4 ms·

Why not hand the next beggar you see a $20?

by jcroll 13y ago

justinpombrio 13y ago
Presumably because $20 goes further in Kenya than in wealthier countries.
- jcroll 13y ago
  My only point is that to me, giving cash to Kenyans and giving cash to beggars seems morally equivalent. Not saying you shouldn't do either but I do think if you give Kenyans cash but have qualms with giving beggars money, well I don't think that makes much sense.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - twotwotwo 13y ago
    If giving $20 to a Kenyan does more good, and you think the most moral thing is to direct your efforts where they do the most good, then there's how they're not morally equivalent.
  - repiret 13y ago
    I believe there are people with the necessary character to be economically successful, but who have never had the economic opportunity to move beyond their basic needs and are therefore poor. I also believe there are people who have had many economic opportunities, but have squandered them, and are therefore poor. In the context of the adage "give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach him to fish and he'll be fed for life," one can expect cash given to the first group to be spent on fishing rods, while cash given to the second to be spent on fish. I find giving cash to the first group to be morally different than giving cash to the second group, and I suspect that poor Kenyan villagers are likely to belong to the first group, while beggars in wealthy developed countries are likely to belong to the second.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - praxulus 13y ago
    Morally they're equivalent, but practically they're not. While I would like those beggars to receive money, I don't want them to be the exclusive recipients of cash aid, excluding the many poor people who don't happen to be actually begging on the street. I want an organized program that takes the available cash (donations or taxes) and distributes it in a "fair" way among the poor. What constitutes fair is difficult to answer, but I certainly don't have enough information available to make that decision right when someone asks me for money.
  - csomar 13y ago
    I think the idea is to give the money to random people (not necessarily the ones who needed). A beggar is not exactly random.
    - cjbprime 13y ago
      No, the opposite. Give Directly finds the very poorest people in a village (as judged by the materials their house is made from), and the Uganda study used self-selected entrepreneurs. Both of these were trying to maximize the impact of each dollar by giving the money to the people for whom it would do the most good. Giving money to a beggar in the US would not do nearly as much good, both because the US has excellent safety nets (hospitals that will treat you, food banks) and because everything in the US costs more (so you can provide less of it to someone in need per dollar).
  - notahacker 13y ago
    Not really. Giving beggars has the side effect of incentivising begging, which many people would not consider to be a morally neutral decision. One can also reasonably judge that on the balance of probability, aid money will almost certainly have a significant positive effect on the lives of Kenyans. The effect of a comparable amount of cash on the lives of beggars in Western countries is much less unequivocally positive (potentially a net negative if its spent on substances that harm the beggar's health, or the income disincentives them from seeking programs that aim to help them with more than just their next meal)
  - cjbprime 13y ago
    Most people measure morality by looking at the difference between consequences as a result of Action X or Action Y. It's fairly obvious that giving $20 to someone making $1/day is likely to have better consequences than giving it to someone making $40/day (or who has more than the purchasing power of $40/day of social aid available to them). That's why we say the actions are morally different. I'm surprised you think there's no moral difference. There would be a moral difference between saving someone's life with $20 and treating someone to a meal at Starbucks for $20, right?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    For one thing, many (possibly most) beggars are not actually poor.
r0h1n 13y ago
Since you couldn't be bothered to read the article before leaving what must apparently be a wisecrack: it was a controlled experiment using groups. > Blattman, an assistant professor of international and public affairs and political science, recently completed a four-year study of a government-run program in northern Uganda that gave cash to groups of young people so they could learn a trade and start their own businesses. The results surprised him and convinced him that outright grants are the best way to give aid. > The program, funded by a loan from the World Bank, was designed to boost the Ugandan economy after 20 years of civil strife by encouraging young people—ages 16 to 35—to move from agriculture to skilled trades. The grants were only about $400 per person, the equivalent of a year’s income for most people in the area. To get the cash, applicants had to form a group with others in their village and submit a proposal showing how they planned to use the money, but there was no follow-up to make sure they used it for that purpose. > Grant recipients became carpenters, metal workers, tailors and hair stylists. Some of the money—about 10 to 20 percent—went for training, either at an institute or as an apprentice to a local artisan, but most of it was used to purchase tools and raw materials. Some of those small businesses grew large enough to hire paid employees, improving the economic situation in an entire village.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
venomsnake 13y ago
Various reasons - first of all - in the developed world there are social safety networks that should take care of the less fortunate. So a beggar on the street means my government has failed. Second - begging is lucrative industry in parts of the world. Third poor != beggar. The people that they gave money to were poor but were also young, employed (in agriculture) and integrated into society.
meej 13y ago
Why not, indeed? Jon Carroll publishes an article in the SF Chronicle most Decembers asking his readers to do just that. http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/The-Untied-Way-early-3210228.php http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/The-Untied-Way-e...

