To be fair, he did say he was playing devil's advocate. Also to be fair, he does kind of have a point about the guy who cussed him out over saying no.
The problem with begging arises in the distinction between "asking" and "begging". Begging can imply pressuring the other person and generally refusing to take no for an answer. If someone asks you for money, but realistically isn't going to allow you to say no, is it really that different from stealing? At that point it really depends on how the person goes about it. The random guy who silently stands with a cardboard sign is generally more acceptable then the guy who goes out of their way to engage and harass specific passerbys.
To be fair, he did say he was playing devil's advocate.
Devil's advocate does not exempt you from making outright incorrect statements. He's making posts full of links without reading or understanding a single one of them. This is worrying behavior.
If someone asks you for money, but realistically isn't going to allow you to say no, is it really that different from stealing?
You can ignore even the most insistent begging. Theft is a little trickier to refuse.
You wouldn't be faced with the moral hang-ups that arise, if the beggar hadn't begged you.
Again, the passerby didn't SEEK OUT a beggar to solicit them. The beggar seeks out the targets of their solicitation.
The only problem with begging is that some have to do it to live. If you feel bad about ignoring a hungry person then that sure aint the fault of the person reduced to begging for scraps. Happy tummyfeels are a secondary concern to acknowledging that our society is structured to produce beggars.
It is not a truth that beggars cannot not be beggars.
Many of them make life choices and mistakes that put them where they are.
Some of them are flat out scammers, some panhandle to fund their addictions, some really are victims of circumstance, some are mentally ill.
Scammers definitely fall under emotional blackmail. Since the suffering they use against their victims is false.
Addicts are creating an illegitimate guilt within the victim. Since the passerby should NOT feel guilty for denying them. You should not feel guilty for not giving money to someone to buy drugs or alcohol. Yet, they still prey upon your compassion to manipulate you into helping them.
The ones that are indeed down on their luck, are still using their situation to manipulate their victims into coughing up some dough.
Especially since many trot out their pets, kids, or other sympathetic props in order to increase the burden of guilt on the passerby.
The mentally ill, again, an illegitimate guilt - you should not feel guilty for not helping them, they should not be on the street in the first place.
All of these types ignore the other types of beggars. The friends, family, or acquaintances that beg you for help. They are just as manipulative as anyone else can be.
The "old friend from high school", the "remember me dude".
Highroller's inability to have abstract thoughts, and see the parallels between coercion, emotional blackmail, and begging is not my problem. Since he doesn't get it, he'll try to somehow shame me, or use his little insults against me, but he still isn't seeing the point.
The point is that there ARE similarities between begging, and acts of coercion or emotional blackmail.
Coercion uses psychological pressure. Just like begging.
Guilt can get the passerby to do something they might not do otherwise.
Coercion forces the victim to act contrary to their interests - just like begging.
The passerby is likely interested in keeping their $5, but will give it up to avoid negative feelings and the pressure of that possible guilt.
The emotional blackmail side of coercion involves using those feelings of guilt, or disapproval from your peer-group, to get the victim to do what the blackmailer wants.
For example a christian might feel that turning down the beggar will make them a "bad" christian, or that God will disapprove of them not helping.
...Kindly note: Emotional Blackmail occurs in all types of relationships; and is not strictly a love - related issue."
Beggars are most definitely "sufferers".
And no HR, they don't HAVE TO BE faking it.
I mean what deeper form of emotional blackmail is there than "If you don't give me what I want, you will punish yourself."
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-psychological-manipulation.htm "Most manipulators use the same mind control tactics to exercise influence over others. Emotional blackmail is considered one such tactic, in which the psychological manipulator seeks to inspire guilt or sympathy in the manipulated person. Guilt and sympathy are considered two of the strongest human emotions, and are capable of spurring most people into action. Manipulative people often take advantage of this, using guilt or sympathy to coerce others into helping or cooperating with them."
The parallels are so easy to see, when Highroller wakes up and realizes that, he can apologize for the way he is talking to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I think a key thing to realize here is how powerful psychological pressuring really is. It is very easy to say "you can just say no" and "you can just ignore them" and so on. But in reality, were that true, we wouldn't have a huge chunk of the population suffering from a laundry list of mental health conditions. There is a non-trivial % of the population for whom saying no to a beggar could take a HUGE amount of mental energy, motivation, and so on. Yes, it is THEIR mental issue, but is it really fair for someone else to be trying to profit off and take advantage of it, by trying to pressure them into something?
Don't get me wrong, I still think straight up stealing is worse. I just don't think we should be so quick to dismiss some of what really goes on in the case of begging.
I think a key thing to realize here is how powerful psychological pressuring really is. It is very easy to say "you can just say no" and "you can just ignore them" and so on. But in reality, were that true, we wouldn't have a huge chunk of the population suffering from a laundry list of mental health conditions. There is a non-trivial % of the population for whom saying no to a beggar could take a HUGE amount of mental energy, motivation, and so on. Yes, it is THEIR mental issue, but is it really fair for someone else to be trying to profit off and take advantage of it, by trying to pressure them into something?
I agree, psychological pressure is a powerful thing. Peer pressure for instance is a huge factor in social behavior.
Don't get me wrong, I still think straight up stealing is worse. I just don't think we should be so quick to dismiss some of what really goes on in the case of begging.
It depends.
If a bank robber steals from the bank at night with no one there, 1) they caused no one to fear and panic, 2) they didn't threaten anyone directly, 3) The money is federally insured so it's not like they stole it from your hands.
So while this is still an immoral and illegal action, and I would punish them as the law allows.
