Food is a basic necessity

The argument

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs shows that physiological needs, including food and water, are humans' most basic needs. Food is a basic necessity, and by giving food, you can ensure your donation can fulfill a beggar's need. Homeless people must use their energy to find food, so giving food to the homeless gives them more time and effort to improve other aspects of their lives. Though you never know what a homeless person may do with cash or a gift card, you can be certain that a homeless person cannot misuse food on drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, giving someone food guarantees that they do not need to buy a meal for themselves, allowing them to save cash for other necessities. There is more than one way to help homeless people by giving food. You can organize a food drive or organize ongoing donations to a specific group of homeless people in your area. You can collect leftover goods from bakeries and restaurants, making sure perfectly edible food does not go to waste. You can also give and volunteer directly through an organization like Hashtag Lunchbag, which prepares packed lunches for homeless people. If you have the means to enjoy food on a regular basis, you likely have the means to spare an extra meal for a homeless person.

Context

Many homeless people eat fewer meals a day and lack proper nutrition. Yet it is difficult for them to receive food stamps without a stable address, and even food pantries and kitchens cannot provide three nutritious meals a day to every needy individual.

Premises

Counter-arguments

You don't know what that person is able to eat. The right to adequate food is codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clarifies that it must satisfy dietary needs and be culturally acceptable. The meal that a passerby gives to a homeless person may not be adequate or culturally acceptable, whereas that person could have used donated cash to buy their own food.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Maslow's hierarchy is a mid-twentieth-century motivational model that has fared poorly under empirical testing, and it says nothing about how a stranger should meet another person's needs. It also cannot rank food above the other basics it lists — shelter, safety, transport to a shelter or a clinic — several of which cash can address and a sandwich cannot. [Rejecting P2] The guarantee is weaker than stated, as the counter shows: an unwanted, unsuitable or inedible meal meets no need at all. Allergy, diabetes, coeliac disease, dental problems, religious dietary law and simple lack of appetite are all common, and the giver has no way of knowing which applies. Free food is also frequently already available from kitchens and pantries in the same places, while cash covers what those do not. [Rejecting P3] The premise rests on an assumption about misuse it does not establish, and the conclusion does not follow from it: someone handed food they cannot eat has neither the food nor the money. Getting from "food cannot be spent on alcohol" to "therefore give food" also requires the further claim that the risk of misuse outweighs the loss of the recipient's own judgement about what they need — which the argument assumes rather than argues.