My brother and I run a privately funded program to rehabilitate culturally disadvantaged people. We'd like to supply you with a home of your own, a car, a generous bank account, and employment with our company.
You had a infinite money and walked past a seemingly pure-hearted homeless man who asked you for money and whether you give him money or not the energy you wasted in that time is exactly equal, what would be the logical thing to do?
Btw you never see the man again in your life.
What I'm trying to do is create a situation where logic cannot be used. Something else must be relied upon to make the decision.
Totally give him money, help him in other ways too. Pure hearted people are hard to come by as seen in some of these posts.
"We knew he was someone who had a tragic flaw, that's where his greatness came from"
Logics isn't in play if you give money, it may be the empathetic or moral high road thing to do but not logical.
Giving money may help him right now but it's hardly long term so he'd be back the next day asking for more money, therefore it's a worthless investment that doesn't help him change things, logically if you actually wanted to help him you'd do something with a longer term picture so he would be able to become self sustainable.
If you didn't want to invest more effort in doing so then you'd most probably do what makes you feel all warm and gooey in the belly and cough up some dosh, not logical though.
Charity without a longer term picture does not help the person who needs the charity, it can hurt them though by causing them to become dependent, there are times that relief/emergency funding is needed so someone can simply survive but if you actually want to help someone who is in a tough spot you would look ahead at what you need to do so they can work towards helping themselves.
Even if you gave this man hundreds of thousands of dollars there is a very high chance he will end up back where he is unless he learns how to earn his own money, just look at lottery winners who end up in a worse financial position after a winning. Logically if you really wanted to help him you'd do something that would allow him help himself in the future.
There's no answer to this question that is inherently true/false or right/wrong, and the answers you get will be largely dependent upon the responder's own basis for morality. The other thing that must be "used" here is ethics. These situations are not too uncommon either. Humanistic issues can rarely rely on logic
True, but logic still plays a very important part when you consider the premises you base your conclusion on. Assuming that all homeless people are on the street because of a personal defect and, given money, will only further their problems may lead you to a very valid conclusion that you should not bother giving this man any money. But are those premises sound? If not, I consider the conclusion to be bunk. If your premises are sound, and you violate the use of good logic on your way to coming up with your conclusion, I consider it to be bunk.
So, there may not be any *right* but there's definitely always a bunch of *get that nonsense out of here until you get your head straight.*