Introduction:

Thank you for the overwhelming response you gave to BustedHalo’s newest feature, “Moral Dilemmas.” After outlining the original dilemma and then adding a twist to it later we are now ready to hear an analysis of the dilemma from an expert in moral theology and ethics. Read the original dilemma. Read the second step in the dilemma.

THE FINAL ANALYSIS

I was excited when the editors at BustedHalo invited me to be part of their new “Moral Dilemmas” feature. I’m even more delighted by both the large number and high caliber of the responses this first dilemma has garnered. You’re a witty and wise bunch! I’d like to first discuss some of your comments and then offer my analysis.

Hellbound

One respondent suggests rather cleverly that we shouldn’t expect much from Jason (”Jason is already going to hell, why should he give up his money now?”) since Jason is pretty clearly not a practicing Christian. Why does this reader say so? As an investment banker, earning $500,000+, Jason is obviously accepting interest on loans (i.e. usury, condemned in the OT); expensive shoes may well be a sign of “gluttony” (or maybe “greed” or “materialism”); Jason breaks Jesus’ direct call to share coats, shirts, and presumably shoes/sandals with those who have none; and Jason seems to be working on “gaining the whole world” while risking “losing his very self.” Case closed, the skids are greased, “Bye, Bye, Jason.” Enjoy your ill-gotten gain while you can!

The System

Another commentator backs up from the street corner event itself to look at Jason’s whole situation in life. He’s already bought into the corporate world, expensive suits, $500 shoes, boozing nightly at the bar, raking in a six-figure salary, on the way to a million+. What he does or doesn’t do for one street beggar seems almost irrelevant or insignificant. I feel some of the same frustration as this critic because it seems as if the problems of wealth vs. poverty in our society and around the world are far more systemic than incidental.

Who is he to decide?

Many wondered what “gift” was most apropos: money, food, clothing, and/or night’s shelter. Or should Jason invest more time and energy in this one lost soul – permanent housing, job training, substance abuse therapy, ongoing personal friendship, etc. And, as others noted, who is Jason to decide what this fellow needs, what will make him happy, what will make his life “meaningful” or “productive.” God forbid we canonize investment bankers as THE paradigm of a happy and saintly life. At the same time, it’s not arrogant of Jason to think that freezing on the street, trying to bum a drink, and guilt-tripping one’s mark is not likely the happiest or healthiest of lives.

Full-Blown Good Samaritan?

But, as a few folks noted, not all wandering homeless folks are “bums.” Some may more accurately be described as “hobos,” “knights of the road,” or “free spirits.” Being hemmed in – particularly in a bug-infested, rule-laden, and sometimes violence-prone men’s shelter – is not everyone’s idea of “living.” Some street-people, albeit often with some measure of mental disability, prefer their freedom to a regimented or institutionalized life. If he honestly asks for money, maybe it’s worth treating him as a peer human being. Give him the money or not. Offer to buy him a meal or not. Offer to arrange tonight’s shelter for him or not. Being his full-blown Good Samaritan or Florence Nightengale is not necessarily required, even by followers of Jesus.

So, here are just a few organized moral thoughts regarding this dilemma:

I. There is a distinction in the Christian tradition between charity and justice, and between justice and genuine walk-the-extra-mile love.

(a) Charity usually refers to giving from our excess. In the Gospel story of the widow’s mite, Jesus points out that most folks donate from their spare change or play money, while the widow gave her last coin, all that she had. Giving a buck here and there or even Jason’s annual $5,000 Christmas largesse seems to me to be this most minimal kind of charity. It’s good. It’s valid. But it’s not enough!

(b) Justice refers to fairness, rendering someone what is due them. Commutative justice (the work ethic) bases what is due a person solely on whether one has “earned” the benefit (e.g., full work day merits a full day’s pay). But another branch of justice, distributive justice, says we can also measure what one is due based on one’s core human dignity and needs. So, children justly deserve physical care and a basic education, not because they earn it, but just because they’re in need of it. Persons with disabilities justly deserve to participate as fully as they can in society’s activities. We install ramps and handicap-accessible facilities as a matter of justice, not idle charity. It seems to me that our unnamed street-person does not have a strict justice claim on Jason one-to-one, in any commutative justice sense.

However, poor people in general do have a distributive justice claim based on their basic humanity and need. The society’s increasing disparity between rich and poor cries out for justice. But as our wise commentator said, this is at the level of systemic change – why the poor are poor, housing, education, job opportunities, tax reform, better distribution of wealth in a free market economy. I would think an investment banker earning six-figures does have an obligation in justice to reexamine his own lifestyle, to use his banking knowledge and skills to assist those less fortunate (whether on company time or his own volunteerism), and to look at his annual level of giving ($5,000 out of a $500,000 annual income), moving toward a tithe that really hurts.

(c) And this leads to the fullness of Gospel living, genuine Sermon-on-the-Mount love.
I’m not saying Jason should sell all he has and join Mother Teresa’s sisters on the Bowery, though this is surely an option, a potential change in vocation. But short of that I think if Jason really wants to put his money where his mouth is there are two arenas: (1) What to do for this one street-person in need, tonight and beyond tonight. We can’t adopt every homeless person but we can try to make a difference, short-term or long-term, in one or another life here and there along the way. (2) What about the systemic problem of homelessness, hunger, joblessness, etc. in Jason’s community? Whether through politics, corporate sponsoring, investment of his own time and talent on committees and boards, or some other direct service, Jason could make a difference. He also might learn to buy a cheaper pair of shoes, hang out at fewer bars, and really make better use of his time, talent and treasure. It’s called living the Gospel.

II. I don’t think there is a neat “right” and “wrong” answer about what to give (or not to give) to this lone street beggar. Certainly taking him for a meal is a good deed. Volunteering to secure him shelter for the night and/or warmer clothing would also be charitable and taste of justice. Sharing one’s shoes (new or old pair) would also be advisable. “From him who has been given much, much is expected.” But I also don’t think that giving this fellow money, allowing him to freely make his own choice as to how to spend it, is necessarily bad. Food, shelter, or clothing might be wiser uses of your “gift.” But if it truly is a gift, then he ought to be free to buy booze or candy or a nickel bag or even a bit of alleyway lovin’ as his own free will choice.

III. Finally, in the Gospel story of the rich man and Lazarus at his gate, Jesus gives the poor man a name, a personal identity, while the rich man is left generic. Our BustedHalo moral dilemma tends to reflect our usual cultural bias – the rich guy has a name and identity (Jason Pascal), while our balding, gray-bearded beggar remains nameless and story-less. To those who recommended asking his name, giving him the time of day, maybe even sharing the meal with him and listening to his story – BRAVO! He is a child of God, our brother in Christ, and maybe, “there, but for the grace of God, goes you or me.”

Read the original dilemma. Read the second step in the dilemma.