Hey all! A friend of mine related a story to me, and I thought I would run it by the good people here to see what you all thought.
He was recently shopping at a grocery store in a poor neighborhood where a middle-aged woman in front of him was buying groceries with food stamps. After he paid for his own groceries and loaded his car, the woman approached him and asked if he would do a favor for her. She asked him to return the groceries she had just bought with the food stamps and with the cash they gave him she wanted him to buy three packs of cigarettes for her. She told him he could keep the change, which would amount to around $10. He returned the groceries, bought the cigarettes, and told her to keep the $10 herself.
His reasoning was that she would have found somebody to do it for her anyway, and it was unlikely the person she found would have given the $10, which she clearly needed, back to her.
I couldn't argue with that reasoning, it was clearly true, and yet the whole thing seemed so wrong to me. Was he wrongly contributing to her self-destructive activity or was he rightly being compassionate where few others, at least in that neighborhood, would have been?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think it was wrong. Purchasing something just to return it is dishonest; using government food stamps which are not allowed to be used for cigarettes to buy them is dishonest. By making the trade, he was helping her in her dishonesty.
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, a somewhat more ethical thing to have done was to tell the woman to keep her groceries and buy her a pack or two (or three) of cigarettes.
I don't buy the "well someone else would have done it" excuse. You can't excuse an immoral act by saying "if I didn't do it, someone else would anyway". The whole point of being a moral person is that regardless of the evil done in the world you aren't the person doing it. Sure there is bribery and fraud in the world, and now your friend can say he is a part of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It was wrong. For one thing, buying cigarettes for someone on welfare is not compassion. It's euthanasia.
The moral thing to do would, in my opinion, have been to lecture her on how much he disapproved of her request.
[ March 23, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, so maybe buying her the cigarettes wouldn't fall under "ethical", but I guess my point was that if you wanted to appease this woman in some way, that would be a better way than helping her steal.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
He could have reported her. That sounds ethical to me.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
OK, what is the going price of a case of cigs these days? They are up to five dollars a pack, so it must be at least 30 bucks, right?
I could take the "ethical" thing even further than Tom, and after lecturing her, turn her in. Of course, I would tell her it was for her own good first.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I don't think this was even close. There's a reason why we give people food stamps instead of money.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I see nothing wrong with it. To the extent that my taxes paid for her food stamps, I could care less whether they are spent on food or drugs. I am out the same amount of cash either way.
Although I would have kept the $10.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I see nothing wrong with it. To the extent that my taxes paid for her food stamps, I could care less whether they are spent on food or drugs. I am out the same amount of cash either way.
This, Danzig, is why I'm always left wondering whether you're actually a sociopath or simply desperately attempting to emulate one. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would definitely have turned her in. And given her a list of resources where she could get help to quit smoking.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Cool. Something else Tom and I agree on. What are we up to now Tom?
One big flaw in the argument is that someone else would have done that for her. I doubt she has much luck finding people to help her do that. People are generally to busy and mistrusting to try something like that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wonder how she'd react if you came out with a quit smoking kit.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So is the problem with this the fact that she was wanting the cash to buy cigarettes. I mean - is it the cigarettes you disagree with, or the fact that she wanted cash for someother other than food, using food stamps?
What if she had said - take this back in and get cash for it in order for me to have $3 for gas to put in my car to get to my part-time job? Or a quart of oil to get my car home without blowing up?
Would that be a different scenario?
Farmgirl
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I don't buy the "well someone else would have done it" excuse. You can't excuse an immoral act by saying "if I didn't do it, someone else would anyway".
I was once asked on a personality test something to the extend of: "If you approached a vending machine in order to buy something, and noticed there was 75 cents already in the machine, would you get a free item or would you get your item and then put 75 cents back in the machine." I may have gotten the details wrong, but the jist was the same.
I had to truthfully respond that I would keep the item. My reasoning? That someone would just take an item for free instead of me if I didn't. The money never would have gotten back to its original owner no matter what I did.
Is this reasoning immoral? I suppose the key here was that last part. Still, I think the question is a lame one. I hope its just to test whether the test taker is a big fat lier .
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I wonder how she'd react if you came out with a quit smoking kit.
[ March 23, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually Farm, I wouldn't have believed her either way and been about my business.
Technically, and Dag may have to supply the specifics, she is defrauding the US government and while it may be a minor offense, I'm not particularly inclined to help her support a cigarette habit by committing what may be a minor offense myself.
