Is there a line? (extending help to someone)

[Aunt Spiker]

So - my Mom wrote me today and explained this situation that she's in:

My dad (minister) met a homeless military veteran who had some odd situations come up - found himself without a wife, home, car, job . . . my Dad, being a minister, helps all sorts of people out. this is not a bad thing - it's good (just the premise of this post)

Well, this vet was diagnosed with PTSD (before becoming homeless) - and had a harder time securing employment and other things - still waiting on vet benefits to pull through. So my Dad let him set up a camper in their back yard - without discussing it with my Mom firsthand. He came in the house - did laundry - used the bathroom to shower, things like that.

She felt so uncomfortable that she eventually convinced my Dad to put him up in a hotel. . . why she let it even happen for a period of time is beyond me.

So - discuss: Helping others, crossing lines, innapropriate measures and things that shouldn't be done in the process.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Well, I do think he should have discussed it with your mother. If they are sharing a home, it is her right to know how the resources in her home are being used, by whom, and to have input in the decision.

But lack of care for soldiers with PTSD and other mental disorders as a result of war is such a horrible and prolific problem. I have had homeless people show me their paperwork, in the hopes that someone, anyone will believe them. We have become so jaded to it, which is sickening - because it means it's become so common that we barely notice.

I have a lot of empathy for those people. It's a horrible place to be and one of the many ways in which the government has failed not only the people in general, but also those who serve in particular.

I have, in the past, made judgment calls about sharing my home or resources with such people in the past. I'm a petite single woman and I make those calls very carefully. My own self-preservation is also important. But if I can, and if the person is genuine, I am willing to help them out. I have before and I would again.

They were the kinds of people most would cast aside automatically. One in particular I remember was a severe alcoholic. But no matter how much he drank, he remained the nicest person. Even when he was robbed by another man who was a junkie within that group of homeless, he cried rather than even consider inflicting "street justice." He was very kind to me, and even got me a present on my birthday. Most people would just say he was a crazy drunk and not give it a second thought. But he was a very troubled person who had survived a lot, and incredible for the fact that his kindness as a person still managed to shine through despite that.

Your dad sounds like a good guy, and I wish there were more like that - although he should have consulted his wife.

 

[ecofarm]

I've been a part of it more than once. Letting a homeless person stay in one's home is asinine. 99.9% of the time, there are good reasons that the person's entire family, friends and charitable organizations have rejected them. It's like buying a lottery ticket and hoping you won the normal homeless person, or maybe that guy from that funny movie. But, like the lottery, you don't win. It's stupid. I suppose if someone's idea of a good time is watching a street drunk cry about personal relationships, have at it.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You can't be too selfless, and you can never help others too much.

If there is a "line" past which point is "too much" selflessness, it is selfishness that sets this line. It is when selflessness starts do your own self too much harm to be worth it to you.

Ultimately, the irony of this line is that it is selfishness that prevents us from being truly happy by realizing radical selflessness.

In a sense, we are not letting ourselves be happy when we, for example, hold on to our money rather than give it to that panhandler. We can come up with any number of rationalizations, but we are just preferring ourselves to another. Out of fear for ourselves we give up the true bliss that selflessness brings. It's why Jesus said that those who truly wanted to follow Him had to first give up all their wealth.

There is a wonderful Buddhist parable that illustrates this concept. When he was an old man, the Buddha visited a house whose owner offered him rice-milk. The owner didn't know it, but the milk was rancid and poisonous. But the Buddha knew it. The Buddha was a keen observer, and he knew that his already old and infirm body would not be able to withstand the food poisoning. However, not wanting to cause the owner of the house even the slightest distress, accepted the milk and said nothing. That's how the Buddha died.

 

[ecofarm]

Yeah, I don't think money solves people's problems so the panhandler can eat crap. Ecofarm helps those who help themselves, and that includes not being a bum. Most bums are dangerous, I'm not an idiot. I have hard working people to help. People who struggle to put a roof over their head and see their children attend school.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yeah, I don't think money solves people's problems so the panhandler can eat crap. Ecofarm helps those who help themselves, and that includes not being a bum. Most bums are dangerous, I'm not an idiot. I have hard working people to help. People who struggle to put a roof over their head and see their children attend school.

Remember that stuff I said earlier about rationalization? And that other stuff about preferring yourself to others?