Is it as bad as a panhandler cornering you at a red light, washing your windshield without your permission, then pressuring you to hand over some compensation?
All these things have varying shades of grey area.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I think a key thing to realize here is how powerful psychological pressuring really is. It is very easy to say "you can just say no" and "you can just ignore them" and so on. But in reality, were that true, we wouldn't have a huge chunk of the population suffering from a laundry list of mental health conditions. There is a non-trivial % of the population for whom saying no to a beggar could take a HUGE amount of mental energy, motivation, and so on. Yes, it is THEIR mental issue, but is it really fair for someone else to be trying to profit off and take advantage of it, by trying to pressure them into something?
I agree, psychological pressure is a powerful thing. Peer pressure for instance is a huge factor in social behavior.
Don't get me wrong, I still think straight up stealing is worse. I just don't think we should be so quick to dismiss some of what really goes on in the case of begging.
It depends.
If a bank robber steals from the bank at night with no one there, 1) they caused no one to fear and panic, 2) they didn't threaten anyone directly, 3) The money is federally insured so it's not like they stole it from your hands.
So while this is still an immoral and illegal action, and I would punish them as the law allows.
Is it as bad as a panhandler cornering you at a red light, washing your windshield without your permission, then pressuring you to hand over some compensation?
All these things have varying shades of grey area.
This is where your argument falls flat, WE fund the federal goverment, OUR tax dollars fund it, so they stole from me just less directly, as the money the goverment lost from reinbursing me is now NOT being used by the goverment to better our children, pay for health care or our miltary, I would argue the lesser moral theft is stealing from someone NOT federaly insured as then they are not stealing from the entire nation. Begging is the lesser of two evils, If you set up shop begging somewhere I can choose to cross the street and not be bothered by you, I can choose to just walk past you giving you nothing, I can choose to ignore you, You have caused me no direct harm, Stealing always causes harm, its selfish, Begging is also a profession, the act of giving me pleasure for your misfortune which I compensate you for because it bring joy or releaf for doing so, Begging is no different than an entertainer, Theft is not optional, there is no disgression, you steal from someone they directly lose their resourses, they gain nothing for it.
You are correct, I probably should have thought of that sooner - but again, stealing $10,000 from an insured bank might be 0.02 of a penny from every citizen given the nature of where that insurance money comes from - versus $10,000 from ONE citizen, which on a matter of scale, is far more harmful.
Pain spread out is certainly not less pain, but it is somewhat easier to manage, I would say.
You also bring up a good point - sometimes you feel joy and inward satisfaction after helping the needy. That emotional reward could be an acceptable mitigation - but then, is it any less manipulative?
"If you give me what I want, you'll feel good about yourself."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Well is it any more manipulative then any other phrase of the form "If you give me what I want, you'll get X"? I mean such phrases are the basis of basically every reasonable transaction ever.
Yes, but in the beggar>passerby situation, it is often an unwanted transaction, an undesired solicitation. This is different than the transactions we enter into freely, or mutually.
So although pretty much all transactions involve some sort of manipulation, or persuasion, or coercion, not all of them are ethically the same.
For instance, if I take my car to a mechanic for some routine service, we might have a mutually beneficial transaction.
However, if my car broke down, and the only shop for miles raked me over the coals or wouldn't repair my car unless I grossly overpaid - it's ethically not the same thing - even though both are paying for car repairs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Addicts are creating an illegitimate guilt within the victim. Since the passerby should NOT feel guilty for denying them. You should not feel guilty for not giving money to someone to buy drugs or alcohol. Yet, they still prey upon your compassion to manipulate you into helping them.
Your argument is what is called psychological projection, a defense mechanism in which a person ascribes unwanted feelings or attributes about himself onto other objects or persons.
In this case, you are attempting to take your own feelings and judgements about yourself and projecting them onto beggars, thereby claiming that they are selfish, heartless people actively conspiring to make you feel sympathy.
Begging from others may be unwanted solicitation. It can also cause undue emotional distress, since you are making other people feel sorry for you. You are using guilt against them, and using your position of poverty to pose a moral dilemma upon them that if you were not begging that person for help, they may not otherwise face.
You are counting on the persons goodness to coerce them into giving you something, otherwise they have to turn you away, resulting in that person feeling bad about themselves.
So to avoid feeling bad about themselves, they cough it up.
This is manipulative on the part of the beggar.
As evidenced above, your feelings of discomfort at the plight of another person are now projected onto that person. Thus, you proclaim that beggars have an agenda of actively seeking to cause you discomfort.
Which is false. People who are genuinely suffering do not cause you discomfort because they actively wish to cause you discomfort. They cause you discomfort because they are suffering.
We see the continuation of this scapegoating in your next post:
If the beggar kept their suffering to themselves, we wouldn't be faced with these unwanted solicitations almost everywhere we go, especially during the holidays, where beggars prey even harder on shoppers and travelers.
Essentially the argument boils down to, "I feel bad that they are suffering, therefore it's their fault for suffering as they do."
You accuse the beggars of intentionally suffering publicly in order to force you feel bad.
By extension you are saying that you (and presumably everyone else) would not feel guilty at the suffering of impoverished people if those impoverished people didn't have to remind you of their existence by suffering in your presence.
For instance, if a beggar gets you to give them $5, then they spend that $5 on a beer - then the guilt you felt that caused you to give them $5 was illegitimate, and therefore harmful.
You are conflating lying and begging. Yes, lying is wrong. Claiming one is in a state of financial distress when one is not is wrong. It is akin to the misapplication of charitable funds.
However, that is not the same thing as begging when one is in need of assistance. There is a world of difference between someone in a state of homelessness asking someone who is not for financial assistance, and someone who lies about being homeless to attempt to exploit the charity of others.
