Situation: Extreme debt/poverty

[scardella]

Scenario:

A man is in dire debt. The bank'll foreclose on house, he has children and a wife, no money to buy food even, etc... You, on the other hand, have plenty of money and have tried to give/loan enough for him to get back on his feet. He stubbornly refuses you, his wife, his family, etc... despite the obvious horrible effects of him refusing.

Is is ok to pay the debt for him anyway (and perhaps have him get counseling) or not take no for an answer? Is it commendable? or even morally required?

I just got into a long argument with a friend, and there was no consensus.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Personally, I think we have a moral obligation to care for his family if he is too prideful to do so.

However, I would also say that we shouldn't do it to excess. There are people out there who think that middle class people should be pitied and helped out. My parents seem to think that poverty is a terrible thing. I love Lady Poverty and so long as I can sustain a family, with maybe a few additional luxuries, I think I'll stick with the simple holiness it brings.

...but yeah, I think that if we're talking about danger of starvation and such, then we are morally obliged to help, even if he refuses. I see no reason but pride that a man would refuse in that circumstance.

[scardella]

what about deleting the starvation part?

[toledo_jesus]

Loan it to him and don't charge interest.

[MichaelFilo]

If the loan is not accepted, you cannot force a loan. You can only pay off the debt. If the family's life is endangered because of the prideful actions of the man, then aiding the family would not only be alright, it would be neccessary, since the husband activly acts as an oppressor to the family.

God bless,
Mikey

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 26 2005, 01:09 AM'] Personally, I think we have a moral obligation to care for his family if he is too prideful to do so.

However, I would also say that we shouldn't do it to excess. There are people out there who think that middle class people should be pitied and helped out. My parents seem to think that poverty is a terrible thing. I love Lady Poverty and so long as I can sustain a family, with maybe a few additional luxuries, I think I'll stick with the simple holiness it brings.

...but yeah, I think that if we're talking about danger of starvation and such, then we are morally obliged to help, even if he refuses. I see no reason but pride that a man would refuse in that circumstance. [/quote]
You say that but have you ever had to go days without food because you father and mother could not afford to put anything on the table?

I believe it is honorable to help out a family, at least in eating, because I have been there. I know that my father was not too prideful to ask for help and we received it from the St. Vincent de Paul society at our church.

Even the most prideful man starves.

Feeding the ones that cannot feed themselves is a very noble thing but I agree with Micah in the fact that giving should not be done in excess. I also agree that a loan cannot be forced upon someone who does not want it. Take a collection to help pay the debt and give a little bit of money to help them while they really get back on their feet. Giving them a new house and paying their electric for a month is more than is necessary.

I guess my point is that I would only see obligation in feeding the family. And I know that whether or not they admit it, they will be forever grateful.

[Donna]

Forget the man: ask his wife and children what they want!

Pay the debt.

[argent_paladin]

It would depend on his reasons for refusing as well as the situation of his wife and children. I would try to persuade him again to accept some sort of help. Perhaps you could hire him?
It is an interesting moral question.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='scardella' date='Apr 26 2005, 02:57 AM'] Scenario:

A man is in dire debt. The bank'll foreclose on house, he has children and a wife, no money to buy food even, etc... You, on the other hand, have plenty of money and have tried to give/loan enough for him to get back on his feet. He stubbornly refuses you, his wife, his family, etc... despite the obvious horrible effects of him refusing.

Is is ok to pay the debt for him anyway (and perhaps have him get counseling) or not take no for an answer? Is it commendable? or even morally required?

I just got into a long argument with a friend, and there was no consensus. [/quote]
You start by making sure they have enough to eat. If he chooses to starve that is his business, but he has no right to make that decision for others. Feed the wife and kids.


Maybe he wants to get out of the house and is letting it go deliberately. So the house is an iffy question.

Make sure the wife and kids have a place to go if the house is foreclosed, and they get a chance to get any personal possessions out before the doors are locked.
Nothing is more heartbreaking than a child losing their favorite toys.

[scardella]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Apr 28 2005, 05:28 AM'] I would try to persuade him again to accept some sort of help. Perhaps you could hire him?
[/quote]
That's an interesting solution, one I hadn't thought of.

The primary argument against helping the guy out was that you're violating his free will. However, it seems to be ignoring the free will of the rest of the fam. It seems ok as long as your intent is to help the fam and not spite the friend.

A problem with paying the bills behind his back is that it seems to be somewhat decietful. If you pay the bills, then it would seem that you would have to do it with his knowledge, even if he doesn't give consent.

to answer another question, presumably the man is unwilling to accept help because he's fixed on the idea that he can take care of it on his own or that he is bound to do it on his own. I'd say that he'd also need some sort of counseling in addition to financial help.

I have tried to put myself in the debtor's frame of mind, and here's what I thought:
First, perhaps that confrontation by the friend would be like a slap in the face that would snap me out of this fixation. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if the initial reaction was anger, though. Also, I would think that if/once I got out of that mindset, I would thank the friend for having my family's and my own good in mind, even though I was ignoring that.

I have also talked to a few other people, and here's one thing that struck me:
If the debt wasn't quite so great, (where there would be real penalties, such as losing car/house, but not to where they'd necessarily worry where the next meal was coming from, or having to live under a bridge, etc.) it might be a greater good to let them lose house/car, so that they have the concrete experiential knowledge of consequences for actions.

[franciscanheart]

It is good to let them feel the consequences of their actions in that situation however when there is no knowledge of how food will be put on the table for dinner, I believe it right to get them that food. The hiring thing is also a very good idea! I never really thought about it in the sense that I think was implied.

When my father was struggling (he owns his own roofing and remodeling business), people would purposely break things or search out even the smallest jobs for him to do. That way they weren't giving him money, but giving him work which needed to be done, if not by him then by someone else.