As I previously mentioned, handouts for beggars can actually be quite harmful (would you like to be the guy who enabled an addict to purchase enough crack to OD?). But that’s actually the weaker argument against the practice.
Rather, I’d say the psychic harm outweighs any benefits. No, I’m not going to bemoan the growth of the welfare queens or tell you a touching story about the bum outside ‘SC who routinely cursed students who didn’t pay his civility toll. I refer to the effect on the giver himself.
While the legal concept of purchasing exoneration from liability makes sense in tort law, it’s less apparently reasonable when it comes to charitable giving. Allow me to quote Matt Peterson:
The idea that charity consists in sending people checks from centralized offices or organizations hundreds or thousands of miles removed based on broad demographic/economic statistical information is insane. It is similar to giving random amounts of money to random people on the street who ask for it because it seems to you at the moment like they need or deserve it. This isn’t charity; it’s dice-rolling stupidity.
In fact, it’s worse. It’s self-satisfying dice-rolling stupidity. Money does a wonderful job of substituting for some goods, but the effects of works of charity aren’t quite fungible. Consider A’s claim:
The experience also edifies the donor, providing a direct connection with the object of his compassion. As a result, those being helped become viewed as individuals, rather than statistics, and perhaps a deeper charitable spirit is fostered (this is the reason why, for example, charities often send “pictures” of the people being helped or ask that donors sponsor a particular individual).
Actually, the transaction, far from edifying the donor, dulls the normal impulse of conscience impelling actual charitable acts. Without the option of purchasing freedom from guilt at the cost of pocket change, the donor would have to engage in an alternative, necessarily more valuable behavior to achieve the same result. I say necessarily more valuable, because any kind of contact with the impoverished man on the street will be more worthwhile than simply handing him change. Take him to get a bite to eat, offer him a granola bar, refer him to a free clinic, listen to his life story, counsel him to get help, or even a simple civil interaction. Any and all of these would be more edifying than dropping change in a coffee cup.
But what about complete inaction? Is that worse than putting a quarter in the cap? Yes. Stony, even hard-hearted silence is, in fact, better than handing over your change because your omission is less likely to foreclose the possibility of taking real action. Habitual giving to beggars, however, creates a presumption of a charitable character, independent of exceptional actions and, more importantly, without the cultivation of the real habits of charitable acts.
If today, you hear a beggar, harden not your hearts. But don’t give him a nickel.
No Comments