In applied ethics, I believe one of the fundamental questions to be that of helping others. Whether it is full-on charity, or just showing someone the way to the library, it is unquotable that these actions have a moral aspect.
A question arises however when it a person asks for help repeatedly. In particular, I see two common situations arise. First, there are those who abuse charity. People asking repeatedly for handouts to “get back on their feet’’ only to blow the assistance on matter non-conducive to bettering their situation. Second, are those people who become reliant on your help because they never learn to do things themselves. Instead of learning to read a map, they become reliant on asking you (or other helpful people) for directions. These two situations are distinct in that the former contains an intentionally malicious actor, whereas the second person might be seen as a victim from some perspectives.
Unfortunately for me[1] virtue ethics does not have as clear an answer for this problem as some other ethical systems do. Consequentialists for example, can simply say that not-helping is more conducive to the overall increase in good compared to helping. Deontologists – of the non-categorical variety – can say that the imperative to help others is contingent on said aid not being misused or making the recipient dependent[2].
I believe that the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and prudence quite plainly inspire one to aid others when they are in need. Indeed, the virtues as a whole inspire us to give to others what we have and they do not. The virtuous way is to give in such a way that one is personally not diminished[3].
Despite the virtue in giving, it is also undeniable that virtuous people are responsible for the moral education of others. Enabling immoral behaviour, or otherwise limiting the growth of virtue in another person is not just, prudent, wise, or courageous. Rather, such behaviour is the result of either foolishness, pride, jealousy, insecurity, or other such vices.
How do we square this circle? How do we provide others with what they need, without diminishing their moral progress? I believe that answer of the virtue ethicist involves much more moral responsibility than the consequentialist-, and deontological- answers provided above. The answer boils down to this: As a virtuous person you are responsible for your fellow humans. For their material and spiritual needs, and for their moral growth. As such, when you provide aid to someone, your responsibility in ensuring their moral development grows proportionally to the aid provided.
Each time you give your cousin money “just to cover the rent this month, I’ll pay you back next month when I land that job-interview I swear’’, you become more responsible for ensuring that they take their life in the right direction. In other words, if someone abuses your charity, then this is your own moral failing. You only took half of the steps which virtue required of you and in doing so bred vice in another person. Specifically, you are lacking in justice, which keeps the virtues balanced.
Despite one’s increased moral responsibility after helping someone, this does not imply that one gains the right to take decisions for the recipient. Even more so, even though it is your responsibility to morally educate this person, that does not give you have any more right to take up their time to lecture or berate them.
What then should you do? The answer is simple when you think about it. You must give education simultaneously. Your aid must come in the form of a moral lesson. Not the type where you give someone money and a lecture on the dangers of indulgence at the same time, but rather of the type where you teach a hungry man to fish rather than feeding him directly. When someone asks your for directions, show them where to find the answer. When someone asks your opinion, show them your though process. When someone someone asks you for money, advise them on how to spend it.
After all, at the end of the day, virtuous actions breed virtue, and passing on what you know, do, and feel – as a virtuous person – will slowly build virtue in those you help.
[1]: As I outlined in my previous post titled “Ethical systems and their relative strengths’’ I am a virtue ethicist.
[2]: If you are not caught up on what these terms mean, see my previous post “Ethical systems and their relative Strengths’’
[3]: This is mostly a Neoplatonic view on virtue, and being ‘undiminished’ as such does not refer to material matters. Rather, the claim is that we must be generous in such a way that our lives are filled with just as much goodness DESPITE being materially diminished. Indeed, the early neoplatonists seem to assert that material diminishment is a necessary (and perhaps sufficient) cause for being morally enhanced.
All of my writing and software projects are available free of charge under CC-BY unless stated otherwise. I do not accept monetary donations, but if my work has brought you value I ask you to donate to a charitable cause or high-impact fund, organisation, business, institute, or individual driving moral progress.