Dirk De Wachter, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Kristien Hens and Johan Braeckman take turns examining an ethical issue.
“I often walk down the corridor of Brussels-Central, where there are always homeless people and beggars sitting on the floor. That touches me and I feel an obligation to give something, but as a student I also have to watch my expenses. An intermediate solution would be to give small change, but that feels too condescending to me – who needs fifty cents nowadays? Because I feel like I can’t give enough, I don’t give anything in the end.
“But I feel guilty about that. If I were in the same situation, I would also want someone to look after me. I once saw a report in which someone went through life undercover as a homeless person. It showed that homeless people often feel invisible, because many do not look at them. So I make sure to greet them. But then – and now as I write down my question – I feel hypocritical again, because what good is a smile when they are hungry?
“My environment soothes me by saying that these people can go to non-profit organizations and that I am not responsible for the suffering of others. But can I assume that non-profit organizations will solve it? Isn’t it my moral obligation to take more action, or am I trying to resign myself to the fact that I can’t help everyone? If everyone thinks like that, we’re not making any progress, are we?”
“First of all, I would like to emphasize that ‘guilt’ and ‘duty’ are very heavy concepts in this context. A duty implies a responsibility and if you don’t take it, you deserve a punishment. But it’s not the student’s fault that there are homeless people. So she shouldn’t feel guilty about people begging, nor about the fact that she doesn’t give. Nor is it her moral duty to change that. Otherwise it will lead to absurd consequences where you as an individual are obliged to take away all the suffering from the world.
“The direct sight of the homeless appeals to the moral instincts of this student. That’s understandable, but we should try to do the right thing in a deliberate and less impulsive way. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misery in the world. We think about this as reasonably as possible.
“I’m not against the idea of giving money per se, on the contrary, but you have to do it in a meaningful way. That is why I advise the questioner to look up the movement ‘effective altruism’. That is a form of thinking in which this question is central: how can you give something in the most effective way? How do you really make a difference? Is it wise to give 10 euros to the first homeless person, or is it better to give that to an association that deals with begging in a structural, scientifically informed way? After all, you don’t know what will happen to your money if you give it directly to a homeless person.
“In his book A Theory of Justice philosopher John Rawls puts forward a thought experiment called “the veil of ignorance.” The experiment goes like this: Imagine being flashed away from Earth. You come back some time later, but you don’t know beforehand in what capacity. You can return as a young woman or an old man, healthy or sick, black or white, but also as a beggar. Then Rawls asks the question: If you don’t know how you get back, what would you like the world to look like? For example, I, as a man, would like men and women to be treated equally, because I could return as a woman. Rawls forces us to think clearly about justice with his thought experiment. Well, suppose you came back to earth as a homeless person, what would you prefer? That you have to beg and depend on alms for the rest of your life, or that the means are available to get you out of your problematic situation in a structural, sustainable way?
“Informed organizations such as Homie or L’Ilot take a structural approach. Then you can assume that your money will be better spent, because they want to get to the root of the problem instead of treating the symptoms. Giving alms is also outdated in itself. This dates back to the time when there were no hospitals, centers or psychiatric institutions. We now have professionalised care. Homeless people can be guided to take up a role in society again. That way you help them in the long run in a better way than if you were to give them something every now and then. The latter is counterproductive for some people, because you can also perpetuate an addiction problem.
“However, that does not mean that you cannot say hello to those people, or have a chat with them. Recognizing someone as a person, with dignity and an identity, can be of much greater importance than donating money. In some cases, you can also give food, which can be more effective than money. And if someone is in dire need, you must of course offer immediate help or call the emergency services.”
