Should we house the homeless and feed the hungry?

[Stevicus]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

I think the first answer to the question is yes, society should help those in need. But the other side of it is that society also has an obligation to investigate and determine the causes and reasons why those people reached a point of such dire need in the first place.

Are people hungry simply because society doesn't grow enough food for everyone to eat? Are people homeless because there aren't enough available houses? Or is there some other reason?

 

[Twilight Hue]

...
I wasn't aware that today's capitalism is something different and greedier than what it was before.

Its expected whenever you accumulate wealth on the top. Severe exploitation and neglect resulting in throw away people.

Homeless should never be present in any rich first world society.

 

[Nimos]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Its always good to help those in need, but isn't it the government responsibility to take care of its citizens, the government should work in the best interest of its people, whether they are homeless or not, in my opinion. So rather yell at the politicians for solutions, if they are unable to help those in need.

 

[Nakosis]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Yes, unfortunately doing so through a government agency is about the worst way to go about it.

 

[Mindmaster]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Yes, because if you don't they get sick and the diseases don't care about your status of wealth.

It's generally completely sensible to provide the safety net to others for this reason -- it eliminates epidemics, the eye cancer of people sleeping in the streets, and it also drastically curtails hard drug use and other terrible behaviors. And, maybe, just maybe, they will run into someone that can help them put their life on track in the process. Most people are homeless because they've lost their 'network' of assistance, and these types of efforts are the one to do it.

As far as charities go though, I still feel the government is the worst entity to administer the program. Maybe they should get together with the people who are able to sink 99% of their funds into the return of the program rather than the government that loses a good chunk in just oversight and administration.

 

[stvdv]

Do we have a duty of care?

To call it "our duty" easily leads to judgment and all the negativity that comes with it.
Even animals help other animals in distress (even those that they normally have for lunch)
I rather call it an inborn habit in most creatures to care for others (all get babies, so makes sense)

 

[stvdv]

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need?

All Religions + Humanism + Atheism have Love at it's core
Someone who believes a Religion is needed belittles all the others

 

[stvdv]

Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Humanism, being humane, makes us more likely to care, not religion. Religions do encourage us to act compassionate and be caring, so they help spread humanism

 

[1213]

...
Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?...

I wouldn’t call it a duty, but if we believe Jesus and follow his teachings, we do good to others freely.

"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?' "The King will answer them, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' Then he will say also to those on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;
Matt. 25:37-41

This should not be mixed with paying taxes to modern nobility that is like mafia demanding protection money.

 

[sun rise]

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need?

No

Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

The studies I've read says that religious folk are more likely to donate money and time than the non-religious.

Could you expand on this part in particular?
I wasn't aware that today's capitalism is something different and greedier than what it was before.

I'm old enough to have experienced a change. When I first entered the work force, companies took care of their workers with defined benefit retirement plans, pretty much guaranteed lifetime employment outside of economic downturns, continuing training and so forth.

What crept in was the notion that short-term returns was more important than long term results, that the only important factor was profit and that workers were like machines - easily replaceable. In my last job I was asked to work with software I had no experience of and with no training. I used to expect to be trained but now it was 'learn or be fired'.

The primary reason is because most charities are not large or well-coordinated enough to achieve their goals on a national level in the way governments are. So what you get is a patchwork of different charities working in parallel, sometimes coordinating, oftentimes not, on the same issue. Whereas a government response can be more centrally organized and efficient.

Ideally it works that way but large organizations, whether public or private tend to become bureaucracies with lots of paperwork. That applies to the Red Cross, state governments and so forth.

Homeless should never be present in any rich first world society.

It should never be present in any society. There's a social, criminal and economic cost to homelessness that is real. I'm happy with how California is trying to ameliorate homelessness by buying up empty motels and refurbishing them. I also love the work that Habitat for Humanity does.

Yes, unfortunately doing so through a government agency is about the worst way to go about it.