Of course, I'm a little jaded about the various hooks a con will use to gain sympathy, attention and ultimately money. I've lost count of the number of times people have approached me, asking for bus fare or money to put some gas in their car while reeking of alcohol.
Had the exchange gone the other way and she was trying to barter cigarettes for food, I might be more inclined to get involved.
It has been my experience that people too ready to ask for help are the ones that usually need a different sort from what they're asking for.
-Trevor
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
You used to be able to buy food stamps for 25 cents on the dollar in east St. Louis back before the Link card, made the grocery money stretch let me tell you....
BC
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Using your line of reasoning, TomDavidson, and this thread, the ethical thing to do would have been to: Confiscate her groceries. Give her a lecture about the evils of eating. Point out that she should thank you for stealing her groceries so she would learn how she could have hurt the government.
[ March 23, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
By buying cigarettes with foodstamps she was stealing from the tax payers. That was not an ethical thing to do.
Of course, I think foodstamps are already stealing from the tax payers but by buying non-food with them it's insult to injury.
It kinda reminds me of the first time I ever saw anyone use foodstamps... Their groceries were in two piles. They used other people's money (foodstamps) to buy groceries and then used their own money to buy dog food, booze and cigarettes.
Now if they can afford dog food, booze and cigarettes, why they frak am I (and the rest of the taxpayers) buying them food???
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm with Trevor, I wouldn't have believed a story about needing gas for the car and even if I had good reason to believe it I sitll wouldn't have been involved in an illegal scam to get gas or anything else.
Food stamps are meant for food and cashing them in to buy cigarettes is fraud and I wouldn't be a part of it. To me, it's not really much of a question.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Gadzooks, aspectre, do you care to cite some specific examples or...uh, I think you should cite some specific examples.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Let's get a bit real, ThePixiest, it isn't "cheating the taxpayer" that bothers you. If it did, you would be demanding Dubya's impeachment.
Just an excuse to display typical neo"conservative" thinking: Kicking the down&out will prove I am the top dog here.
Frankly, I've never aspired to be a dog.
[ March 23, 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So is the problem with this the fact that she was wanting the cash to buy cigarettes. I mean - is it the cigarettes you disagree with, or the fact that she wanted cash for someother other than food, using food stamps?
What if she had said - take this back in and get cash for it in order for me to have $3 for gas to put in my car to get to my part-time job? Or a quart of oil to get my car home without blowing up?
Would that be a different scenario?
The problem is the diversion of funds. I might give her money for gas (I would never give her money for cigarettes, unless she lied and I believed it). But I wouldn't help her commit fraud, even if it's not legally fraud.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Truly, aspectre, you have a dizzyingly deep understanding of the neo-conservative mindset.
Seriously man, what does posting a swipe like that do for you? Hell, I'm basically on the same side of the political fence as you are, but I cringe when I see you posting crap like that.
[ March 23, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
actually aspectre I'm really unhappy with W's apparent desire to make government as big as possible. It seems all we have now is the party of HUGE goverment and the party of EVEN HUGER government. I would be voting Libertarian if I thought it would ever matter a hill of beans.
I have no desire to kick the downtrodden to make myself top dog. perhaps you'd like to rephrase your personal attack to sound less bitter and angry?
I DO think, however, that helping the downtrodden should be a personal choice one makes through charity and not a choice made for you by other people who have the votes to take your property without just compensation.
Pro-Choice isn't just an abortion buzzword to me.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
What exactly is sociopathic about realizing that the same amount of money is stolen no matter what is purchased? If anything, using the money for cigarettes at least wakes people up to the fact that welfare sucks. Maybe my working definition of "sociopath" is incorrect, but getting back a measly $10 of money that has been stolen from me does not seem enough to qualify. If a bum comes up to me on the street and asks for some money, he is likely to get a dollar or two if I have it - and I respect his dignity enough to let him spend it on whatever he had decided he needs the most, rather than offering to buy him an unhealthy fast food meal. I guess the Robin Hoods feel guilty when their stolen money is used for some small amount of fun instead of merely prolonging a completely dreary existence.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Charity is an involuntary tax on people who have a conscience, who want to be Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist/humanitarian/etc imposed by those who have no conscience, but nonetheless go to the Temple / awards ceremonies to praise themselves for being "better than all those other people".