Indeed, the difference is the entire point of an article you link to in a subsequent post:
Are beggars NOT playing the victim? That they might actually be a victim of circumstance doesn't mean they aren't using it to their advantage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
You even acknowledge in your own post that these people are legitimate victims, as opposed to simply playing victims.
However, you are still attempting to project your emotions of sympathy on the actual victims. You still seek to use the article above to portray them as being abusive and manipulative, thereby attributing your discomfort at their sympathy on some harmful action they are inflicting upon you.
When in fact the article quite clearly defines the phenomenon of "victim playing" as the fabrication of victimhood by those who are not victims at all.
Lets say I approach someone on the street and I want that person to give me their coat - I can
A) Hold a gun to their head and demand it
B) Threaten to expose some dark secret of theirs unless they give it to me
C) Shiver and complain about being cold and prey upon their compassion as a human being so that they give it to me.
Make no mistake, all of these are in some way coercive.
No, they most certainly are not. (C) is not coercion.
No one can force you to feel anything. They can do things to try to make you feel a certain way, but they cannot force you to feel something. Nobody can force you to feel bad for them.
Not to mention asking for a donation cannot be coercion by definition. A donation is a gift given out of free will. Asking someone if they will give an gift out of free will cannot be making someone do something against one's will.
You are arguing that a beggar asking a person with money to do something of that person's own free will with non-threatening speech and non-threatening actions is coercion. No. That is not coercion, that is the opposite of coercion. Further, were that to be considered coercion, all human interaction would be coercive.
The only problem with begging is that some have to do it to live. If you feel bad about ignoring a hungry person then that sure aint the fault of the person reduced to begging for scraps. Happy tummyfeels are a secondary concern to acknowledging that our society is structured to produce beggars.
It is not a truth that beggars cannot not be beggars.
Many of them make life choices and mistakes that put them where they are.
Except none of that invalidates or even addresses Tuss' point. There are indeed people who do require begging in order to survive. Saying, "Well they deserve it, it's their own fault they're poor," which is not necessarily the case, still doesn't address the fact that they are begging to live.
And indeed, beggars who are begging because their life depends on it can choose not to beg, you are correct in that regard. However, there are two obvious problems with this:
1. Tuss' point remains. It is horrendous and cruel to tell someone who's trying to not starve that he needs to stop trying to save his life because you feel bad watching him suffer.
2. A suffering person CANNOT help but suffer. Even if that person were to stop begging, he would still be suffering.
By your argument, the only time people suffering are a problem is when they do so in a manner in which it makes it difficult for you to ignore them.
The ones that are indeed down on their luck, are still using their situation to manipulate their victims into coughing up some dough.
Again, you try to conflate the people who are actually victims with the people who are feigning victimhood, and you refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between them.
You seek to cast those who are actually disadvantaged who seek help from others to survive as being connivers wishing to exploit others, all because you don't like the feeling of discomfort you get from seeing somebody suffering.
Which brings us back to the fundamental flaw behind all of your posts. You're trying to argue that bad emotions are caused by other people, and that you wouldn't have them unless someone were making you feel them, and thus it is wrong to "make" someone have bad emotions.
The problem is, that's not the case. Sometimes emotions are caused by other people. However, sometimes they are not. The reason you feel guilty for not giving someone money is because you feel that you probably should have. Not because that person made you feel guilty.
On one particular regard, IcecreamMan80, we both agree, and that is that the feelings you feel are indeed unhealthy. I would recommend you find a means of dealing with this. Your behavior in this thread has become increasingly disquieting.
Another question comes up - if the panhandler is using the money on drugs or something "bad", wouldn't it then be more ethical to deny them, since your not contributing to something negative.
One other thing that crossed my mind - lets say you recently became a panhandler, you're still relatively healthy, relatively strong, relatively clean - by entering the "panhandler marketplace" there exists a certain level of competition. Money someone gives to you could have gone to someone else, someone who might be much worse off than you, another panhandler, who may be knocking on deaths door so-to-speak.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Another question comes up - if the panhandler is using the money on drugs or something "bad", wouldn't it then be more ethical to deny them, since your not contributing to something negative.
Their was ways around this, give them a sandwitch or a coffee, or a new pair of socks instead of money, you see them in need give them something they can use, that likely has little to zero retail value. You should still give.
One other thing that crossed my mind - lets say you recently became a panhandler, you're still relatively healthy, relatively strong, relatively clean - by entering the "panhandler marketplace" there exists a certain level of competition. Money someone gives to you could have gone to someone else, someone who might be much worse off than you, another panhandler, who may be knocking on deaths door so-to-speak.
The free market is what the free market is, you are helping refine the craft of beggining, more compition means only the best will rise to the top, since as I said I view this as a form of stress releaf/pleasure, making sure only the very best at their trade are around is only a good thing. by all means enter the market, get good at it, be the best you can be!
Not to mention, that while all stealing is theft, not all theft is robbery.
You can steal things without using force on another person, or intimidation, or violence.
For instance - you can steal money from an ATM, or items from a store after closing.
Some stealing can be done without even anyone noticing until later on.
Panhandling by it's nature requires that you interact with someone else, or the general public. Even if it's just sitting on a corner with a sign, it takes an audience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Stealing is more immoral. You're taking something by force. What's wrong with asking for help?
I think I don't fully understand the question - why is this question controversial in the least? It seems like an obviously one-sided debate.
Is stealing wrong if, for example, you're stealing food to feed your family?
There are scenarios were killing is morally justifiable (your life is in imminent danger), so why would thievery not be morally justifiable?
