If we had a reliable methodology to determine who is deserving of resources and who is not, I would support using it. For me, welfare programs are always about the kids. Mom or dad may be a negative influence, but their kids deserve more.
I justify this with a belief in Maslow's heigharcy of needs, and without the basic physiological and safety needs met. . . humans cannot learn, grow, or care about themselves or others. Millions of children grow up in environments that are not healthy of safe. Welfare can reduce such conditions.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia
But I'm not sure anyone would disagree with me on the above. The real disagreement is about proportions. I believe this is why people reject or defend welfare.
What proportion of welfare recipients are "willful?"
What baseline proportion of "willful" recipients cause you to lose tolerance and faith in the system at present?
Is either of these questions based on anything other than your own perception?
Is there a method to determine real numbers here, or are we using perceptions or stereotypes of impoverished people?
I have a suspicion that anyone's belief about the proportions of "deserving bums"/ "willful bums" will determine your feelings. As a teacher at a title one school, I actually see the myriad ways that money and assistance can positively affect the lives of the students and families I serve.
Since I see and interact with poverty everyday, I believe that the proportion of "willful bums" is quite small. I use my direct experience to justify my belief.
That's my justification. . . What's your justification?