Hypothetically if..

[Timeless]

I would tell him this:

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.

 

[SillySapienne]

"that's good shit"

says th fecalogoist.

he has a penis!

a heterosexual penis!!!

george was engorged

 

[Betty Blue]

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.

 

[Kasper]

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.

 

[Lux]

I would give him some money. If you have infinite money, it is hands down a win/win situation for both.

But I give people money/food anyway.

 

[The Outsider]

Of course.

 

[Moiety]

Why do we presume that he'll "screw up" just because he's homeless?

Wanted to quote this post for truth, because I see a lot of people making illogical assumptions.

 

[BlueFlame]

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.*

 

[Chunes]

Of course.

Pretty much this. I'd feel like a monster if I didn't.

 

[Lark]

I'd not give him any money, I dont get my kicks from charity and I dont expect charity from others.

 

[teslashock]

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.*

Agreed. We can draw a logical conclusion that is complete nonsense if we start out with bad premises.

I can logically deduce and prove to you that 1 + 1 = 0 if I start out with a faulty premise.

Logical != right.

Our premises are obviously the biggest thing that come into play when tackling this kind of "problem." Thus, I said that the responses to the OP will be largely based upon the ethics of the subject in question (ie, the premises), and from there, a whole slew of "logical" arguments can be made for doing this, that, or the other thing.

I thought Ragin' was looking for some kind of universally accepted logical way of reasoning through this situation when he asked, "What is the logical thing to do here?", and I just meant to explain that there is not just one logical (Te) thing to do (while there may be many "logical" approaches to the problem (Ti)), as the premises vary from person to person.

 

[Jaguar]

I'd not give him any money, I dont get my kicks from charity and I dont expect charity from others.

What an interesting comment coming from an alleged "social worker."

 

[Night]

Why do we asume he's homeless to begin with because he screwed up?

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.

It wouldn't be necessary to add the bolded part if we weren't to suspect something unsavory just below the surface.

Either explicitly intended by the OP, or as a quiet social stigma, I think most would agree that the homeless often get a bad rap.

 

[Bamboo]

Give him the money.

Giving him cash + the fact i never see him again would only leave me with the feeling of "hope" which is a pleasant one.

 

[simulatedworld]

Will this grant me the power to never mean what I say unless I do? Sign me up.

You already have that power! Use it wisely.

 

[Marcia]

You had 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?

I like this kind of thread. It's fun to read all the vastly different responses.

One thing to bear in mind about homeless men is that they're generally alcoholics (pure-hearted or otherwise). Whatever money you give them, no matter how much, will be spent on alcohol. So the question is, will it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside to know that your homeless friend will be drinking in style tonight (hopefully something ethanol-based)?

Sure, why not. Here you go buddy, have a good time. It's the most he can aspire to, why deny him that?

If he really tugged at my heartstrings I'd help him get checked into some sort of rehab facility. But I wouldn't feel obligated to.

 

[burymecloser]

if i had infinite amount of money that would mean that i wouldnt lose any money if i gave him some, so why wouldnt i give him some money?

This. Why on earth wouldn't I give him something? I can help him at no cost to myself.

 

[Betty Blue]

I like this kind of thread. It's fun to read all the vastly different responses.

One thing to bear in mind about homeless men is that they're generally alcoholics (pure-hearted or otherwise). Whatever money you give them, no matter how much, will be spent on alcohol. So the question is, will it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside to know that your homeless friend will be drinking in style tonight (hopefully something ethanol-based)?

Sure, why not. Here you go buddy, have a good time. It's the most he can aspire to, why deny him that?

If he really tugged at my heartstrings I'd help him get checked into some sort of rehab facility. But I wouldn't feel obligated to.

This is the kind of bad rap (someone else mentioned) that homeless people get, it's the presumption, the stereotyping or genralization. I have known a lot of homeless people and certainly many were not alcoholics or drug users.
Of course many homeless people are or become addicted to alcohol/drugs i'm not debating that. But...
Often people get into bad situations through naievity or no fault of their own and end up on the streets...runaways, people with mental health issues and single jobless men are high on that list because there is little help available to them or they are too afraid to ask for it.
This springs to mind.....

*Not a dig at Marcia, you don't seem a bad person

 

[Marcia]

This is the kind of bad rap (someone else mentioned) that homeless people get, it's the presumption, the stereotyping or genralization. I have known a lot of homeless people and certainly many were not alcoholics or drug users. [...] Often people get into bad situations through naievity or no fault of their own and end up on the streets...runaways, people with mental health issues and single jobless men are high on that list because there is little help available to them or they are too afraid to ask for it.

I agree with you. However, what I was describing was simply my thought process when faced with a homeless person. When people refuse to give money to beggars, it's precisely because they assume them to be alcoholics. What I'm saying is that I would give him money even if he was an alcoholic, because at least it would give him a chance to get some better quality booze for a change.

If it turns out he's not an alcoholic, well great. He can spend the money on something else.

Do you see what I mean? For the purposes of making the decision, I need only look at the worst case scenario.

Furthermore, I have nothing against alcoholics. They have a medical condition and they deserve sympathy like anyone else.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I agree with you. However, what I was describing was simply my thought process when faced with a homeless person. When people refuse to give money to beggars, it's precisely because they assume them to be alcoholics. What I'm saying is that I would give him money even if he was an alcoholic, because at least it would give him a chance to get some better quality booze for a change.

If it turns out he's not an alcoholic, well great. He can spend the money on something else.

Do you see what I mean? For the purposes of making the decision, I need only look at the worst case scenario.

Furthermore, I have nothing against alcoholics. They have a medical condition and they deserve sympathy like anyone else.

But if you do believe they have a medical condition and feel sympathy for them, wouldn't you hesitate about giving them a drug that will further their addiction? In your post you suggest that if they buy better booze, that's a good outcome. I'm not so sure I agree that that outcome is an expression of sympathy.