help improve the world. I get that there are a lot of homeless people that aren't like that (perhaps some catastrophic event happened to them), and I would like to help those people however I can, but the much more common kind of homelessness that I am exposed to on a daily basis around the Bay Area makes it very difficult for me to feel guilty about not doing more.
peterwwillis 7y ago
> especially when the people living outside refuse the help available and refuse treatment for their addiction and/or mental illness, so 'helping' them would require stripping them of their rights and 'helping' them by force. This is a stereotype, and not at all reflective of the overall cases of homelessness throughout America.

danaris 7y ago

Except that a significant percentage of the homeless in America are not chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted: they are people who were getting by paycheck to paycheck, and then some catastrophe happened (medical emergency, tornado struck, got sued by the RIAA for more money than they make in a lifetime, got laid off, etc), and suddenly they could no longer maintain their house. And without a house, they lost the ability to find a better job or make a down payment—or even the first-and-last-months-up-front for a rental. And even for those who are chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted, far from all of them outright refuse treatment. For many, either no treatment is available, or the treatments that are available are either ineffective for them, or are so unpalatable for them that they would rather suffer. So please don't try to excuse those making tens of millions of dollars a year their societal responsibility to care for their fellow man by trying to paint everyone who is destitute as somehow deserving their fate.

slx26 7y ago
I agree with your comment, I just want to add a thought regarding "social responsibilities". Sometimes I think about it, and I believe the first problem is that a lot of people fail to even help themselves, to be responsible, at least in some aspects, for their own lives. And when I reflect about this (and I think this happens to people regardless their wealth levels), I just can't expect people to realistically "respond" to social responsibility in a way that would match our moral ideals.
ltbarcly3 7y ago
You are just making unsupported assertions. I think you are repeating the usual 'facts' used to support the homeless by well meaning but not necessarily well informed people. I think to analyze this you have to break down what we mean by 'homeless'. There are people who are temporarily homeless, in that they don't have their name on a lease somewhere. This spans everything from living in their car to couch surfing or staying with relatives, all the way to staying in a battered woman's home or other form of homeless shelter. Homeless advocacy groups love to intentionally misrepresent things and highlight this group, which is a tiny minority of the homeless population living 'on the street', and who mostly have proper shelter, just not a permanent place to live. I'm all for helping these people in every possible way to make it easier for them and help them maintain stability while they figure out a long term living arrangement, especially if children are involved. They may have had some bad luck or more likely have a bad situation they are running away from, but fundamentally they are capable of taking care of themselves and holding a job once they get passed their current difficulties. If you look at the huge homeless encampments all across California you will find approximately 0 people fitting this description in any of them. While people who are temporarily homeless make up most of the overall 'homeless' population, they are mostly living inside some form of shelter since they are stable enough to seek and accept help. Again, these are not the people you see crapping on the sidewalk, although they do need our help and we should provide anything which would help them. Then there are chronically homeless people, people that live in these large encampments. These are the people we are actually debating. Sleeping on buses at night, panhandling, living on the street long term, and almost universally suffering from severe mental illness or addiction. It's convenient when someone points at the people who are chronically homeless and causing a lot of problems in cities to defend them by pretending people who are temporarily homeless due to some situation are somehow the same group as the people living in these tents by the side of the freeway, but this just isn't true. If you look at the statistics, over 80% of people who are chronically homeless have serious long term substance abusers, and over 60% have serious long term mental health problems (close to 100% are suffering from one or the other). https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/66286/310291-Homelessness-Programs-and-the-People-They-Serve-Findings-of-the-National-Survey-of-Homeless-Assistance-Providers-and-Clients.PDF https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/66286/... look around page 48

ptah 7y ago

to answer this question for yourself you may need to engage in one of these VR experiences :)

crdoconnor 7y ago

Accrual of vast amounts of wealth through unearned income and homelessness seems harder to reconcile. Especially since a lot of unearned income is essentially predicated on keeping downward pressure on wages (wages and profit are often in conflict).

anbotero 7y ago
While your “unearned income” argument is usually technically right for the billionaires of the world, these days it’s commonly assigned to pretty much everyone but homeless, which irks me. It’s like no matter what you do, even if you work hard and you are a law abiding citizen (and some moral compass to help), you’re still the worst person in the world for not actively helping homeless. At some point in my country I had so many experiences with homeless using the money I gave them for drugs/booze or rejecting food because it was not money, that yes, I eventually just ignore them. I cannot know their background, but should I actively try to find out? I don’t feel like that’s what I like to do with my life. Am I a bad person because of it, according to the article? If so, well, I am.
- throwaway713 7y ago
  > homeless using the money I gave them for drugs/booze In grad school, I didn't have a whole lot of money myself, but a homeless person came up to me and asked for $20. I gave it to him, and—curious what he would do with it—proceeded to follow him at a distance. He walked into a gas station and purchased a six pack of beer. Today I was waiting in line outside a bakery in San Francisco and there was a kid about 10 years old in front of me. A homeless guy walked up next to him, pulled his pants down and proceeded to scream "asshole" loudly. Everyone in line did their best to pretend the guy wasn't there and he eventually wandered off. Call me callous and lacking empathy, but dealing with that particular "flavor" of homelessness is probably near the bottom of my todo list on ways that I can help improve the world. I get that there are a lot of homeless people that aren't like that (perhaps some catastrophic event happened to them), and I would like to help those people however I can, but the much more common kind of homelessness that I am exposed to on a daily basis around the Bay Area makes it very difficult for me to feel guilty about not doing more.

peterwwillis 7y ago

> especially when the people living outside refuse the help available and refuse treatment for their addiction and/or mental illness, so 'helping' them would require stripping them of their rights and 'helping' them by force. This is a stereotype, and not at all reflective of the overall cases of homelessness throughout America.