Governmental social welfare programs merely spreads that tax so it is shared a bit more fairly amongst all members of society.
[ March 23, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So aspectre, how is Government enforced charity any different? You still have one set of people forcing another set to give.
But now it's worse. Now you have the LAW enforcing that which some people's morality was enforcing before. Thus, legislating morality.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Pixiest, until you have a solution for the lack of jobs that pay enough to support a family, I think you'd better lay off those who may need foodstamps. If you needed them, you'd be glad they were there. Just because you've seen a couple of people doing things you don't approve of, doesn't mean the system is rotten all the way through.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I would have refused to do it, but not turned the woman in. Morally I know I should turn her in, but I would never to that because I'm simply not that kind of person.
And The Pixiest, countries that have taxation and division of resources more than others are functioning extremely well, and their citizens seem very happy and their quality of life is generally fairly high. How, if this the case, is what this countries do a bad thing?
[ March 23, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What exactly is sociopathic about realizing that the same amount of money is stolen no matter what is purchased?"
What is sociopathic is the transformation of this issue into "how does this specifically impact my life, and what's in it for me either way?"
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
So selfishness is equivalent to sociopathy?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Pixiest, have you ever known anyone that needed food stamps? I know that my family qualified for them during the first 5 years my dad was in the Army, but my parents pride wouldn't allow them to take them, and we survived by pooling food with other low-income military families. Unfortunately, not everyone is in a situation where they can avoid food-stamps, and no one should feel like they're stealing from joe-shmoe-tax-payer just because they want to feed their children.
Getting back on topic; Of course it was wrong to get cigarettes for this woman. By violating the system, she violated our trust in the system, and indirectly hurt those who need food stamps the most. Every time someone is caught cheating the system, it paints all welfare recipients with the same brush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So selfishness is equivalent to sociopathy?"
Yes. Yes, I believe it is. I think, in fact, sociopathy can be best defined as perfect selfishness.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
There are many people who need food stamps and use them correctly. They often get a feeling of shame along with their purchase.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
I don't know what I would have done. Well, I can guess that I probably would have refused to buy her cigarettes, briefly explaining why and mentioning she should probably quit, but then also given her some money to spend herself if she needed them that badly. I don't think there's any course of action I could take in that situation and still come out being glad that's what I'd done though. I can, however, appreciate that addictions often happen as a result of facing difficult situations outside one's control, and that they can seem like the only way of coping for many people in these situations. (This doesn't mean I support the encouragement of them, which is what would make this situation so difficult for me when I know there's no long-term difference I can make either way).
As for the 75 cent vending machine problem, that's easier. I'd leave 75 cents there. I don't need the money and there's a chance someone who does will find it if I leave it, even if that's unlikely. The other option for me would be to take it and donate it to a charity. I've done that several times.
Poverty is not deserved by anyone. As several people have mentioned, foodstamps and welfare are fabulous programmes for those who need it, even if it's taken advantage of by others. Personally, I'm far too... empathetic? unbelieving in free will? something like that ... to blame anyone for their situation in life, even when I know that blame might be appropriate and useful.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tom, not that I am disagreeing completely with you on that, but there ae degrees of selfishness just like there are for other things. Some level of selflishness is necessary or youo wouldn't ever accomplish anything at all, but too much of it and you are a waste of skin.
As far as this line of logic goes, for this particular case, of course it is wrong. The only person here who I have seen disagree with that is Danziz, who isn't a paragon of virtue...
Hell, he thinks that he is above the laws, getting to pick and choose which ones he listens to as he sees fit.
That is one of the main characteristics of a sociopath.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Of course, in this case it is not perfect selfishness. I know you are a wonderful person who never touches psychoactives, but I do. I have always been on the fringes of the tobacco users, but I admire their sense of community. To an extent they are still connected to the users of other substances. You might look down upon smokers, but being in somewhat related situations myself I tend to have compassion when I can... but not so much compassion I will turn down an opportunity to pay for my own kicks at the same time, should it arise.
There is nothing wrong with accepting an offered reward, but turning down a person in need is bad karma.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: There is nothing wrong with accepting an offered reward, but turning down a person in need is bad karma.
