The song, Snail Shell, brings up a important question we must all ask are selves - would you put a snail where he has to be?
As I read Matt's story about the cat on the side of the road I became at once depressed & angry (that Matt could not help the animal) and hopeful (that the ladies could and did). If put in a similar situation how would you have reacted?
Do you feel it is one's duty to act to help those who cannot help themselves, and if so, what lengths should one go to before giving up? Do you have different standards for different classes of those that need help (such as wealth v. poor; animal v. human; child v. adult; etc...)
2 comments:
one thing I definitely keep from my catholic upbringing is the notion that helping people in a shitty situation is incredibly important. So, once you think that, how much of your resources and how much of yourself do you then devote to that sort of activity. Too often when I do something for others, I feel like I might be cheating myself in some way. Which sounds incredibly selfish, and I guess it is. This reminds me of this one time I was asked a very Blade Runner-style question - you're walking along the street and you discover a library book left unattended and lying on the ground. What do you do? At the time I said, "I'd probably just walk on by." The dude responded, "Well, that's certainly an honest answer, but..." and he kept prodding me and prodding me on this point until I caved with, "ok, if I were feeling particularly generous and the library return were right nearby, maybe I'd stop to pick it up and return it." I guess I never let Jesus enough into my heart to think of interpersonal relationships in selfless terms. Or I wised up and started keeping my cool. Or there wasn't anything in beneficence for me like that.
Which actually reminds me of a similar question - do you give money to panhandlers?
That is an intersting question, Matt. Some say you should not give money to the pan-handlers, but to the organizations that help the pan-handlers. The basic argument is that the actual pan-handlers will use the money for immediate gratification (more alcohol perhaps) and not to get themselves off the street while organizations are wise and proactive enough to help these people help themselves. It is a paternalistic, but not necessarly incorrect view.
Others agree that you should not give panhanlders money, but instead give them goods.
I often encountered homeless pan-handlers in my college town. When I lived in Missoula, we would buy groceries at the store, then walk across the foot bridge back to campus. The footbridge is where you were always sure to find homeless folks and panhandlers. Most people would not give them money, but instead would give them an apple, or take them to taco bell for a meal. A lot of Missoulians would sit and chat with them, and this seemed benificial for everyone becuase it created an atomoshphere of respect and community. With this respect, the homeless and pan-handlers on the brige had incentive to do something. Many of the homeless would make crafts and sell them on the foot bridge, and that was pretty cool.
I would still have preferred not to have to encounter the pan-handlers and feel guilty for not giving them money as I carried three bags of grocieries back to my cushie dorm room. Additionally, not all the homeless were good people. Once, when my dad came to visit, three homeless men jumped him on that very bridge. It is also important to note that many homeless people are mentally ill and need professional help-- they do not get that from selling crafs or eating toco bell.
Homelessness is a problem, and there is no easy solution. I tend not to give them anything, but to give my time and talents to organizations that help the greater good. This is in large part due the fact that I rarely have more than 9 cents in cash on me at any given moment.
I don't know what the correct answer is, but I believe that old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" has much truth to it.
Post a Comment