Hey buddy, can you spare some morality?

Yes. From a moral point of view, the purpose of donating the money is to make Mr. Rags happy, not to give Mr. Rich a warm fuzzy feeling about himself. If, in Mr. Rags' judgment, getting drunk is the best way for himself to get happy on a few dollars, it is still moral for Mr. Rich to give Mr. Rags the money.

Mr. Rich gets to either give Mr. Rags the dollar and make him happy on Mr. Rags' terms, or to spare the money. Mr. Rich doesn't get to keep his money and the moral high ground. In ethics as in economics, you can't eat your cake and have it too.

Joe, no matter what your dad, Chuckster, says. You'll never end up like Dan Quayle. Of that I'm certain.

So as long as Rags is happier with the dollar than without it, Rich is morally justified in giving him the dollar?

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that if Rich keeps his money, he is doing something immoral?

I'm only trying to suggest that Mr. Riches doesn't get to walk through Chicago, past a few dozen beggars, and think to himself: "Look at all these potential drunks -- they should all be grateful to me because I do them the favor of keeping money out of their hands!"

Joe, does your dad play ball for the Cubbies, too?

There's an interesting article in here, called "How the Beggar Economy Promotes Growth" that I thought you might enjoy, Thomas, if you have the time.

According to my own moral sentiments, yes. I'm a utilitarian, so technically, I should make the following disclaimer: If the thought of Mr. Rags drinking makes Mr. Rich more unhappy than the money makes Mr. Rags happy, it is moral for Mr. Rich to keep his money. But in practice, I guess it's safe to ignore this qualification.

No I'm not. I'm only trying to suggest that Mr. Riches doesn't get to walk through Chicago, past a few dozen beggars, and think to himself: "Look at all these potential drunks -- they should all be grateful to me because I do them the favor of keeping money out of their hands!" Sure, that's not the scenario you outlined, but I think the exaggeration makes my intended point clearer.

Setanta wrote:

Joe, does your dad play ball for the Cubbies, too?

My father is a White Sox fan. That I grew up to be a Cubs fan is, for him, a blemish on the family honor and a source of unending shame.

It is not enough, from a utilitarian standpoint, to state that Rich's dollar makes Rags happy -- or happier, at any rate, than he would have been without that dollar -- since the general good is not simply the sum total of everyone's happiness, or even the mean average thereof. Rather, the measure of social utility is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

I would be invariably turned down. The obvious conclusion was that they did not want a dollar for food, and that, with forty ouncers of Blatz selling for 99 cents, this was their object.

dlowan wrote:

Hmmm - question is - what is "good"?

Is giving Rags some pleasure bad?

You are presuming, of course, that alcohol actually gives Rags pleasure. But what if Rags's preferred form of pleasure is actually bad for Rags. Considering that Rags may not be in the best position to judge his own best interests, is Rich necessarily justified in taking the attitude that "it's his life, he can do with it what he will?"

Ok, his pleasure is not "good" for him in the sense of enhancing his physical health. One assumes that he is drinking himself to death, in fact. However, who has the right to decide that his chosen means to happiness, or numbness, or whatever it is, is wrong for him? if it causes him to hurt other people, then I accept it is "bad" - however, I think it rather puritanical to say drink=bad while food, or investment on the stock exchange, or paying for a bus to get to church, or whatever is your personal definition of what would be "good" for Rags = "good".

However, the people who DO work effectively with Ragses here strongly advocate assisting them with sleeping, eating and food when they wish - and making rehab available - but respecting their decisions as to whether they take them up or not. Interestingly, that is where government policy in my state is going re homeless folk - similarly to harm minimization strategies re drugs.

I think giving Rags a drink is fine. If it increases Rags' happiness, even temporarily, I see that as a good - I would temper that by saying I am talking about confirmed Ragses - I would hesitate to give a nouveau Rags the means to increase his chances of becoming a confirmed rags - I would rather give that money to a proven program for prevention or rehab.

joefromchicago wrote:

It is not enough, from a utilitarian standpoint, to state that Rich's dollar makes Rags happy -- or happier, at any rate, than he would have been without that dollar -- since the general good is not simply the sum total of everyone's happiness, or even the mean average thereof. Rather, the measure of social utility is "the greatest good for the greatest number."

That's a fair objection. To explain my answer to your question, it isn't enough for me to state that I'm a utilitarian; I also have to state my guesses about how the transaction would affect aggregate happiness. As it happens, I guess that in your scenario, Mr. Rich is a teeny bit unhappier for the loss of his money. But this loss is small enough to be ignored in practice. Mr Rags gets drunk, which makes him substantially happier. For the rest of society, the transaction is more or less neutral. Advocates of compulsory puritanism may insist that drunks harm society, but I'm not buying this.

Therefore, I guess that Mr. Rich giving Mr. Rags the money is a utilitarian progress over Mr. Rich not doing so. My conclusion might change if I consider the possibility that Mr. Riches might find an even worthier investment for his money than booze for Mr. Rags. But I am too lazy to consider this possibility at this moment.

Piffka wrote:

There's an interesting article in here, called "How the Beggar Economy Promotes Growth" that I thought you might enjoy, Thomas, if you have the time.

Thanks a lot for that link Piffka! The article is interesting, I did enjoy it a lot, and I had never thought about the beggar economy this way. I owe you for five minutes of thought-provoking reading.

Her honesty was refreshing, Habibi, but those with whom i dealt were neither interested in ice cream, nor a square meal--they wanted the beer.