From a moral perspective, I don't see it as necessarily wrong unless it's done for greed instead of survival.
@Vaclav - In India, begging and stealing are often the same thing, especially when mobs of children approach you. It's a ploy.
Where I agree with your thinking, it would depend on where you are in the world to actually say. People become accustom to a certain way of life and in some cases really dont know hardship.
Make no mistake, all of these are in some way coercive. Unless the person being begged went looking for someone to solicit them for money (or the coat off their backs). Beggars seek out their victims, they put themselves in high traffic areas, or in places where they are sure to come between their victim and their victims destination.
So what makes you special that you can't be communicated towards that you may be "offended" or "inconvenienced?" In another thread you wrote about having a natural inclination towards to sacrifice yourself for a child that ran in front of car, meanwhile "logically" you wouldn't necessarily do such a thing. Yet, in the "heat of the moment" you would.
This is where the anarchistic egoism goes off the band wagon in this form of "leave me alone" extremism. If a person is hungry they either steal or beg when they are not a part of the system because you got disturbed for 5 seconds of your life and felt a small impulse to give money or say "Get a job, you bum."
You're not a victim, as psychologically you would be more than likely to pass the person up or give an undignified response to them if you want to get really technical especially considering the bystander effect would probably say squat.
You're making a canard of a 30 second sales pitch for some drug addict or a crazy guy who can't land a stable job. The drug addict may choose to be there, but that Vietnam Veteran having "flashbacks of 'Nam" and can't hold down a stable job or relationships may not being so out of pure love of the crack and being lazy. While crazy people aren't crazy people all the time, being crazy some of the time does inhibit ambition if the symptoms act up enough.
No one can force you to feel anything. They can do things to try to make you feel a certain way, but they cannot force you to feel something. Nobody can force you to feel bad for them.
Depends also on the emotion you want to engage and how primitive the emotion is the more likely the emotion will be felt and triggered. Granted the intensity will also depend on the emotional maturity of said individual, however you will get a reaction out of them even if minute. And if you know the person well, you know their emotional triggers and cues to be able to push for certain effects. If you know your spouse or child, you're going to what to say that immediately annoys them. That's a part of our social evolution and the way we cognate. Enter in enough adrenaline, you basically shoot the capacity for clear thought in most people.
Stealing is more immoral. You're taking something by force. What's wrong with asking for help?
I think I don't fully understand the question - why is this question controversial in the least? It seems like an obviously one-sided debate.
Is stealing wrong if, for example, you're stealing food to feed your family?
There are scenarios were killing is morally justifiable (your life is in imminent danger), so why would thievery not be morally justifiable?
From a moral perspective, I don't see it as necessarily wrong unless it's done for greed instead of survival.
@Vaclav - In India, begging and stealing are often the same thing, especially when mobs of children approach you. It's a ploy.
Even in cases where stealing (or killing) is justified, it doesn't follow that it is not bad. If you imagine two scenarios where a person accomplishes the same ends, stealing in one but somehow avoiding the crime in the other, you can surely agree with me that the stealing scenario is worse than the non-stealing scenario. Now, of course, if a theft is justified, that must mean there isn't a scenario where the thief could have accomplished the same ends without stealing. It's not the point of this thought experiment to contradict that. The point is simply to illustrate that we are never indifferent to the fact that a theft occurs. Even if we ultimately decide that, under the circumstances, the theft is justified, it is still significant that it needs justifying. It is an event that, in its own right, counts as a moral negative; what moral positivity there is in the scenario must come from other events.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So I raised the question - is it immoral to subject others (through begging) to an empathy game they otherwise wouldn't play?
The beggar is doing something. That something could, potentially, be considered unwanted solicitation, or even harassment on the part of the person they beg.
Taking you at face value (that you're playing devil's advocate), let's look at this argument.
I'll propose an analogy: suppose there's a genocide on in your country. Suppose you don't know about it. Suppose that they're particularly cruel - they don't kill immediately, they weaken repeatedly with poisons until the victims die.
You come across one of the victims of this genocide. He asks you for help and presents decent but not incontrovertible evidence of the reality of the situation. You're not able to actually end the genocide, but you can - for a price that you will barely even notice, a fraction of one hour's work - ease this particular person's suffering for a short time and give them a slightly better chance of surviving, if you so choose.
If you don't help, you feel guilty for allowing this horrible situation to continue. If he hadn't confronted you about it, you wouldn't feel guilty for not helping - he did something.
Is it reasonable to find fault in him for asking you for help?
So I raised the question - is it immoral to subject others (through begging) to an empathy game they otherwise wouldn't play?
The beggar is doing something. That something could, potentially, be considered unwanted solicitation, or even harassment on the part of the person they beg.
Taking you at face value (that you're playing devil's advocate), let's look at this argument.
I'll propose an analogy: suppose there's a genocide on in your country. Suppose you don't know about it. Suppose that they're particularly cruel - they don't kill immediately, they weaken repeatedly with poisons until the victims die.
You come across one of the victims of this genocide. He asks you for help and presents decent but not incontrovertible evidence of the reality of the situation. You're not able to actually end the genocide, but you can - for a price that you will barely even notice, a fraction of one hour's work - ease this particular person's suffering for a short time and give them a slightly better chance of surviving, if you so choose.
If you don't help, you feel guilty for allowing this horrible situation to continue. If he hadn't confronted you about it, you wouldn't feel guilty for not helping - he did something.
Is it reasonable to find fault in him for asking you for help?
Elaborate on the bold - what part or parts of his suffering does he actually inform me of?
I can't answer this question to my own satisfaction without that.
It's not complicated.
