The article in question is about whether one should give “spare change” to the panhandlers we meet on the street or contribute to an organization involved in charity in the hope that they would do something good for society. The author goes to great lengths to point out the fallacy of giving money to the “undeserving poor” as he calls them rather than the normal usage of “deserving poor”. Later, he explains in detail his rationale for not giving to the beggars he meets on the streets and instead contribute to an organization like United Way.
To address the central theme of the article, one need to delve deeper into the psyche of giving alms and money to the poor people we meet on the street. Many religions prescribe charity and charitable giving as a means of worship to the almighty. Similarly, there are many people who would not think twice before giving alms to the poor. This is because they have been raised thinking that giving money to the poor is one way of easing the conscience pangs one encounters when we see the poor or the needy on the street.
However, it is open to debate whether the organizations involved in charitable work are much better at providing support to the poor. In many cases, the people we meet on the street are discards from the same organizations or worse, they would have run away from there because they could not stand the discipline and orderliness of the organizations. There are many shelters for the homeless in all the cities in the United States. Despite this, many of the poor chose to roam the sidewalks and make a living off other people. Or to put it in other words, make a living by living off other people.
This brings us to the next question: How much are we liable for another person’s conscience or upkeep? Are we to undertake charitable deeds just to satisfy our conscience or help others out of a genuine concern for their plight? If indeed we are concerned about their plight, there are better ways of handling the situation rather than just distributing “spare change”. As the Chinese saying goes, “You give a Fish to a person and then you can feed him for a day. But, if you teach the person fishing, you can feed him for life”.
Thus, what is important is how much we can do given the limited set of options at our disposal. In my view, giving spare change to an undeserving poor or deserving poor (that would raise the hackles of the author) is merely a view point. There are no absolutes and in resolutely deciding against giving money to the people we meet on the street, we are just proving to ourselves the merits of our ideology. And this ideology is that one can only contribute to the larger cause and not to the people we meet on the street.
The author may seem hard hearted when talks about the singers and musicians who he meets on the street and considers himself not to be part of their audience. But, the point is well made when he says that they are at least working for their living. And this is the author’s contention, that one cannot expect anything for nothing in this world and it is better one works for what one gets. There is no escaping the fact that one needs to put in the hours as long as one is capable of.
The author uses the word “undeserving poor” to describe the people whom he does not want to be charitable with. He cites instances of a fellow whom he meets at the bus stop everyday and hence concludes that he can very well work instead of loitering around the bus stop looking for “spare change”. The other point is that many of these beggars use the money that get from begging for alcohol or drugs. This, according to the author, is completely unacceptable as far as giving alms goes. He would prefer to help a charitable organization but not the people on the streets who do not deserve his charity simply because they can do productive things in the time they spend on the street.
In conclusion, I would tend to take a middle path between the authors assertions of a principled stand and the need to balance the commitment towards society. Or, giving back to society. I would instead argue that one needs to take an approach that is dictated by the circumstances at hand rather than a dogmatic approach. In this way, we can avoid the traps of ideology and follow our conscience. If there is indeed a “deserving poor”, let us help them. Let us not be blinded by our own rigidities and instead look at each person differently. I am sure that the author may agree to this subtle distinction.