Sometimes and sometimes not. Egotistical and bureaucratic roadblocks are present in large organizations whether public or private.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sure, but I also see it increasing taxes and the size of government.

You mention giving money to a charity. Why is this not every bit as valuable a solution as increasing taxes and the size of government. There are non-profit charities that are quite effective in that purpose, perhaps every bit as effective, if not more effective, than a government agency would be. The ASPCA is a perfect example of such a charity. The organization raised over $202 million dollars in 2019.

https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/ar2019-online.pdf

To my knowledge, there is no government agency dedicated exclusively to animal welfare.

Such a charitable organization dedicated to helping the homeless and hungry could be every bit as effective, in my opinion, as any government agency, and people donate not because they are forced to through taxes, but because they're doing what they feel is right.

Imo charities are something that shouldn't need to exist. Their existence usually treats a symptom, not a problem. And their reach to affect long term positive change is minimal, and is usually purely responsive. Imo you'll get further with well rounded government programs that both provide food but also reduce food waste and collaborate with farmers and ecological experts on farming and distribution strategies and job services than with just a charity food kitchen, as well as legislature to form policy on food relief and reduction of food waste.

Likely we will always live in a world where charity exists. But I think relying on them is a poor substitute for effective government programs.

See: the US, a rich and philanthropic (because philanthropy benefits the rich more than the poor here) country but with disastrous amounts of hunger and homelessness.

 

[Nakosis]

Sometimes and sometimes not. Egotistical and bureaucratic roadblocks are present in large organizations whether public or private.

Unfortunately, no guarantees either way. Though through private organizations you can choose to investigate the charity you donate to. With the government, it is more of a mandate. You are forced to pay taxes and hope for the best. In the US, hope the oligarchs are in a charitable mood.

 

[Vee]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

I think that everyone should have at least a minimum to live with dignity, especially when bad things happened regardless of their will. Some people made bad choices in life and extreme poverty is the consequence, but many others are just victims of a rotten system, designed to favor the rich and take advantage of everyone else. And even those who made bad choices should have the opportunity to bounce back and rebuild their lives.

I hope we all care because we're decent human beings and don't like to see others suffer. Should we help? Sure, if and when we can, but many of us are also struggling and can barely make ends meet.

What we should all be asking is how come central banks have created trillions to give to Wall Street and big corporations, making the fat cats much, much fatter, but there's nothing for the average person. The system is so corrupt it's unsustainable long term, but it's like the band on the titanic, playing while the ship was sinking.

If a religion provides emotional support and hope to people, I would say it's quite essential. If it also teaches people the value of empathy and love, that's a great bonus.

 

[firedragon]

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

This is the question of chicken and egg. What was the originator of morality and/or "likeliness to care" which are two things, yet related, and is an argument that would go nowhere.

Do you consider religion an institution? In that case its new, and did not exist in the beginning what ever the beginning was. So this "likeliness to care", if it came from Gods initiation then it was there since time immemorial, instilled in humans. If you think religion exists with God himself then well, this existed again since.

If one thinks there is no God, religions and all of those things are hocus pocus, then he would believe that humans were build with this nature. We evolved into being of this nature. So he would argue that we dont need anything, we just need humans to respond to human need, assuming nothing had any influence on humans to be of this nature.

So this would call for a humungous philosophical discussion. Well, at least that's what I think. I think it is unfair to make small assumptions and making small assessments based on our preconceived notions to a question like this.

 

[firedragon]

To the first question no, and to the second question I think the answer is complex because secular people seem (to me) more willing to pay their taxes and thus dispense their obligations through the state, which is much more effective means of caring for the poor than charity which is only a drop in the bucket where much more is needed

What about non-secular people?

 

[Laika]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Voted "It Depends". To be fair, I think the primary source of division will be not if essential services should be provided for the hungry or the homeless, but whether it should be provided by the government through welfare, or within the context of voluntary transactions in a marketplace. In the latter case, it would be as the result of payments for work or by charitable donations not contributions confiscated by taxation and redistributed to people in need. The number of people- of any religion or ideology- who would deny disadvantaged people these services on principle is extremely limited.