If a beggar has a sign that says "Anything helps!"
What is it they face? What do they mean by anything? Will money help? Probably. Will food help? Probably. Will a clean but used suit from Value Village help? Maybe. Will a cup of coffee help? Maybe not. Will a poem recital help? Hmmmm. Will a multi-colored ink selection click-pen help? Doubt it.
So while I feel like I should help, I don't know what help would be optimal for that particular beggar.
$20 does nothing for the guy who has quality trade skills but no job.
A job does nothing for the guy who has no skills and a meth addiction. (and probably the guy does nothing for the employer either)
However, and here's a couple real life anecdotes from my own personal experience.
I was leaving the barber shop one day a while back, a woman had a white-board sign with a green marker. The sign said" "Short on rent, have kids, need (there was a big gap here)"
She had at the time $210 written there, but what was important was that she had crossed out with her marker $400, $390, $345, $340, $338, $290, and a few other numbers in between that I now forget.
So for every donation she got, she was reducing her need.
I gave her twenty bucks. I hope she met her goal. But she was specific, direct, and made it clear what kind of help she needed.
I also knew of a couple living out of their car at the Walmart parking lot, they were there for a number of days. They had a dog. I actually did not see them begging, I never saw either of them with a sign or anything. But I knew they were living out of their car, because I passed by there on my way to and from work and they were always there, either sleeping in the car or walking their dog around.
I went up to them one afternoon and gave them ten dollars. I noticed that they had a full water dish and food dish with dog food for their dog, and it was clear they were living out of their luggage.
So not only did I not know what kind of help they actually needed, I didn't even know if giving them some cash would offend them or not. The lady I handed the $10 to said thanks and told me they would use it to feed their dog. I believed her, and so I felt good about it.
But what about the time I hand a few bucks to the guy with the sign, and he does use it on something meaningless, like his next pack of cigarettes.
Whatever guilt I would feel if I didn't help is illegitimate, and whatever joy I felt in helping seems squandered.
(again, please try not to do what HR did, and try to turn this into some personal attack on my character - I am playing devils advocate, and so I do not want to dive too deep into my own personal feelings about charity)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But what about the time I hand a few bucks to the guy with the sign, and he does use it on something meaningless, like his next pack of cigarettes.
So what? What else can he do with a handful of spare change? Is he allowed to buy a candy bar? A beer? Must he purchase the sandwich he likes less because it's cheaper than his favourite? Are you going to follow him around and make sure that he lives a truly moral life before you bother sharing some scraps?
When we're discussing the morality of begging, it might turn out it's immoral to beg if you're NOT going to spend the money on things that will help you stop begging.
Just like it would be immoral to "Raise money for my daughter Kim's brain surgery" - but spend what I am given on a sports car.
It's called lying.
Now, sometimes I see beggars with a sign saying "I just need a beer"
At least that person is honest, and honesty might ACTUALLY get him a few dollars.
Many beggars either flat out lie, or clearly imply that the money is going to HELP them, not help them drink or smoke, but help them in their situation.
They are defrauding the passerby of that persons money using the psychological pressure of guilt and compassion to passive-aggressively coerce them into giving the beggar what the beggar wants.
Charity is unable to affect the structural changes necessary for society to cease creating beggars. The most you can do as a single person is ease someone's pain for a little while. If this means a warm meal or a drink is irrelevant because neither outcome tackles the fundamental problem; that you both exist in a society that allows this to happen.
I know where you're going with this, and you won't drag me along for the ride.
Many beggars either flat out lie, or clearly imply that the money is going to HELP them, not help them drink or smoke, but help them in their situation.
Because they live in a society that scrutinises the poor and brands them as morally degraded tricksters if they spend even a single cent on anything that isn't rice and beans. Just look at what you're saying, that the most exposed people in your country are monstrous exploiters for buying a beer with money they said they'd use for a sandwich.
I'm not sure, but is this supposed to be persuasive?
I'd brand my kid a degraded trickster if he spent his tuition money on a trip to the strip club.
I'd brand my wife a degraded trickster if she spent the rent money on heroine.
I'd brand the government as degraded tricksters if they spent my tax money on some warmongering bull**** instead of actually improving the country (oh wait, they do :thumbsdown:).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The problem with begging arises in the distinction between "asking" and "begging". Begging can imply pressuring the other person and generally refusing to take no for an answer. If someone asks you for money, but realistically isn't going to allow you to say no, is it really that different from stealing? At that point it really depends on how the person goes about it. The random guy who silently stands with a cardboard sign is generally more acceptable then the guy who goes out of their way to engage and harass specific passerbys.
Devil's advocate does not exempt you from making outright incorrect statements. He's making posts full of links without reading or understanding a single one of them. This is worrying behavior.
You wouldn't be faced with the moral hang-ups that arise, if the beggar hadn't begged you.
Again, the passerby didn't SEEK OUT a beggar to solicit them. The beggar seeks out the targets of their solicitation.
It is not a truth that beggars cannot not be beggars.
Many of them make life choices and mistakes that put them where they are.
Some of them are flat out scammers, some panhandle to fund their addictions, some really are victims of circumstance, some are mentally ill.
Scammers definitely fall under emotional blackmail. Since the suffering they use against their victims is false.
Addicts are creating an illegitimate guilt within the victim. Since the passerby should NOT feel guilty for denying them. You should not feel guilty for not giving money to someone to buy drugs or alcohol. Yet, they still prey upon your compassion to manipulate you into helping them.
The ones that are indeed down on their luck, are still using their situation to manipulate their victims into coughing up some dough.
Especially since many trot out their pets, kids, or other sympathetic props in order to increase the burden of guilt on the passerby.
