Christopher Marzel S.

Llorente
GEETHIC
11943335

Sister, Can You Spare a Dime?

The main ethical problem in this case is Jack who was homeless and is dependent on the alms
given by the people, especially students since he was usually seen near a large urban university. He
relies on the help given by the students, but some of them did not want to involve themselves with Jack
since they know that he drinks wine that is hidden in a bag which indicates that he's alcoholic, and also
a veteran at war which indicates that he is an experience fighter.

• It is not wrong to give alms to homeless people in general since the action comes from
the individual. But rather giving them some quarters or money, give them essentials such
as food and water to minimize the possibility of him acquiring alcohol.
• If possible, it would be best to direct them to the nearest public agency who helps people
in need since they have better knowledge in handling homeless people.
• Teaching them livelihood skills is a good way for them to earn money themselves, it
would be good to volunteer if possible, but it would be best, again, to leave it to public
agencies who can teach them better than us.
• One option which can be done by everyone is to just ignore Jack.

It is rather hard to place on what society norm does homeless people play in. In addition, due to
the requirement of equal opportunity and the liberty principle, homelessness is not an acceptable social
position to find. To put it simply, we cannot fix homelessness by giving those experiencing it more
rights, benefits, or services. In this case, we can only do is to impose rules and social control in the
society that prohibits people from loitering in public, but that means it would put the homeless people
in disadvantage since they sleep in curbs, walkways, and in public parks. But because of Rawl's “Veil
of Ignorance”, (assuming that reasonable people would choose equality, fairness, and the best possible
life situation for everyone if they didn’t know where in society they would end up), is a condition that
violates Rawls’ justice principles, and is a state that is below an acceptable social minimum (Rawls’
idea of a “social minimum” is which a level of material well-being beneath which no member of
society should be allowed to fall...a certain minimum provision necessary for people to lead decent and
tolerable lives”). In the end, the only people who can help the homeless without disadvantaging the
people in higher position in society is the government.

I would agree to the Rawlsian approach in a degree up until which that people should have
equal rights as a citizen of a certain society. But the fact is that homeless people is severely
disadvantaged where people would disadvantage themselves if they exhaust themselves helping the
homeless. But eventually, it would not stop compassionate people from helping them in little ways if
they know themselves it is the morally right thing to do.