Why not hand the next beggar you see a $20?

by jcroll 13y ago

Why not hand the next beggar you see a $20?

justinpombrio 13y ago

Presumably because $20 goes further in Kenya than in wealthier countries.

jcroll 13y ago
My only point is that to me, giving cash to Kenyans and giving cash to beggars seems morally equivalent. Not saying you shouldn't do either but I do think if you give Kenyans cash but have qualms with giving beggars money, well I don't think that makes much sense.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- twotwotwo 13y ago
  If giving $20 to a Kenyan does more good, and you think the most moral thing is to direct your efforts where they do the most good, then there's how they're not morally equivalent.
- repiret 13y ago
  I believe there are people with the necessary character to be economically successful, but who have never had the economic opportunity to move beyond their basic needs and are therefore poor. I also believe there are people who have had many economic opportunities, but have squandered them, and are therefore poor. In the context of the adage "give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach him to fish and he'll be fed for life," one can expect cash given to the first group to be spent on fishing rods, while cash given to the second to be spent on fish. I find giving cash to the first group to be morally different than giving cash to the second group, and I suspect that poor Kenyan villagers are likely to belong to the first group, while beggars in wealthy developed countries are likely to belong to the second.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- praxulus 13y ago
  Morally they're equivalent, but practically they're not. While I would like those beggars to receive money, I don't want them to be the exclusive recipients of cash aid, excluding the many poor people who don't happen to be actually begging on the street. I want an organized program that takes the available cash (donations or taxes) and distributes it in a "fair" way among the poor. What constitutes fair is difficult to answer, but I certainly don't have enough information available to make that decision right when someone asks me for money.
- csomar 13y ago
  I think the idea is to give the money to random people (not necessarily the ones who needed). A beggar is not exactly random.
  - cjbprime 13y ago
    No, the opposite. Give Directly finds the very poorest people in a village (as judged by the materials their house is made from), and the Uganda study used self-selected entrepreneurs. Both of these were trying to maximize the impact of each dollar by giving the money to the people for whom it would do the most good. Giving money to a beggar in the US would not do nearly as much good, both because the US has excellent safety nets (hospitals that will treat you, food banks) and because everything in the US costs more (so you can provide less of it to someone in need per dollar).
- notahacker 13y ago
  Not really. Giving beggars has the side effect of incentivising begging, which many people would not consider to be a morally neutral decision. One can also reasonably judge that on the balance of probability, aid money will almost certainly have a significant positive effect on the lives of Kenyans. The effect of a comparable amount of cash on the lives of beggars in Western countries is much less unequivocally positive (potentially a net negative if its spent on substances that harm the beggar's health, or the income disincentives them from seeking programs that aim to help them with more than just their next meal)
- cjbprime 13y ago
  Most people measure morality by looking at the difference between consequences as a result of Action X or Action Y. It's fairly obvious that giving $20 to someone making $1/day is likely to have better consequences than giving it to someone making $40/day (or who has more than the purchasing power of $40/day of social aid available to them). That's why we say the actions are morally different. I'm surprised you think there's no moral difference. There would be a moral difference between saving someone's life with $20 and treating someone to a meal at Starbucks for $20, right?
- mikeash 13y ago
  For one thing, many (possibly most) beggars are not actually poor.

r0h1n 13y ago

Since you couldn't be bothered to read the article before leaving what must apparently be a wisecrack: it was a controlled experiment using groups. > Blattman, an assistant professor of international and public affairs and political science, recently completed a four-year study of a government-run program in northern Uganda that gave cash to groups of young people so they could learn a trade and start their own businesses. The results surprised him and convinced him that outright grants are the best way to give aid. > The program, funded by a loan from the World Bank, was designed to boost the Ugandan economy after 20 years of civil strife by encouraging young people—ages 16 to 35—to move from agriculture to skilled trades. The grants were only about $400 per person, the equivalent of a year’s income for most people in the area. To get the cash, applicants had to form a group with others in their village and submit a proposal showing how they planned to use the money, but there was no follow-up to make sure they used it for that purpose. > Grant recipients became carpenters, metal workers, tailors and hair stylists. Some of the money—about 10 to 20 percent—went for training, either at an institute or as an apprentice to a local artisan, but most of it was used to purchase tools and raw materials. Some of those small businesses grew large enough to hire paid employees, improving the economic situation in an entire village.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

venomsnake 13y ago

Various reasons - first of all - in the developed world there are social safety networks that should take care of the less fortunate. So a beggar on the street means my government has failed. Second - begging is lucrative industry in parts of the world. Third poor != beggar. The people that they gave money to were poor but were also young, employed (in agriculture) and integrated into society.

meej 13y ago

Why not, indeed? Jon Carroll publishes an article in the SF Chronicle most Decembers asking his readers to do just that. http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/The-Untied-Way-early-3210228.php http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/The-Untied-Way-e...