The mentally ill, again, an illegitimate guilt - you should not feel guilty for not helping them, they should not be on the street in the first place.
All of these types ignore the other types of beggars. The friends, family, or acquaintances that beg you for help. They are just as manipulative as anyone else can be.
The "old friend from high school", the "remember me dude".
Highroller's inability to have abstract thoughts, and see the parallels between coercion, emotional blackmail, and begging is not my problem. Since he doesn't get it, he'll try to somehow shame me, or use his little insults against me, but he still isn't seeing the point.
The point is that there ARE similarities between begging, and acts of coercion or emotional blackmail.
Coercion uses psychological pressure. Just like begging.
Guilt can get the passerby to do something they might not do otherwise.
Coercion forces the victim to act contrary to their interests - just like begging.
The passerby is likely interested in keeping their $5, but will give it up to avoid negative feelings and the pressure of that possible guilt.
The emotional blackmail side of coercion involves using those feelings of guilt, or disapproval from your peer-group, to get the victim to do what the blackmailer wants.
For example a christian might feel that turning down the beggar will make them a "bad" christian, or that God will disapprove of them not helping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
http://www.examiner.com/article/emotional-blackmail-101-defining-and-detecting-it-your-love-relationship
"3. The Sufferer - "Sufferers", according to the book, “take the position that if they feel miserable, sick, unhappy or are just plain unlucky, there’s only one solution; our giving them what they want – even if they haven’t told us what that is!” Obviously, communication is not a strong point here!...
...Kindly note: Emotional Blackmail occurs in all types of relationships; and is not strictly a love - related issue."
Beggars are most definitely "sufferers".
And no HR, they don't HAVE TO BE faking it.
I mean what deeper form of emotional blackmail is there than
"If you don't give me what I want, you will punish yourself."
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-psychological-manipulation.htm
"Most manipulators use the same mind control tactics to exercise influence over others. Emotional blackmail is considered one such tactic, in which the psychological manipulator seeks to inspire guilt or sympathy in the manipulated person. Guilt and sympathy are considered two of the strongest human emotions, and are capable of spurring most people into action. Manipulative people often take advantage of this, using guilt or sympathy to coerce others into helping or cooperating with them."
The parallels are so easy to see, when Highroller wakes up and realizes that, he can apologize for the way he is talking to me.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Don't get me wrong, I still think straight up stealing is worse. I just don't think we should be so quick to dismiss some of what really goes on in the case of begging.
I agree, psychological pressure is a powerful thing. Peer pressure for instance is a huge factor in social behavior.
It depends.
If a bank robber steals from the bank at night with no one there, 1) they caused no one to fear and panic, 2) they didn't threaten anyone directly, 3) The money is federally insured so it's not like they stole it from your hands.
So while this is still an immoral and illegal action, and I would punish them as the law allows.
Is it as bad as a panhandler cornering you at a red light, washing your windshield without your permission, then pressuring you to hand over some compensation?
All these things have varying shades of grey area.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This is where your argument falls flat, WE fund the federal goverment, OUR tax dollars fund it, so they stole from me just less directly, as the money the goverment lost from reinbursing me is now NOT being used by the goverment to better our children, pay for health care or our miltary, I would argue the lesser moral theft is stealing from someone NOT federaly insured as then they are not stealing from the entire nation. Begging is the lesser of two evils, If you set up shop begging somewhere I can choose to cross the street and not be bothered by you, I can choose to just walk past you giving you nothing, I can choose to ignore you, You have caused me no direct harm, Stealing always causes harm, its selfish, Begging is also a profession, the act of giving me pleasure for your misfortune which I compensate you for because it bring joy or releaf for doing so, Begging is no different than an entertainer, Theft is not optional, there is no disgression, you steal from someone they directly lose their resourses, they gain nothing for it.
Pain spread out is certainly not less pain, but it is somewhat easier to manage, I would say.
You also bring up a good point - sometimes you feel joy and inward satisfaction after helping the needy. That emotional reward could be an acceptable mitigation - but then, is it any less manipulative?
"If you give me what I want, you'll feel good about yourself."
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
So although pretty much all transactions involve some sort of manipulation, or persuasion, or coercion, not all of them are ethically the same.
For instance, if I take my car to a mechanic for some routine service, we might have a mutually beneficial transaction.
However, if my car broke down, and the only shop for miles raked me over the coals or wouldn't repair my car unless I grossly overpaid - it's ethically not the same thing - even though both are paying for car repairs.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Your argument is what is called psychological projection, a defense mechanism in which a person ascribes unwanted feelings or attributes about himself onto other objects or persons.
In this case, you are attempting to take your own feelings and judgements about yourself and projecting them onto beggars, thereby claiming that they are selfish, heartless people actively conspiring to make you feel sympathy.
As evidenced above, your feelings of discomfort at the plight of another person are now projected onto that person. Thus, you proclaim that beggars have an agenda of actively seeking to cause you discomfort.
Which is false. People who are genuinely suffering do not cause you discomfort because they actively wish to cause you discomfort. They cause you discomfort because they are suffering.
We see the continuation of this scapegoating in your next post:
Essentially the argument boils down to, "I feel bad that they are suffering, therefore it's their fault for suffering as they do."
You accuse the beggars of intentionally suffering publicly in order to force you feel bad.
By extension you are saying that you (and presumably everyone else) would not feel guilty at the suffering of impoverished people if those impoverished people didn't have to remind you of their existence by suffering in your presence.
You are conflating lying and begging. Yes, lying is wrong. Claiming one is in a state of financial distress when one is not is wrong. It is akin to the misapplication of charitable funds.
