You seem to be implying that it is immoral for Rich to aid Rags in getting drunk. Is that so?
If so, whats the problem? Its Rich's money and Rag's life.
I'm not implying anything, I'm merely setting forth a hypothetical.
But let me expand upon it somewhat. I live in a big city, and I see beggars every day, many of whom I am convinced are asking for money which they intend to use to buy alcohol and drugs.
In certain neighborhoods, merchants post signs advising people not
to give money to beggars. Ostensibly, the merchants don't want people unwittingly feeding the bad habits of the beggars; in truth, the merchants simply don't want beggars hanging around, driving away potential customers.
Yet there is certainly an argument to be made that Rich's action is immoral (as opposed to being merely bad for local businesses) to the extent that his action contributes to Rags's condition. After all, Rags is not simply getting a drink, he's an alcoholic beggar. I think we can safely say that, all things being equal, it is better not
to be an alcoholic beggar than to be one. And if Rich's donation permits Rags to remain in his degraded condition, is that donation truly moral
Look at it this way: if a suicidally despondent friend came up to you and asked to borrow your .45 caliber pistol -- and one bullet -- for a short while, would your act of lending him the weapon be beyond moral reproach, even if you had a strong suspicion that your friend would use the weapon to kill himself? Would you have no responsibility once you handed the weapon over to your friend, on the argument that "it's your gun and his life?"