At least once a week, the average American is solicited by a beggar for spare change. Most such requests are ignored. Whether such responses are morally proper, however, is a deceptively complex question. Broadly speaking, when it comes to giving to panhandlers, there are four ethical possibilities: (1) it is morally required to give to beggars and immoral to refuse; (2) it is morally salutary to give to beggars, but it is not required; (3) it is morally neutral to give to beggars; or (4) it is morally wrong to give to beggars.
I believe the practice falls under the second category, one that should be viewed favorably but not demanded (at least not on every occasion). This position is typically met with two related objections: first, that the money could be better spent (on charity); and second, that the recipient is likely to spend the money improperly. I find neither fully compelling.
The first argument assumes that the individual would actually find an effective charity and donate to it the money she would have otherwise given to the beggar. Both these assumptions are empirically improbable; the undonated change is mostly likely to supplement personal consumption. But let’s accept, for the sake of argument, that an individual actually will otherwise donate the money to a worthy charity (Oxfam, say). To then claim that giving to beggars is either valueless or wrong simply in virtue of there being better options would have absurd ethical ramifications. By that logic, any charitable act would be morally suspect so long as a better option existed, a ridiculous prospect. Donating to Toys for Tots is not immoral or amoral simply because that money could also go towards food or medicine for needy children. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the respective values of good acts are commensurable with one another.
The second objection—the possibility the money will be misused—is somewhat more difficult to deal with, since most homeless undeniably suffer from substance abuse problems, mental health issues, or both. However, the alternative is not a drug-free existence: those addicted to drugs are likely to find the funds somehow and resort to violence and theft if unable to support their habits through panhandling.
But, even more importantly, there is something valuable in the human contact, itself. For the beggar, it reaffirms his place in the community and dignity as a person. It shows him that he is trusted (even if he does not merit such trust) to make his own choices regarding how best to improve his life—something not achieved by homeless shelters (even ones that do not expose shelter guests to violence and unsafe conditions). It just so happens that beggars can be choosers.
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).
Salutary acts are not always required—it would be an inhuman morality that demands that we devote every moment of our lives to some greater good. But as far as charitable acts are concerned, we need not shy away from giving to the homeless.