However, that is not the same thing as begging when one is in need of assistance. There is a world of difference between someone in a state of homelessness asking someone who is not for financial assistance, and someone who lies about being homeless to attempt to exploit the charity of others.
Indeed, the difference is the entire point of an article you link to in a subsequent post:
You even acknowledge in your own post that these people are legitimate victims, as opposed to simply playing victims.
However, you are still attempting to project your emotions of sympathy on the actual victims. You still seek to use the article above to portray them as being abusive and manipulative, thereby attributing your discomfort at their sympathy on some harmful action they are inflicting upon you.
When in fact the article quite clearly defines the phenomenon of "victim playing" as the fabrication of victimhood by those who are not victims at all.
No, they most certainly are not. (C) is not coercion.
No one can force you to feel anything. They can do things to try to make you feel a certain way, but they cannot force you to feel something. Nobody can force you to feel bad for them.
Not to mention asking for a donation cannot be coercion by definition. A donation is a gift given out of free will. Asking someone if they will give an gift out of free will cannot be making someone do something against one's will.
You are arguing that a beggar asking a person with money to do something of that person's own free will with non-threatening speech and non-threatening actions is coercion. No. That is not coercion, that is the opposite of coercion. Further, were that to be considered coercion, all human interaction would be coercive.
Except none of that invalidates or even addresses Tuss' point. There are indeed people who do require begging in order to survive. Saying, "Well they deserve it, it's their own fault they're poor," which is not necessarily the case, still doesn't address the fact that they are begging to live.
And indeed, beggars who are begging because their life depends on it can choose not to beg, you are correct in that regard. However, there are two obvious problems with this:
1. Tuss' point remains. It is horrendous and cruel to tell someone who's trying to not starve that he needs to stop trying to save his life because you feel bad watching him suffer.
2. A suffering person CANNOT help but suffer. Even if that person were to stop begging, he would still be suffering.
By your argument, the only time people suffering are a problem is when they do so in a manner in which it makes it difficult for you to ignore them.
Again, you try to conflate the people who are actually victims with the people who are feigning victimhood, and you refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between them.
You seek to cast those who are actually disadvantaged who seek help from others to survive as being connivers wishing to exploit others, all because you don't like the feeling of discomfort you get from seeing somebody suffering.
Which brings us back to the fundamental flaw behind all of your posts. You're trying to argue that bad emotions are caused by other people, and that you wouldn't have them unless someone were making you feel them, and thus it is wrong to "make" someone have bad emotions.
The problem is, that's not the case. Sometimes emotions are caused by other people. However, sometimes they are not. The reason you feel guilty for not giving someone money is because you feel that you probably should have. Not because that person made you feel guilty.
On one particular regard, IcecreamMan80, we both agree, and that is that the feelings you feel are indeed unhealthy. I would recommend you find a means of dealing with this. Your behavior in this thread has become increasingly disquieting.
http://this.org/blog/2011/09/15/should-you-give-change-to-panhandlers/
http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/lccpublic/newperspectives.pdf#page=56
Another question comes up - if the panhandler is using the money on drugs or something "bad", wouldn't it then be more ethical to deny them, since your not contributing to something negative.
http://www.cliseetiquette.com/2012/10/03/panhandling-dilemma/
One other thing that crossed my mind - lets say you recently became a panhandler, you're still relatively healthy, relatively strong, relatively clean - by entering the "panhandler marketplace" there exists a certain level of competition. Money someone gives to you could have gone to someone else, someone who might be much worse off than you, another panhandler, who may be knocking on deaths door so-to-speak.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The free market is what the free market is, you are helping refine the craft of beggining, more compition means only the best will rise to the top, since as I said I view this as a form of stress releaf/pleasure, making sure only the very best at their trade are around is only a good thing. by all means enter the market, get good at it, be the best you can be!
Is stealing wrong if, for example, you're stealing food to feed your family?
There are scenarios were killing is morally justifiable (your life is in imminent danger), so why would thievery not be morally justifiable?
From a moral perspective, I don't see it as necessarily wrong unless it's done for greed instead of survival.
@Vaclav - In India, begging and stealing are often the same thing, especially when mobs of children approach you. It's a ploy.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You can steal things without using force on another person, or intimidation, or violence.
For instance - you can steal money from an ATM, or items from a store after closing.
Some stealing can be done without even anyone noticing until later on.
Panhandling by it's nature requires that you interact with someone else, or the general public. Even if it's just sitting on a corner with a sign, it takes an audience.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Where I agree with your thinking, it would depend on where you are in the world to actually say. People become accustom to a certain way of life and in some cases really dont know hardship.
So what makes you special that you can't be communicated towards that you may be "offended" or "inconvenienced?" In another thread you wrote about having a natural inclination towards to sacrifice yourself for a child that ran in front of car, meanwhile "logically" you wouldn't necessarily do such a thing. Yet, in the "heat of the moment" you would.
This is where the anarchistic egoism goes off the band wagon in this form of "leave me alone" extremism. If a person is hungry they either steal or beg when they are not a part of the system because you got disturbed for 5 seconds of your life and felt a small impulse to give money or say "Get a job, you bum."
You're not a victim, as psychologically you would be more than likely to pass the person up or give an undignified response to them if you want to get really technical especially considering the bystander effect would probably say squat.
You're making a canard of a 30 second sales pitch for some drug addict or a crazy guy who can't land a stable job. The drug addict may choose to be there, but that Vietnam Veteran having "flashbacks of 'Nam" and can't hold down a stable job or relationships may not being so out of pure love of the crack and being lazy. While crazy people aren't crazy people all the time, being crazy some of the time does inhibit ambition if the symptoms act up enough.
