Can we be justified in continually refusing to give money to beggars? The view I am promoting may appear cynical as it concerns human nature; however, in addition to being relevant, the reality of the matter indicates that as a college student, I am constantly plagued by men and women begging for money on my walk to classes. Not that older adults with salaried jobs don't experience this, because they do, but as a college student it is simply impractical and unfair for beggars to ask of us to give them money. Most of us are in debt already, so any money that we do give is a negative quantity on our loan statement that we'll be paying back in 5 years anyway!
As a result of this quandary many college students find themselves in, I've tested this issue against the weight of three over-arching ethical theories: Utilitarianism, Ethics of the Person, and Virtue Ethics.
Utilitarianism is famous for promoting the "greatest good for the greatest number," and an action becomes good or bad based on the consequences the action creates: the happiness it causes, or the displeasure it inflicts. And so, could a Utilitarian rightly refuse a beggar on the street?
The Utilitarian could easily see how giving the beggar five dollars would only serve to increase the beggar's immediate happiness, because she has observed the beggar's condition, and it never improves to long-term happiness. Additionally, being a poor college student, every dollar counts when you are thousands in debt, so the Utilitarian's own immediate and long-term happiness would be decreased if she gives the beggar five dollars. Therefore, it would not serve the community's principle of utility for her to give the beggar money; she is morally justified in withholding her money.
An Ethicist of Persons holds the belief that all persons are "ends in themselves" rather than merely "means" to accomplish their own selfish ends. A persons ethicist would approach that very same situation, initially angered, because clearly, having been asked for money almost every day by the same beggar, she is cognizant of the fact that the beggar is using her as a "means" for financial advancement. She reasons, however, that despite her anger, this fellow human deserves her respect because he is an "end in himself." She reasons that giving him money is simultaneously undermining his ability as a human to advance his own well-being, and she doesn't want to devalue his dignity, worth, or humanity. Therefore, the persons ethicist is morally justified in withholding their money from the beggar.
Finally, if you are a Virtue Ethicist, then you probably have the biggest claim to legitimately giving the beggar money. Classical virtues are: Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude. Theological virtues go farther than that, being: Faith, Hope, and Charity. However, an action such as giving money to a beggar could be charitable, yet unwise and reckless (in opposition to Prudence). So the very same act can be considered virtuous and vicious. In such cases, there is a conflict of virtues, giving the ethicist in question the determining power to decide what is the most ethical decision to be made. Moreover, could the Virtue Ethicist be morally justified in refusing the beggar money? It would seem that she could.
All this being said, it is important to note that the act of giving money to a beggar is your own choice. If you understand all these arguments, yet still want to give money to a beggar, by all means do so! There is no case in which this action is not worthy of praise, if you indeed do desire the best for the beggar, and do so out of your own desire.
The problem, simply put, is when one feels constrained to do so. I think it is unfair that young poor college students EVER feel compelled to give money, and then guilty when they don't. These ethical arguments I have given are intended to release you from the box of guilt and constraint, not to be cynical and heartless.
Next time a situation as this, or similar to this, presents itself, I challenge you to think twice about why you are doing what you are doing. Oftentimes, it is true that why you are doing what it is that you are doing matters far more than what it is that you are doing. And at face value, what it is that you are doing (whether associated as good or bad) is not always appropriately viewed by people around you.