Bullsh*t
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Above the law? From the views of the prohibitionists and the straight-edgers, I would say more below the law than above it. Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Not so. I am assuming your problem with this situation is that the money came from food stamps. Well, believe it or not, I sincerely believe those to be wrong. You cannot expect me to care about the arbitrary restrictions on an already immoral theft. Just getting back some of what you stole from me.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I dunno.. I was unemployed for 3 years so the whole "what about people who need it" line rings hollow.
I survived because I planned ahead. I knew stuff like that could happen and while I was working I stuffed all the money I could into savings while my co-workers mocked me for it. "You can't take it with you" and other inanities dribbled out of their mouths as they bragged about their new cars and big screen TVs.
That isn't to say NO one needs help, but I think the number of people who actually need it are much smaller than the number who receive it. Further, I think a lot fewer people would need it if we weren't so overtaxed. I know while I was unemployed I was wishing I could have the money back that was confiscated from my paycheck over the years.
By the way, I'm not heartless. Some of you may remember I just tried to donate a perfectly good car to charity and was rejected. I'm going to try to give it to the salavation army next. But the thing is, I'm doing it by CHOICE. Not because I'm being forced to do it.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I don't think I would have bought the cigs for her, but I wouldn't have turned her in either. I know there are people, like The Pixiest mentioned, who take advantage of the program, and that's sad. I was on food stamps for about 2 months when I got divorced (until I got a better job) and it's tough. It can be humiliating, and the food stamp program doesn't pay for things it needs to pay for - like toilet paper, soap, and feminine supplies. I remember not knowing how I was going to buy tampons.
space opera
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I remember the first time someone came into the food pantry at our church and saw that we had toilet paper and started to cry. Happy tears over TP. Ever since then I've made a point of being sure we are well stocked with paper products, soap and detergent, tampons & pads, and diapers. All things that can't be bought with foodstamps, but are pretty much necessities.
(Yes, I know people could use junk mail for TP and old rags for maxipads, but I consider them necessities.)
[ March 23, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Wow, unethical AND illegal! :-) I agree...buying cigs with state money is a no-no. I think states using cards are going to eliminate this more, especially if the receipt shows that a card was used and money could be credited directly back to it. That said, Ohio has cards but for some people they just cut a check so there is no accountability. Not sure why they do one for some people and not the other.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I'm surprised that the grocery store allowed the return of the groceries and refunded back in cash.
As an accountant in my previous life, every company I ever worked for had the policy of refunds by the same method the original payment was in. Period. It's the best way to prevent fraud like that.
Any company that allows refunds like that has poor controls in place, and likely has other types of fraud or theft happening.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
You're good peoples Dana. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd have said no for cigarettes or booze.
Yes if she needed gas money.
Yes if she needed TP or diapers, or whatever.
It doesn't matter whether or not she is lying.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Danzig, I am well aware of your views on WHY you don't like it, that is th point. You don't feel the government has a right to tax us, and wiggle out of it as often as you can....while still allowing yourself to reap the benefits of living in this society. You drive on the roads, went to school, and live in a fairly safe place. I am sure if you were being mugged you would want the police to help you, and if your house/car was on fire you would expect the firemen to come.
You just don't want to pay for it like the rest of us do.
It isn't that I don't understand, it's that I hold your world view in contempt. Not you personally, but the views you have expressed on any number of issues. I don't have any tolerance left for hypocrites like you, and find it repugnant that you can get away with leeching off society as you have bragged you do.
So I don't find myself surprised at your opinions about this, not at all....and I wouldn't feel much sympathy is you got arrested because of helping someone defraud the public like that.
Kwea
[ March 24, 2005, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd have said no for cigarettes or booze.
Yes if she needed gas money.
Yes if she needed TP or diapers, or whatever.
It doesn't matter whether or not she is lying.
Interesting. What's the reason for not caring about the lying?
quote:As an accountant in my previous life, every company I ever worked for had the policy of refunds by the same method the original payment was in. Period. It's the best way to prevent fraud like that.
Any company that allows refunds like that has poor controls in place, and likely has other types of fraud or theft happening.
It's possible the store knows about this and doesn't mind, since they lose no money.
Many stores will take things back without a receipt, although most will only give store credit. In this case, store credit is what's desired, except for the $10 reward.
Giving cash back is an open invitation to shoplifters, of course.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What's the reason for not caring about the lying?
A couple things:
quote: Matthew 5: 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
And
quote: Mosiah 4 (Book of Mormon) 16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
It is not my place to try and judge whether or not she's lying.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That said-- the above applies to me as a person. The government should pursue fraud.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Not much of a question here. I absolutely would not have helped. I don't commit fraud, which is what helping this woman is.