Not everyone is Diogenes or a drug addict.
Depends also on the emotion you want to engage and how primitive the emotion is the more likely the emotion will be felt and triggered. Granted the intensity will also depend on the emotional maturity of said individual, however you will get a reaction out of them even if minute. And if you know the person well, you know their emotional triggers and cues to be able to push for certain effects. If you know your spouse or child, you're going to what to say that immediately annoys them. That's a part of our social evolution and the way we cognate. Enter in enough adrenaline, you basically shoot the capacity for clear thought in most people.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Even in cases where stealing (or killing) is justified, it doesn't follow that it is not bad. If you imagine two scenarios where a person accomplishes the same ends, stealing in one but somehow avoiding the crime in the other, you can surely agree with me that the stealing scenario is worse than the non-stealing scenario. Now, of course, if a theft is justified, that must mean there isn't a scenario where the thief could have accomplished the same ends without stealing. It's not the point of this thought experiment to contradict that. The point is simply to illustrate that we are never indifferent to the fact that a theft occurs. Even if we ultimately decide that, under the circumstances, the theft is justified, it is still significant that it needs justifying. It is an event that, in its own right, counts as a moral negative; what moral positivity there is in the scenario must come from other events.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Taking you at face value (that you're playing devil's advocate), let's look at this argument.
I'll propose an analogy: suppose there's a genocide on in your country. Suppose you don't know about it. Suppose that they're particularly cruel - they don't kill immediately, they weaken repeatedly with poisons until the victims die.
You come across one of the victims of this genocide. He asks you for help and presents decent but not incontrovertible evidence of the reality of the situation. You're not able to actually end the genocide, but you can - for a price that you will barely even notice, a fraction of one hour's work - ease this particular person's suffering for a short time and give them a slightly better chance of surviving, if you so choose.
If you don't help, you feel guilty for allowing this horrible situation to continue. If he hadn't confronted you about it, you wouldn't feel guilty for not helping - he did something.
Is it reasonable to find fault in him for asking you for help?
Elaborate on the bold - what part or parts of his suffering does he actually inform me of?
I can't answer this question to my own satisfaction without that.
It's not complicated.
If a beggar has a sign that says "Anything helps!"
What is it they face? What do they mean by anything? Will money help? Probably. Will food help? Probably. Will a clean but used suit from Value Village help? Maybe. Will a cup of coffee help? Maybe not. Will a poem recital help? Hmmmm. Will a multi-colored ink selection click-pen help? Doubt it.
So while I feel like I should help, I don't know what help would be optimal for that particular beggar.
$20 does nothing for the guy who has quality trade skills but no job.
A job does nothing for the guy who has no skills and a meth addiction. (and probably the guy does nothing for the employer either)
However, and here's a couple real life anecdotes from my own personal experience.
I was leaving the barber shop one day a while back, a woman had a white-board sign with a green marker. The sign said"
"Short on rent, have kids, need
(there was a big gap here)"
She had at the time $210 written there, but what was important was that she had crossed out with her marker
$400,$390,$345,$340,$338,$290, and a few other numbers in between that I now forget.So for every donation she got, she was reducing her need.
I gave her twenty bucks. I hope she met her goal. But she was specific, direct, and made it clear what kind of help she needed.
I also knew of a couple living out of their car at the Walmart parking lot, they were there for a number of days. They had a dog. I actually did not see them begging, I never saw either of them with a sign or anything. But I knew they were living out of their car, because I passed by there on my way to and from work and they were always there, either sleeping in the car or walking their dog around.
I went up to them one afternoon and gave them ten dollars. I noticed that they had a full water dish and food dish with dog food for their dog, and it was clear they were living out of their luggage.
So not only did I not know what kind of help they actually needed, I didn't even know if giving them some cash would offend them or not. The lady I handed the $10 to said thanks and told me they would use it to feed their dog. I believed her, and so I felt good about it.
But what about the time I hand a few bucks to the guy with the sign, and he does use it on something meaningless, like his next pack of cigarettes.
Whatever guilt I would feel if I didn't help is illegitimate, and whatever joy I felt in helping seems squandered.
(again, please try not to do what HR did, and try to turn this into some personal attack on my character - I am playing devils advocate, and so I do not want to dive too deep into my own personal feelings about charity)
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm going to steal the declaration of independence.
~Nicolas Cage
Wanna hear what I think about restaurants?
Check out my http://damancy.blogspot.com/
Trust me! IM FAT!!!!
When we're discussing the morality of begging, it might turn out it's immoral to beg if you're NOT going to spend the money on things that will help you stop begging.
Just like it would be immoral to "Raise money for my daughter Kim's brain surgery" - but spend what I am given on a sports car.
It's called lying.
Now, sometimes I see beggars with a sign saying "I just need a beer"
At least that person is honest, and honesty might ACTUALLY get him a few dollars.
Many beggars either flat out lie, or clearly imply that the money is going to HELP them, not help them drink or smoke, but help them in their situation.
They are defrauding the passerby of that persons money using the psychological pressure of guilt and compassion to passive-aggressively coerce them into giving the beggar what the beggar wants.
I know where you're going with this, and you won't drag me along for the ride.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm not sure, but is this supposed to be persuasive?
I'd brand my kid a degraded trickster if he spent his tuition money on a trip to the strip club.
I'd brand my wife a degraded trickster if she spent the rent money on heroine.
I'd brand the government as degraded tricksters if they spent my tax money on some warmongering bull**** instead of actually improving the country (oh wait, they do :thumbsdown:).
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You'll recall that it didn't help.