Life worries and achievements

I trot out of my banking class at 12:20pm, head down the Balmer stairs, pick up a girl friend in the Commons and walk over to the Ave for a relaxing lunch at one of the many diverse and enjoyable restaurants.  As we walk up the Ave I feel relaxed and confident knowing that class is over for the day and I am going to share a lunch with a wonderfully interesting soul.  That is when it happens.  It happens, and I lose my confidence.  The doubts creep in.  I begin to question the path I have chosen.  Am I living my life in the best way possible to honor my self and my values?  Am I selfishly placing more importance on my own advancement and development, instead of doing what I can for those around me who, at this time in their lives, may be in need of my friendship, time and energy?
“Spare a penny man?”  That plea, coming from a woman huddled under an awning on the Ave sidewalk in dirty winter coat, is all I have to hear and I begin to ask myself tough questions about what I am doing with my life.
The plea “Spare a penny man?” brings up a social dilemma for me that I have, insofar, avoided as often as I can.  In this paper I will evaluate the validity of saying, “Yes” to the plea versus saying, “No” to the plea.  “Yes” or “No” represent more than a penny.  The penny is just a symbol for the choice I need to make.  “Yes” represents me agreeing to offer direct aid to the beggar, while “No” signifies that I will not offer any assistance to the beggar.
Both saying, “Yes” and “No” currently exist as good and right in my mind, but I wish to discover which option is more good and right for myself, for the beggar and for society as a whole.  I hope to accomplish this through, first, analyzing “Yes” and “No” with teleologist and deontologist theory.  Second, I will offer up a recommendation and support that recommendation with arguments based off of the analysis section of the paper.
To begin the analysis, I will look at this dilemma from the point of view of Teleology.   Teleology states, “What is right, is what is good.”  John Stuart Mill, considered a teleologist by today’s philosophers, believed that when many good options exist, what is most good is right.  He proposed the use of a cost/ benefit analysis to determine which option is the most good.  Therefore, the most ethical option for me is the option that looks the best after I weigh the costs and benefits.
If I were to say “Yes,” the options I have are: I could give the beggar some change, I could give them $20, or I could stop and talk to the beggar to learn about her situation in life and discover a way I could increase her quality of life.
Considering my own benefits, helping the beggar by giving him change is good for me because it makes me feel good for giving, hints to the girl friend how good of a guy I am and lightens my pockets of that heavy and noisy change.  Giving the $20 dollars still makes me feel good for giving and convinces the girl friend that I am good guy.  Lastly, getting to know the beggar and increasing their quality of life in the long term offers me the highest possible positive feeling from giving and all the benefits of a new friendship.  The relationship also teaches me humility and, thus, will make me a better leader in the rest of my endeavors.
Each of my “Yes” options also creates costs and benefits for the beggar.  Receiving some change will aid the beggar in saving enough money to buy some food, alcohol, or drugs.  Receiving $20 will allow the beggar to buy food, alcohol, drugs and even share the money with others after their own immediate needs have been met.  Third, by me getting to know the beggar and trying the improve their quality of life, the beggar could gain someone to talk to, food, shelter, enough support to reenter society, a sense self-worth, alleviation from dental pain and many other benefits that come with being a productive member of society.
A “Yes” can also be analyzed by observing the benefits the “Yes” creates for society.  Donating change or $20 to the beggar supports a society where beggars have the opportunity to consume goods other than the food provided by government support and from charities.  By getting to know the beggar and helping them, my efforts may create a productive member of the society in the beggar, instead of a financial drain. This may increase the GDP and the wealth of society as a whole.  Also, my efforts may help get the beggar off the streets and make walking in neighborhoods like the Ave a more attractive pass time.
On the flip side of Teleology, there are some arguments to why I should instead say “No”.  For my situation, if I give change or $20 to the beggar, other beggars may see this and approach me as well.  I cannot afford to give change, or $20 bills to the other beggars as well so I will eventually give away money until I am broke.  Getting to know the beggar and helping her means that I must invest time, emotion and some money.  These resources could otherwise be spent on improving my grades, working on acquiring the best postgraduate job and hanging out with my friend and family.  To provide a long-term benefit to the beggar could also put my personal safety at risk. 
From the beggar’s point of view, the “No” may be a better option than becoming their friend and supporting them.  Costs of my friendship to the beggar could include, leaving the life she has become accustomed to, stress, losing drinking friends and the pain of losing all the her newly gained benefits if she ends up back on the street.  Due to the risks associated with trying to reenter society, it may be better for the beggar not to even try.
Furthermore, society may be better off if I say “No.”  All the time, energy and money I put forth to aid the beggar will detract from my quest to be super productive part of my society.  Being an honors finance student at a prestigious university, having a strong leadership experience and my drive to succeed make me a prime candidate for becoming this productive person.