It's not that I care whether she gets her cigarettes. She can smoke herself right to death if that's what she wants, and I see no value in lecturing her about the evils of smoking. Such lectures never work anyway, so it would be a waste of time. And sure, she'll probably find someone to help her. But that someone wouldn't be me.
quote:So selfishness is equivalent to sociopathy?
Yes. Humans are a social species, and we only thrive as a species when we work together. To be truly civilized, a person must be able to delay gratification, or even surrender it entirely now and then for the good of the community. Those who are unwilling to do that are sociopaths, and though they may thrive personally, they do so at the expense of the community.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm-- shame on Verily for making me think.
Rather than return the items for cash for diapers, etc, I would probably just give her the money she needed, or go back in and buy her the things she asked for. That way, everything's on the up and up.
[ March 24, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That was going to be my next question, Scott, but you answered it ahead of time. It seems those scripturers are much better support for a donation rather than assistance in her fraud.
[ March 24, 2005, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
But surely you don't take those scriptures to mean you are obligated to give money to everyone who asks you and not question the reason. Or do you?
As I stated in a related thread, I am a person of limited means (as are we all) and I don't think it is uncharitable to use judgement to decide when those resources could be used charitably to best advantage.
Frankly, I don't see either of those scriptures as an admonition that you should not care about the lying. If you refused her assistance because "her punishments were just", that would be one thing. But refusing her petitions because you have reason to believe she is asking for you to finance her luxuries is something no fair-minded person could logically condemn you for.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Kwea - Who says I would not pay for roads and firemen? I pay for cable rather than steal it. I have no problem funding the roads, fire department, or public libraries. As for police, they are not obligated to protect me from muggers, only to find the people who did it. No, I would not want them to come along were I being mugged, and I do not want to pay them to persecute people like me. People on welfare leech off society far more than I do.
As long as I am forced to pay for society's "services" I will use them if possible, and take back my own when I can. That is getting back what I was forced to put it. It does not mean I would opt out of both the service and the payment given the choice.
Verily - To be truly civilized, a person must never take another's property (physical or moral) by force. Take the plank out of your own eye. I might offer it freely when asked, but I will not surrender it if I can help it. A community that takes things by force does not deserve to thrive.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Danzig, I have to reject your view of civilization because history has shown us repeatedly that we as a species do not (can not?) live together the way you propose. Were there not some checks on the accumulation of wealth, Robber Barons would own the world.
There are far worse evils in the world than muggers and you'd be hard pressed to defend yourself against them without a strong government. How can that government exist without a means to pay for it?
I won't claim that there are any government programs that are flawless or that the ones in place now are completely just, but if you have a plan for a community that never takes anything by force, I'd love to see your outline of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Karl:
This is why I'm not a Republican.
Yes-- I do give money to whomever asks me, whenever I can.
See the below:
quote: Mosiah 4 24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.
25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.
26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.
27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.
[ March 24, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Scott, can you send me some money? Please?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
KarlEd, the thing about those threats is that I would either already be dead, or be able to defend myself. Or at the very least, willing to risk it as the price of freedom. I realize that what is right may often be unworkable. Just do not ask me to condone the actions of an immoral but relatively practical society, or feel guilty for breaking their laws. Laws at their best (which is not the case here) reflect morality, but they never define it.
And I am working on that plan, although it is probably a waste of time.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
But seriously, Scott, I still don't see where the scriptures you have quoted expect you not to question the way you extend your charity. In fact, the last section you quoted seems to obigate you use good judgement, unless you equate unquestioned giving with "doing so in wisdom".
Additionally, none of those quotes obligates you to finance another person's luxuries. I'm not talking about feeding the hungry and dressing the naked and providing for the sick. I'm talking about giving money to a begger to buy booze or cigarettes, or giving money to feed someone hungry so they can use their own resources to go buy booze or cigarettes.
[edit to clarify to whom I was addressing my reply]
[ March 24, 2005, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, I'm not Mormon so I don't recognize what Scott quoted as scripture, but from the scriptures I believe we are supposed to be good stewards of what God has blessed us with - that includes our finances, and part of that is most definitely using good judgment to ensure our money is going where it can do the most good.
