Limits to helping others
Mon, 30 Dec 2024
Opinion, Philosophy, Ethics
===========================

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.