As well as Teleology, I find Deontology and the philosophies of Immanuel Kant useful decision-making tools for ethical dilemmas.  Deontology supports the idea that what is right, is not always what produces the most good.  Instead of analyzing cost versus benefits, I need to look at my dilemma in terms of what is right according to the principles and rules I live by.
For me personally, I consider directly helping others the right thing to do, especially those in less prosperous positions than myself.  This belief has been ingrained in me through my parents, church, school, friends, U.S welfare laws, movies and studying history.  In particular, church and school provided me with opportunities to volunteer in the community like packing food at food banks, cleaning up yards at the houses of senior citizens and fundraising for different organizations.
Although I find placing myself in the beggar’s shoes difficult in this instance, I believe U.S. welfare laws, movies, history and some religious influence have all contributed to the beggar believing directly offering help to others is right as well.
Kant would ask, “What if everyone did this?”  In support of me saying “Yes,” if everyone gave change or $20 bills to beggars, begging as a profession would probably earn someone an upper class income of $80,000-$100,000, depending on the hours in a standard beggar work week and vacation time.  For society, if everyone made it a point of getting to know beggars and helping them in any way they could, almost no human being would slip through the cracks.  Beggars would be taken care of and offered new opportunities.  With the wealthy giving their time and money to the poor, the income classes would be squished inward creating a large middle class.
In contrast, there are many deontologist arguments that support me saying “No” to the beggar.  Adam Smith and his capitalistic theories are intertwined in U.S. culture.  Capitalism shows up in our school systems’ competitive grading system, our government laws that protect free trade like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the power held by each state to draft its own laws and regulations.  According to Smith, me giving money to the beggar is not furthering my own capitalistic gains, and, thus, not benefiting society as a whole.
Some Kantian arguments can be made that would agree with Smith on why I should say “No”.  Part of Kant theory points out that it is unethical to use people.  Me giving the beggar money without the beggar directly giving me something in return brings up the idea that I may be getting used.  If I became friends with the beggar, I could be using her as tool to make me feel better about myself because I helped the her.  This is due to the internal belief in me that good people do good things.  If I do good and help the beggar, I am a good person.
According to Kant, if everyone gave money change or $20 bills to beggars, people by the thousands would quit their stressful, dangerous, difficult and low paying jobs to become a lazy and wealthy beggar.  GDP would plummet as people quit their jobs and production came to a halt.  The world would enter recession and famine would ensue across the globe. 
Weighing both the “Yes” and “No” under the ethical weight of both Teleology and Deontology leads me to the decision of saying, “No” to the beggar.   According to Teleology Giving money to the beggar does produce benefits, like getting rid of my change, making me feel good, impressing the girl friend and providing the beggar with some purchasing power.  However, the benefits do not outweigh the cost of me making myself completely broke by dishing out all my money to beggars.  Furthermore, using a Kantian ethical stance, if everybody gave money to beggars the world population would be launched into a great famine, as discussed earlier.
Next, I will evaluate whether befriending a beggar and aiding them is ethically appropriate.  Some of the main benefits for are my happiness and the good feelings associated with helping another human being, the beggar’s opportunity to live a different life and a society’s chance to turn a financial burden into and an asset.  From a Deontology point of view, some structures like religious books and my community taught me the value of charity and thus support a “Yes”.  Kant would probably say if everybody befriended beggars and tried to help them, the world would be a better place.
Yet, the University of Tennessee, my fellow students, employers and our country’s capitalistic structure all encourage and challenge me to pursue my own ends.  Teleogical thought points out that the costs to me of doing this include my time, energy and money that could be spent on advancing my education and career, the happiness I receive by spending time with family and friends, and an increased risk to my personal safety.  Costs to the beggar include moving out of their comfort zone, stress and responsibilities associated with being a productive member of society and the risk of losing all that they may gain.   Costs to society include the loss of my skilled labor and leadership.  Although this is a difficult ethical decision for me, I use the Mills point of view in this case and say that the costs outweigh the benefits.
I have chosen “No” as the most ethical action for me to take.  “No” represents me not helping out the beggar, while “Yes” represents me helping out he beggar by either giving her change, $20 or my friendship.  Although it appears I have gone through all the options and came to best conclusion for myself, the real test for me will be the next time I am walking up the Ave with a girl friend for lunch and I hear a familiar voice plea, “Spare a penny man?”  Will I be able to look this woman in the face and say “No” feeling completely rooted in my ethical foundation…or will I falter?  That moment will tell me if I have thoroughly explored this ethical dilemma and come to an answer I truly accept.