Under no circumstances do I feel morally obligated to fund someone's addictions or help them break the law.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Laws at their best (which is not the case here) reflect morality, but they never define it.
I think it could be argued that our welfare system was originally set up as a reflection of our society's moral imperative to assist those in need. The fact that the system is abused and that it is very difficult to weed out that abuse while at the same time fulfilling the purpose of the program fairly does not mean the program itself is immoral. "Imperfect" does not equate to "immoral".
Let me know when you get your plan established for the perfectly free and perfectly moral society and I'll check it out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Karl-- I did say I wouldn't help her buy booze or cigs. . .
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yes, but it's the "wouldn't care about the lying" part that I disagreed with. I feel that I have a responsibility (to myself if no one else) to insure that my charitable efforts go to legitimate use.
Edit to add: You seemed to be quoting the scriptures as justification for the not caring about the lying part. If not, I guess I misunderstood. That was my only quibble. (I think )
[ March 24, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well-- In that particular situation, I don't know of a way that I could really determine whether or not she's lying.
If I know someone's trying to con me, I don't give them my money. But I am pretty liberal with the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I can respect that. For me, though, living in Baltimore made me pretty cynical in that regard. I saw the con-game played way to often to be liberal with giving money. I got in the habit of always offering a way to help the stated need rather than toss money and hope they weren't lying.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
But taking my money and giving it to someone who will buy food with it is wrong as well, regardless of what our society says. Society has no moral imperative to help those in need. It has the moral imperative to not steal from me or anyone else. If it does steal, I can take back as much as was stolen from me (both originally and in retrieval efforts) with a clear conscience.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I believe that society does have a moral imperative to help those in need. I believe that individuals have a moral imperative to help those in need. I don't think the degree of "need" is the same for both society and the individual before that imperative kicks in, but I do believe it is there.
For example, if you see someone drowning and you have the ability to save them, you have a moral imperative to do so. Likewise, society has a moral imperative to help those who cannot help themselves. Now you might argue that it isn't the government's imperative to provide for welfare. Maybe it is the churches or maybe private charities. I'd be interested in a coherent arguement to that effect. However, both churches and private charities are part of "society" and therefore would be exercising under society's moral imperative. A world where no one has an obligation of any kind to his neighbor would be hard pressed to fit into any definition of "society" that I can think of.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Well, there we will have to agree to disagree. Sure, I would try to help a drowning person, but that is my choice, not my obligation. I do believe in obligation - to not initiate force. I owe it to you and everyone to refrain from attacking you without provocation, stealing what is yours, and imposing my private morality upon you. I do not owe a man dying of thirst a drink from my well, although he need only ask to get one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Well, there we will have to agree to disagree. Sure, I would try to help a drowning person, but that is my choice, not my obligation.
Really.
Let me ask you to clarify what you just said. It is purely your choice whether to prevent harm to others, presumably regardless of how much effort is involved on your part. Does the example of a child about to fall into a well, with you a couple of paces away and easily able to save him, do anything for you? Don't you think it's morally contemptible not to save the kid?
I would think very badly of someone who failed to do so, in much the same way that I'd think badly of a killer.
As for the concept of charity, government-mandated or not, it has only arisen because we've latched onto an idea of "ownership" that's developed from our social practices. These might easily have been different, if our culture so decided. In fact, my view of welfare is that it expresses a bit of society's distrust with the idea of ownership and all it entails. Your possessing something means that I am not free to use it without your leave -- an unnatural situation, and one that seems to limit my liberty.
The idea of private property has served us well in a lot of ways. It prevents conflict and lends efficiency to many of our social institutions (e.g. employment, manufacture, public service). But it also has a social cost, and I see welfare as an attempt to ameliorate part of that cost.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
BookWyrm - If we are only supporting welfare because of the metaphorical gun to the head, why pretend otherwise? As far as theft goes, I would prefer the type that everyone at least admits is such, which also happens to be the type I have some chance of defending against. If someone broke into my apartment and stole everything I own, the cost of replacing all of it would be less than what I paid into Social Security last year. Welfare in the sense of food stamps and subsidized housing is pretty cheap, right? Maybe I would check the box that says take an extra three bucks for that purpose if given the option.
Destineer - Your example does nothing. It is not my fault, it is not my problem, and it is not my responsibility. Yes, I would try to save the kid, but I could not condemn any (unconnected) person for going their merry way. It takes more than inaction (barring circumstances where responsibility to act has not been voluntarily assumed) to earn my contempt.
