I understand what you're saying, but you're literally saying you feeling awkward is more important than someone having food that day.
Sure, it's not the most efficient or probably effective, but giving a little bit does make a difference.
Sure, it's not the most efficient or probably effective, but giving a little bit does make a difference.
I'm going to assume 5-10 minutes and $10 per person per encounter per day.
Given that I pass at least 20 of my neighbors experiencing houselessness on each leg of my daily commute, I'm looking at $400 a day in donations and upwards of three hours. This may be sustainable for you, but it would quickly leave me unable to afford to eat myself. And that's assuming everything always goes perfectly, which my experiences living in an area with a sizable population of my neighbors being unhoused suggests may not always reliably be the case.
With this pointedly ridiculous hypothetical in mind, it may be worth considering that people have to choose their own boundaries, in their own lives, and for their own reasons. Your heart is in the right place - compassion and kindness matter! - but it's possible that shaming people for choosing their boundaries might not be the most productive of all possible uses of your time and energy.
I don't feel weird "giving to one and not the many," since I've read some Kant and know that I have no moral obligation to do the impossible; I don't even think I have an obligation to do so much that I start to hate doing it, and might quit. I don't mean to be unkind, but "I can't help everyone." and "It might feel weird" do seem like rationalizations to me.
The guy I've sat with most had a serious (obvious impact) brain injury, and when I last talked with him, he was drinking while contemplating whether he should go to a meeting that had been set up with his son, who he hadn't seen since his childhood. He was very worried his now-adult son might not like him. I told him (on the basis of previous our conversations) that he should be proud of himself; he was shouldering a huge burden better he would than most of us would. That it didn't really matter whether his son "got that" or didn't; he should go to help his son understand the world, and understand himself. I have no idea whether he ever met with his son or not.
Break some boundaries, experiment a bit, you don't have to go overboard.
When I was on the street, people sometimes treated me like a zoo animal they could gawk at and would waste my time and energy and violate my personal boundaries by peppering me with invasive questions. No, they weren't going to be a positive social experience for me. No, they weren't going to help me brain storm or problem solve. No, they weren't going to do anything for me.
People who have nothing but contempt and excuses can just keep walking as far as I'm concerned. They don't need to listen to stories of how you behave, filter it through their mind and come to bizarre conclusions that are likely to just add to the problems of the poorest of the poor.
So I wouldn't want to think that I've encouraged "poverty tourism" (which has a long history, right back to Victorian slum tours, and probably further back than that.) I'm absolutely not trying to indulge my curiosity when talking to a homeless person; that seems exploitative at best. If a question would be intrusive and unnecessary if you posed it to a billionaire, it's probably not polite question for a homeless person, either. You've better expressed what I meant when I said I always made sure I had time to talk: sometimes homeless people are new to town, or just have something on their mind, and I'm happy to brainstorm (or help fix a bike one time.) But that's up to them of course.
/unasked for feedback
To Schindler, "I have no moral obligation to do the impossible" would have come off as a self-serving rationalization for not doing as much as you can.
For all that, you're absolutely right. Break some boundaries! Challenge yourself! Experiment! Just understand that some other people, having gone through similar processes, might arrive at personal conclusions that could in some instances perhaps differ slightly from yours. Perhaps you and I could be more careful in what we deem justified and what we deem a rationalization, knowing that those are intensely personal decisions.
Also remember, you don't know my circumstances - I'm trying hard not to use a wheelchair now, for example, so I may not be as active as you. I'm not young. Kudos if your charity can be relentless.
So do note that my argument was a limited one, I was arguing in favor of at least some action, not trying to define ceilings other than what you can sustain doing. Which, as it turns out, over time - is actually the greatest possible effort one could offer.
Not to mention that homeless people are but one possible focus for charity so I can't accept your apparent insistence that I should devote all my energy to them exclusively; I spend far more time and effort trying to help the severely chronically ill in my own way and am not willing to give that up. If only because chronic illness often leads to homelessness.
Have you ever spent any money on something that would make you feel less awkward that you could've donated to help feed the hungry? Have you ever bought new clothes when second hand would've worked and you could've donated the difference to feed the hungry? Have you ever spent money eating out when you could've saved money by cooking and donated the difference to feed the hungry?
I wonder if there is anyone who could answer no to such questions?
It’s in San Francisco’s DNA to welcome the desperate and downtrodden from everywhere in the world. I don’t begrudge it that. But it means the streets will never be free of poverty until utopia reigns on every last inch of the earth. Which seems unlikely to happen soon. There’s got to be a pragmatic trade off for the next 50 years.