 

[Goshin]

So - my Mom wrote me today and explained this situation that she's in:

My dad (minister) met a homeless military veteran who had some odd situations come up - found himself without a wife, home, car, job . . . my Dad, being a minister, helps all sorts of people out. this is not a bad thing - it's good (just the premise of this post)

Well, this vet was diagnosed with PTSD (before becoming homeless) - and had a harder time securing employment and other things - still waiting on vet benefits to pull through. So my Dad let him set up a camper in their back yard - without discussing it with my Mom firsthand. He came in the house - did laundry - used the bathroom to shower, things like that.

She felt so uncomfortable that she eventually convinced my Dad to put him up in a hotel. . . why she let it even happen for a period of time is beyond me.

So - discuss: Helping others, crossing lines, innapropriate measures and things that shouldn't be done in the process.

1. He should have discussed it with his wife first. Yes, he's a minister, and ministering to those in need is part of his calling... but this was arguably a bit "above and beyond" because of point 2...

2. You draw the line at security, or when you don't have enough resources to take care of both your family and the other.
Most homeless people are homeless for a reason. Drug addiction or alcoholism are the two most common... many also have psychological disorders. Most of them that are actually on the street have already been kicked out by family who initially tried to help them... again there are usually reasons why their family threw them out. Addicts who can't afford their fix start stealing, first targets being their own family, friends and neighbors in most cases. Many homeless who are actually on the street are there because they've been thrown out of homeless shelters for bad behavior, or they won't go there because they won't be allowed their booze/drugs.
The odds that you're inviting a major security risk into your home is high. They may steal from you. They may become violent. It is noble that you want to help them but harming your family in the process is not noble.

Almost every town of decent size has a homeless shelter or two. Direct them there. Drive them to it if you like. Setting them up in your backyard and allowing them access to your home and family? In my opinion that's asking for trouble 90% of the time.

 

[Goshin]

You can't be too selfless, and you can never help others too much.

If there is a "line" past which point is "too much" selflessness, it is selfishness that sets this line. It is when selflessness starts do your own self too much harm to be worth it to you.

Ultimately, the irony of this line is that it is selfishness that prevents us from being truly happy by realizing radical selflessness.

In a sense, we are not letting ourselves be happy when we, for example, hold on to our money rather than give it to that panhandler. We can come up with any number of rationalizations, but we are just preferring ourselves to another. Out of fear for ourselves we give up the true bliss that selflessness brings. It's why Jesus said that those who truly wanted to follow Him had to first give up all their wealth.

Jesus told one person to give up his wealth. =/= to "all those who truly wanted to follow him must first give up all wealth."

There is a wonderful Buddhist parable that illustrates this concept. When he was an old man, the Buddha visited a house whose owner offered him rice-milk. The owner didn't know it, but the milk was rancid and poisonous. But the Buddha knew it. The Buddha was a keen observer, and he knew that his already old and infirm body would not be able to withstand the food poisoning. However, not wanting to cause the owner of the house even the slightest distress, accepted the milk and said nothing. That's how the Buddha died.

Deciding to die rather than cause someone some slight embarassment by pointing out that they're offering one toxic refreshments is pretty darn silly if you ask me. Rather than decline the milk, he chose to deprive his loved ones and followers of his presence... :doh

Doesn't work for me.

 

[ecofarm]

Remember that stuff I said earlier about rationalization? And that other stuff about preferring yourself to others?

I always prefer myself to others, I do not believe in altruism. It makes me happy to use my money and other resources efficiently and helping those who help themselves instead of the panhandler accomplishes that. I'm not a prince. I cannot give to every passerby. I must have priorities and it makes me happy to get bang for my buck. Your argument "give to all panhandlers or one is selfish" is on line with "invade all dictatorships at the same time or one doesn't care about freedom". I don't need rationalization or imaginary sins to demonstrate the self-defeating nature of "give to every panhandler". Reality and a little logic will suffice.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I always prefer myself to others, I do not believe in altruism.

Good, now we're getting somewhere!

Altruism is still altruism even if it proceeds from the self-interested motive that one might seek spiritual peace through altruism. When we recognize the inherent oneness of being, we realize that when harm befalls another it is like harm to ourselves.

The most perfect form of selfishness is altrusim.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Jesus told one person to give up his wealth. =/= to "all those who truly wanted to follow him must first give up all wealth."

Goshin, this is merely a canard that serves as a rationalization for selfish behavior. It is eminently clear from the whole of His ministry that Jesus preached radical compassion.

 

[ecofarm]

The most perfect form of selfishness is altrusim.