You do have a point about ownership, though, at least (or especially) regarding ownership of land, and by extension non-renewable resources found on a given piece of land.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Danzig, it only works if we all out in, and we have chosen as a society to fund particular issues. If we had to wait for donations we wouldn't have a country to live in still, or at last not one we would recognize...and we wouldn't have hospitals and highways, supermarkets and court systems.
You participate every day in society, but you claim to have no moral obligation to anyone other than yourself.
That is a textbook example of sociopathy, although not to quite the same level as a serial murderer...you feel you have a right to steal "back" what was taken from you, but you still feel society is obligated to provide you with services that are paid for by the same taxes you avoid.
That is morally corrupt, and you deserve to be caught and punished...so that you can complain from inside jail about how your "freedoms" were tarnished outside.
Talk about refusing to accept responsibility.
[ March 25, 2005, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Why do people pay for cable when they could just steal it? If taxation was voluntary, I think people would realize that the expenses have to be paid by someone. If not at first, then after the potholes stopped getting fixed.
(As a side note, I pay my taxes. Pragmatically the costs of avoiding taxation are higher than the benefits. If you show up at my door with a gun, you can have some of my money too.)
Society is not obligated to provide me services. It is obligated to let me and everyone else keep any money I earn, and to protect me from others and others from me, should the need arise. It is not obligated to support me should I be unable or unwilling to do so myself. Nor is it obligated to build and maintain roads, fire departments, etc. However, to the extent I have been robbed, I deserve fair compensation. Thus I would take as much welfare as I personally have paid for, but no more, and if I ever realized an equivalent value in cash from getting people cigarettes, I would stop that as well.
Posted by Dreamwalker (Member # 4189) on :
Danzig you are not thinking selfishly enough If compassion doesn't do it for you then the following through with selfishness should. You support people on benefits short-term. They continue to be healthy citizens who consume. Their consumption rewards you by paying for whatever it is that you produce (either directly or indirectly). Payback on your investment. Then after overcoming this hiccup they then re-enter the workforce and gain even more disposable income which they also use to consume more of what you produce (again directly or indirectly). More people able to enter the work force ready to consume is good for your long-term wealth. If however they were given no help then this will affect you. As has already been mentioned stealing becomes a viable option. The only growth here is the protection of fewer and fewer resourses. I was listening to a 'industry leader' recently. This guy is well known for his scathing attacks on the unemployed and immigrants. Of course he has always paid minimal tax. He now blames the government because we currently have high employment levels and he no longer has a pool of unemployed people available to work short-term harvesting his kiwifruit. The way I see it us poor old Joe Bloggs have been subsidizing his multi-million dollar business by paying tax to support this pool of unemployed so he can have workers for a couple of months a year. That makes HIM the real bludger.
Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
I smoke so there is no moral question for me here. If I wanted cigs and needed help to get them, I would hope someone would help me out. So I gotta go for a "do unto others" thing on this one.
smokers
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
My first thought was, "Why didn't she go in and do the exchange herself?"
I hate cigarette smoke. I am allegic to it, my son is allergic to it and I have much less patience for smokers now than I did before I had an asthmatic child to protect. I've had two friends recently die of cancer associated with cigarette smoking, so I know that I wouldn't go in and trade her food for cigarettes. That's me and I freely admit that it stems from a personal prejudice against the nasty little things.
On the same note though, if she were obese or diabetic, I wouldn't be willing to hand her a bag of Ding-Dongs.
I used to only give food coupons or buy a meal when asked for charity from street people. But just like the above notions, they are me playing parent or referee over another person's personal decision. I now believe that my decision is whether or not to give. The receiver is responsible for using the gift wisely.
I understand the reluctance to having money taken from one's paycheck to give charity to people who don't appreciate the gift. The only thing worse than not having a gift appreciated is being denied the satisfaction of knowing that you chose to do a good thing. Yet, I would never suggest that the goverment stop taking from the many to give to the few.
As a child whose parents were on and off welfare many a time, I appreciate the fact that I was fed more often than I went hungry and I had access to antibiotics and other medicines when ear aches, raging fevers and poisoning made a doctor visit necessary. I can't even imagine being willing to deny the same basic necessities to other children.
Personally, I think that the only people who refuse to give are those who have never really been in need.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
smokers