Author
|
Topic: Homeless (Read 941 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
Homeless
« on: 2006-07-21 03:11:34 » |
 |
http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/feed/All
<snip>
Question about Ethics (Thomas Pogge responds): When you give a homeless person money is it wrong to attach conditions or have expectations about what that individual will do with the gift?
Such conditions or expectations would not be wrong when giving money to a friend or colleague. Seeing the holes in her shabby sweater, you might give her some money and ask her to buy a new sweater with it. And you would then expect that, if she accepts the gift, she will use it the way you stipulated. So why should matters be different with a homeless person? The obvious answer is: because you owe him support. OK, you don't owe support to every homeless person, but you do have an obligation to do something to support some of them. And because it's an obligation, you may not attach conditions or expectations -- just as, when you own money to your landlady, you may not attach conditions or expectations regarding how she should spend your payment. I am not convinced by this line of argument. I accept that we have an obligation to support the homeless. This includes an obligation to help them meet their basic needs (esp. when our society is doing too little on this score). But it does not include an obligation to help them get an MP3 player, a blackberry, a margarita or a joint. It is perfectly alright, then, that you attach a condition or expectation to your payment, asking that it be used to fulfill your obligation to help meet basic needs rather than for some other purpose.</snip>
[Blunderov] I wonder why the destitute are so often referred to as the "homeless"? Listening closely, the word seems to have that dull thud of euphemism to it. The problem is what it doesn't say.
ISTM If every single one of the destitute were to be given a home it probably would not solve the problem. This is because the destitute lack, for one reason or another, the resources to sustain the occupancy of a home. How do you pay, for instance, the many and various taxes that urban living attracts with no job nor skills to get one? How to afford school fees and child supervision given that home schooling is ruled out by the necessity for work? Etc.
ISTM that it is not an item, a home, that is lacked; it is a place in society. Perhaps it would be more truthful to refer to the "homeless" as the "excluded"?
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Homeless
« Reply #1 on: 2006-08-05 09:43:19 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2006-07-21 03:11:34
ISTM that it is not an item, a home, that is lacked; it is a place in society. Perhaps it would be more truthful to refer to the "homeless" as the "excluded"?
|
I had to google ISTM (it seems to me)
ISTM that "excluded" is just as euphemestic as "homeless", they both refer to effects more than causes. Of course there is no single cause. I've read that anywhere from 10-30% are mentally ill people that have slipped through the cracks of the social welfare system. Many are alcoholics too. Here in Canada a significant portion are indigineous (native American) people who have left their (government supported) reservations. There is significant overlap between the aforementioned categories, and there are many homeless who don't fit in any. Perhaps what they all have in common as far up the causal tree as possible is they are "resourceless".
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Homeless
« Reply #2 on: 2006-08-07 01:25:00 » |
|
[Blunderov] Upon reflection I must agree with Lucifer. Too much of a jump from "homeless' to "excluded". "Destitute" seems the better choice; "lacking possessions AND resources".
destitute
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin destitutus, past participle of destituere to abandon, deprive, from de- + statuere to set up— more at statute
Date: 14th century
1 : lacking something needed or desirable ²a lake destitute of fish³
2 : lacking possessions and resources; especially : suffering extreme poverty ²a destitute old man³
Best regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