 

[sun rise]

This sounds like a wonderful program, And seeing this reminded me that private vs public is a binary choice and eliminates what could be a fruitful partnership between private and public. People like those in this story came up with an idea and created a local program.

Very often such solutions get stalled because of a lack of funding. With due care in picking winners and attention to the issues of scale, government can help scale up local solutions around the state and country.

These Austin Tiny Homes Could House 40% of the City’s Chronically Homeless Population

“The single greatest cause of homelessness [is] a profound, catastrophic loss of family,” he said.


So Graham set out to build a community that would go beyond the Housing First model that’s gained prominence in recent years — not just putting roofs over people’s heads, but providing health resources, employment opportunities, and above all else prioritizing social connection.


You’ll find no fences, gates, or even many locked doors at the Village. According to Graham, the very concept of a private, outdoor space hurts the effort to build community.
...
The Village offers a promising model for mitigating homelessness nationwide — if similar communities can find the funding and local buy-in.
...
While the price tag on launching the Village seems high, the cost of homelessness to a city is even higher. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that one chronically homeless person costs taxpayers an average of $35,578 per year,

 

[danieldemol]

What about non-secular people?

Well my experience with non-secular people is mainly from talking to the Christian right who generally prefer help to the poor to be restricted to charity so that it comes with faith strings attached.

But as I explained in my earlier post taxation and the state are a more effective means of assistance to the poor than the drop in the bucket that charity is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It could, but not necessarily. But actually, I suspect I wasn't quite clear with my question.



And this is where I think I was unclear. Sorry!!
I absolutely think a charity can be every bit (and more!) valuable that a government agency. I donate to charities directly including some with a religious component (shock horror!!) simply because they appear to be the most effective way to help people who need it in certain situations. I value giving money to those charities more than giving money directly to the homeless (for example) or to the government.
So yes...totally agree with your point here.



Okay, so happy with all that. Totally makes sense to me. I'll try and clarify the additional thing I was wondering, though...you've kinda answered it by the by, I think, but in for a penny and all that...

Lets say there is a really good charity at helping homeless people. They provide holistic care, and are good at integrating with other service providers. So, they can not only provide temporary shelter and food, but they can organise physical and mental health services, education...whatever...you get the picture.

As a society, we have a homeless issue, and this hypothetical organization is the most effective grass roots response. You'd be okay with the government providing funding to this charity, right? That was what I meant, actually. I wrote 'government providing funding to these bodies' and you read it as governments agencies, I think (which I get...I was clumsy with my wording).

But on the face of things, at least, sometimes the most effective way the government can use some of our tax money would be to hand it over to the experts and (mostly) stay out of their way.
This occurs quite a bit in Australia, but the actual mechanism by which it's done is pretty ham-fisted in my experience, and it can encourage certain behaviours which aren't desireable.
Without going into it too much, funding is often based around 'transactions' of some type. People interviewed, or beds provided, or whatever. This can actively discourage holistic care provision because of the cost involved in that approach. But...different hobby horse.

TLDR : Sounds to me like you think it sometimes makes sense for a private organisation or charity to do some of the heavy lifting. And I'm assuming you're okay with them getting their funding both through their own efforts and through some sort of sensible government grants if that doesn't negatively impact on their service provision. About right?

Yes. Spot on. Apologies for misunderstanding your question.

 

[blü 2]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

On the one hand we should each do what we can, both by direct action and by donation.

On the other hand, the government of each country, by implicit extension of its parens patriae role, should also do what it can; and a government that wants to, can do things on the scale necessary to meet the problem.

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Religions can, and many do, provide a focus for the natural benevolent instincts of people; but there are plenty of examples of successful secular charities and aid movements.

If you're acting with decency, respect and inclusion towards your fellow humans, surely the question whether your motivation is religious or not is unimportant.