The homeless must learn to help themselves

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that assistance addressed to homeless people works against the outcome it intends, and they begin from a claim about available opportunity. In modern society, they contend, homeless people have countless opportunities to improve their situation: they can find a job, gain a stable source of income, and work their own way out of poverty. On that premise the obstacle is not the absence of a route but the absence of the compulsion to take it. From there the argument identifies what assistance is said to remove. If we continue lending them outside assistance, proponents hold, the homeless community will never feel compelled to take responsibility for their circumstances, because the immediate pressure that would otherwise force a change is relieved each time help arrives. The case is pressed hardest against small-scale giving. A passerby's independent donation is rarely large enough to provide long-term assistance, so on this account it cannot move anyone out of homelessness; what it does instead is enable that lifestyle to continue, supplying enough to get through the day while leaving the position unchanged. Proponents treat this as the worst combination — a transfer too small to solve anything, but large enough to reduce the pressure to act. The general form of the objection is about where responsibility sits. Ultimately, they argue, outside assistance transfers responsibility from homeless individuals to the larger community, and a responsibility held by the community is one no longer held by the person whose circumstances are at issue. On this reasoning proponents conclude that the homeless must learn to help themselves, and that we shouldn't do anything to help people who are homeless.

Premises

Counter-arguments

It is wrong to assume that homeless people have many opportunities to improve their situation. Our job market is competitive and navigating the hiring process is even more difficult for homeless people, who lack the resources to make the best first impressions. If private donations are rarely large enough to support a person's livelihood, this would provide even more incentive to improve one's situation, it would not compel homeless people to rely on charity.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The opportunities are asserted rather than shown, and the premise omits what the ordinary route into work requires: an address, identification, a bank account, somewhere to store belongings and to wash. It also treats homelessness as a single condition, when a substantial share of those affected are managing illness or disability or have fled violence, for whom the described path is not available. [Rejecting P2] The enabling claim is inconsistent with the premise it rests on: if donations are too small to sustain anyone, they are too small to remove the incentive to change circumstances, as the counter observes. Responsibility is also being asked to do two jobs at once — a moral claim about who is answerable and a practical claim about what produces exits from homelessness — and on the practical question the evidence runs the other way, since stable housing generally precedes employment rather than following it. The conclusion is stronger still than the premises: at most they would favour changing the form help takes, not withholding it.