Yuumei Marie Esma

PH 104 - Z

The Claim of Ethics on Giving Money to the Homeless

The case study (“Sister, Can You Spare a Dime”) presents that shared dilemma people face
when they encounter homeless people in the street that is to give or not to give them money. We
are often left nonplussed about what to do in the situation. We are conflicted between the two
actions because we are uncertain about their rightness. More than this, we feel deeply distressed
because we know that we ought to do what is good. Ethics provide a way to address this. In this
paper, John Mill’s Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used to assess
the rightness (and goodness) of the actions given the scenario.
In my experience, I encounter the same homeless people since I was in my first year. Before
I reach the Katipunan station, I think about whether to prepare my change knowing that they will be
there in those hours. But even in my fourth year, I remain inconsistent with my action because I am
torn between the fundamentals I have learned in my field and in my religion. Catholic teachings have
instilled in me that we ought to give the homeless money because in their state they simply have no
capacity to afford sustenance. On the other hand, as an economics major, we have learned that
giving them money only incentivizes them to remain homeless thus making the earlier claim
problematic. Nonetheless, I recognize my responsibility to help those in need.
This conflict demonstrates the situation as a moral dilemma. It must be noted that not all
encounters with the homeless is a moral dilemma. For example, if it is obvious that the person is
incapable of [thinking clearly], not giving them money overrides the other action, and thus there is
no need for further deliberation. In this instance, though Jack is a drunkard, there remains a factor of
uncertainty about the implications of doing what is deemed as right. This ultimately depends on the
person: Jocelyn believes that Jack will only spend it on alcohol while Meg thinks it is harmless.
Mandy understands that she ought to do what is right, but what is indeed the right thing to do?
Therefore, this elicits the need for a moral deliberation.
Kant’s categorical imperative posits that an action is right, if and only if it is the good in itself.
Initial assessments indicate that Kantian ethics does not recognize both actions as morally worthy
because they are contingent on their consequences: we ought to give money because the homeless
will be able to buy food or we ought not to give money because they will spend it on vices, and thus
there exists no moral choice. However, it is this regard for the consequences that placed us in a
predicament in the first place; we only become concerned with not giving money to the homeless as
an alternative good because we consider the consequences of the homeless’ irresponsible use of the
money. Moreover, to give the homeless when asked for money is not an imposition. The act
immediately presents itself as it is simply moral to assist those who asks for it however the homeless
uses the money. And whether he decides to deceive me, this is all up to his morality, which I must
not be concerned with. Therefore, though both acts can be deemed as good, if we disregard our
considerations for the consequences, following Kant, we must then opt to give money to the
homeless because it is the right thing to do.
To further support the claim that Kantian ethics must suggest that we ought to give money
to the homeless, we must establish that this act can be made into a universal law. If everyone gives
money to the homeless in order to respond to those who seek for sustenance then not only does the
act recognizes the dignity of the homeless, whether he makes poor decisions in life i.e. being a
drunkard, we also acted out of autonomy because we have not been inclined to give the money only
to expect something out of the homeless. One may argue that this fails to promote Kant’s kingdom
of ends as it incentivizes everyone to become homeless. However, this argument must then assert
that human life is about the pursuit for easy money, which contradicts its very claim for a
community that recognizes everyone as means. And this contradiction furthers the validity of
universalizing the act of giving money to the homeless.
Similarly, Mill’s Utilitarianism suggests that we ought to give money to the homeless.
Utilitarianism states that actions are right as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of it. The act of giving money to the homeless is clearly intended to
promote happiness because we only give away money knowing that it will generate greater
happiness because in this society money is an instrument highly associated with our own happiness.
We do not only feed the homeless, we also feel good about ourselves. On the other hand, we
consider not giving money to the homeless because we intend to prevent sustaining their drug or
alcohol addictions, which hopes to minimize unhappiness. However, this remains in the realm of
uncertainty, which humans have no control over and which Mill did not recognize.
Furthermore, if we follow this as our moral reasoning then we must understand that the
effects of our action are infinite. It is simply impossible to completely measure the consequences of
our actions. Nonetheless, the consequences the act intends can determine whether it is consistent
with Mill’s utilitarian theory. Therefore, we do not accede to the utilitarianism if we do not give
money to the homeless because the tradeoff is greater. We do not only inhibit the possibility of
basic happiness i.e. food for that night, but we also promote a cold and aversive society. By not
giving them money neither maximize happiness nor minimize unhappiness because we are uncertain
about where the money goes is simply an avoidance of our responsibility to the society.
 Assessing Mill’s Utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical Imperative, we are then ought to give
money to the homeless. However, Mandy must give what spare change she has to Jack not because
it is her moral duty nor because it will elicit greatest happiness. These must only serve as her guide
and not be her primary motivations in doing the act, else she will fail to recognize the complexities
that entail being a human. Ultimately, it is difficult to reconcile opposing arguments on what is the
right thing to do. My economics professor will continue to dissuade me about incentivizing the
unproductive and my theology professor will continue to emphasize my Christian identity. But
perhaps, what is most important is the pursuit of self-betterment given all my limitations.