And it exists like communism. We do things to make ourselves happy - end of story. The only question is, what makes one happy. Anyone who claims to be sacrificing, suffering and such for others is full of crap. We do what we want, and that is what makes us happy.

Altruism is still altruism even if it proceeds from the self-interested motive

False. And as all motives are self-interested, altruism does not exist. There are no altruistic actions just as there are no communist governments; they are useful as concepts, but let's not lose grip on reality.

 

[Guy Incognito]

And it exists like communism. Spare me. We do things to make ourselves happy - end of story. The only question is, what makes one happy.

Ecofarm, it makes me sad that you feel this way.

On one level, you are correct. But you are losing sight, it seems, of the value of others.

You maxim is correct, but you apply it to yourself based on an arbitrary and irrational prejudice in favor of yourself. Don't kid yourself into thinking you are... how did you put it? "Applying a little logic?" Well, you're not even applying the slightest bit of logic here, bub. You're just picking yourself arbitrarily, for no other reason than you're you, as the focal point of meaning. Every other interconnected point of life matters, too.

On a broader level, when we do things to make others happy without thought to ourselves, it is a good for our individual selves because of the ultimate spiritual peace attached to it. You can call it the Kingdom or Enlightenment if you like, but it is not necessary. It's the only logical outcome.

 

[ecofarm]

I edited to explain this, you might want to look back. Anyway, there are no selfless acts. There is no altruism. There's no communism. There's no Santa or Easter Bunny either. Sorry to break the news.

I've done many a brave thing and helped others, and all of it only so that I feel good (and so I can be an internet badass).

 

[Guy Incognito]

I edited to explain this, you might want to look back. Anyway, there are no selfless acts. There is no altruism. There's no communism. There's no Santa or Easter Bunny either. Sorry to break the news.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see what communism has to do with it.

But, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

 

[ecofarm]

I do not see why you are sorry. Is it because you think I see no good in people? Quite the contrary. I see the good in people while you merely ascribe nobility as it makes you feel good. I consider: what makes this person good. What do they do. Are they good and bad, and how much of each. I see great people doing great things, because that's what makes them happy.

 

[Guy Incognito]

There are no altruistic actions just as there are no communist governments; they are useful as concepts, but let's not lose grip on reality.

Losing your grip on reality is what you need to do to achieve peace. Or, more precisely, you have to lose the grip reality has on you.

 

[Goshin]

Goshin, this is merely a canard that serves as a rationalization for selfish behavior. It is eminently clear from the whole of His ministry that Jesus preached radical compassion.

Yeah, yeah. We've clashed over this before; I'm not really interested in Round Two. Suffice it to say that overemphasis on ONE aspect of His ministry results in an imbalanced view of the Gospel, IMO.

 

[ecofarm]

Losing your grip on reality is what you need to do to achieve peace. Or, more precisely, you have to lose the grip reality has on you.

I don't want no peace. I need equal rights and justice.

And I don't do the "accept what you are offered" thing. I suppose if the guy offered Budda some rape and torture then Sid woulda gone out with more than a sore belly.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yeah, yeah. We've clashed over this before; I'm not really interested in Round Two. Suffice it to say that overemphasis on ONE aspect of His ministry results in an imbalanced view of the Gospel, IMO.

Me neither. Your religious beliefs are what they are. I'm not trying to argue them. Suffice to say, your Jesus is not my Jesus.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I need equal rights and justice.

Just not for panhandlers, huh?

 

[ecofarm]

I don't see how equal rights or justice is served by supporting begging. Seems to me they're getting about what they got rights to and deserve. Where do you see unequal rights or injustice in not giving to a begger? Do they have rights to my stuff? Or perhaps justice demands I give my stuff away randomly? What kind of socialist equal "rights" (read: outcome) and "justice" (read: class warfare) are you on about? Are you becoming a Trots?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Where do you see unequal rights or injustice in not giving to a begger? Do they have rights to my stuff? Or perhaps justice demands I give my stuff away randomly?

How can you ask questions about justice when you haven't defined justice yet? What does justice mean to someone who only values themselves?

 

[ecofarm]

I value others. I also recognize that I do things that make me happy, and I do things for that reason alone.



Now explain to me again how equal rights or justice is served by random and repetitive welfare, from either side of the exchange.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I value others. I also recognize that I do things that make me happy, and I do things for that reason alone.

Why do you value others? Merely because they make you happy? So, when another stops making you happy, you stop valuing them, is that correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth.