| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"ta" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2006 10:44:33 AM |
| Object: |
On Charity and Conditioning |
Donating life's necessities -- clothing, food, shelter etc. -- to the
needy can:
a. Encourage dependence and therefore prevent them from becoming more
responsible, self-sufficient human beings.
or
b. Teach them that maybe life is not as cruel and harsh as it sometimes
seems, and therefore encourage them to go forward and improve their
lot.
The differentiating factor is the psychological makeup of the
individual.
To someone who has always been given handouts (i.e., generational
welfare recipients), then charity is merely a continuation of an
established pattern, and is unlikely to do anything toward increasing
self-sufficiency (which I have presumed to be the ultimate goal).
To someone who has gone from self-sufficiency to dependence -- whether
through some physical disaster (i.e., hurricane) or psychological one
(i.e., depression/mental illness) -- charity can give that person the
lift they need to get back on their feet.
In the case of B, charity seems to be a reasonable, effective means of
handling the problem. Although in the case of severe psychological
disorders (I think most homeless people fall into this category),
providing the bare necessities for survival is clearly not enough.
However, I struggle to come up with an answer for them, other than
continue to at least provide them with the bare necessities.
In the case of A, charity seems counter-productive, although one can
hardly argue that charity solves the initial problem of sheer survival.
These people are capable of greater self-sufficiency, however.
So rather than continuing to sow the seeds of dependence, how do we
teach these people to establish new, different, better patterns of
behaviour? Rather than shoving the pacifier in the baby's mouth to keep
him from crying, how 'bout dealing with the root problem?
Why not require those receiving welfare benefits to attend educational
sessions that teach self-sufficiency (i.e., life skills ranging from
managing money to work ethic to service learning to basic job skills to
self-esteem building courses etc. -- you know, all the things that
traditional schools fail miserably at)? In order to continue to receive
benefits from the state, recipients would be required to do the
required work (checkpoints, milestones etc., just like in the business
world). For those who fail, they are allowed one second chance. For
those that refuse, benefits are withdrawn.
Note: In both cases, I have no qualms with my tax dollars going to
programs that provide these services. The better off these people
become, the better off we become as a community/society/culture.
Everyone benefits in the long run.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
