Morality question

[Bara_no_Hime]

If you were to pick up a hobo, feed him, and give him some of your clothes, and allow him to live with you, but then make him work for free, or something low like a dollar an hour, would that be moral?

Feed him? Every day? And live with you?

That's room and board. As in, you are providing him with a home and food. That means his "rent" would be part of his pay for his work, as would grocery bills.

Now, could you MAKE him? No, obviously not.

However, if you walked up to said hobo and said "will you clean my house in return for room and board?" then yeah, that's fine.

What you'd have to do is work out both a work contract (and what his or her wage was) and what the rent cost. Also food related expenses. If it so happened that the net result was 1 dollar an hour net profit for the hobo, then yeah, that's fine.

When you contract a live-in Nanny, her rent is considered part of her pay. The same goes for a live-in house keeper. Your arrangement with the hobo would be similar to that.

Edit: Oh, and guys - live in servants aren't slaves. Ask anyone in Europe where servants are still fairly common - it's just a job. 1 buck an hour is kinda slim on pay, but it's not entirely unreasonable, particularly if the rent in the area is expensive.

 

[saintdane05]

Hey, this Hobo followed me home, can I keep him?

 

[EvolutionKills]

If you were to pick up a hobo, feed him, and give him some of your clothes, and allow him to live with you, but then make him work for free, or something low like a dollar an hour, would that be moral?

Alright, let's see if I can't try and break this down Sam Harris style. So to set the ground rules and define some basic terms up front.

"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics." -Wikipedia

Sam Harris defines values scientifically as "facts concerning the well being of conscious creatures".

So assuming that the 'hobo' is a homeless individual, I'm going to make a few more assumptions. I'll assume that he is not employed, and probably cannot be employed in his current state.

So in the scope of a moral landscape, of moving away from the "worst possible misery for everyone" and toward something a bit more idyllic. In doing so, has this situation increased general well being for those involved? Is it moral? Why or why not? How can it be improved?


So he has been taken in, provided food, clothing, and shelter. This is good, his well being has been improved. But at what cost? Certainly an amount of freedom has been lost. Also part of the agreement is in exchange for labor. The amount and nature of this labor and the amount of compensation is at the core here. Having the homeless person work 80 hours a week in hard labor for a section of dirt floor in the basement, dirty clothes, and little food, would be wrong. Especially if he was held in this situation against his will. Anything involving coercion (such as sexual favors against their will in exchange for room/board) would also be immoral.

If however he was given decent space, reasonable clothing and food, and asked to typical housework and maintenance? Once again, as long as he's not held against his free will, this seems like a net gain of well being all around. Giving him monetary compensation above that can only improve his well being even more, thus becoming better ethically.

I think the ideal situation would be to help the homeless person get back on their feet, help them get a job, and have them eventually pay you to help cover room and board. That way you turn them from a homeless person into a room-mate. You've helped them become productive members of the society at large. Not to say that you still can't help them in other ways. Make their 'rent' relatively cheap while they work themselves up and out of poverty. Give them the tools and the opportunity to improve their own lives and get to the point where they're able to support themselves. I believe that would be the best possible good for this situation.

Now if I become aware of other facts, they might change my answer. However given what little is posited in the situation, there isn't much to work with. It's not like I'm taking into account complex socio-economic policies or anything else.

 

[Luna]

Well if you're forcing him to work then I can't really see that as moral. If he chooses to oblige then that's his business.

 

[EvolutionKills]

Morality is extremely subjective, and for the most part, it has no concrete, universal basis. It's defined by your own thoughts, feelings and opinions.

I would highly recommend you watch Sam Harris' TED Talk from 2010, entitled "Science can answer moral questions". He lays out the ground work for a scientific basis for how we can determine moral questions.

So this is essentially a quick summary of the arguments he makes in his book "The Moral Landscape", a basis for an objective morality that doesn't need gods. Combine that with his previous books "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" and he has been firmly cemented as one of the 'four horseman of the non-apocalypse' of new atheism (along with biologist Richard Dawkins, philosopher Daniel Dennet, and the late Christopher Hitchens).

 

[Reginald]

Pretty sure kidnapping hobos is immoral...OP said "pick up" So...we just pick up a hobo and bring them home?

If they're weak enough that they can't stop you from carrying them to your house, than maybe some slavery would do them good.

 

[Rip Van Rabbit]

That depends.

Is he drowning in this scenario?

Yeah, I think this is a pretty important question.
Is there also a dog drowning nearby?

 

[feeback06]

I think "forcing" someone to do anything isn't moral, but if the guy agreed to do it as payment for the room and board then there is no harm done.

 

[Robot Number V]

I would edit your post OP, it's a very poorly worded question.

If you meant to imply that I am kidnapping the hobo in question and forcing him to work: Sort of immoral, yeah. It's kidnapping.

If you meant he stays in my house and gets food/clothing in exchange for labor WILLINGLY: No, it's not immoral. He performs a service and receives payment. Although it would make more sense help him get a job somewhere else, so he can support himself.

Also, he would have to be doing me one hell of a job in order to earn clothes, food and shelter on a daily basis. Or he'd have to do a pretty good job for like, 50 years.

 

[Strazdas]

Of course not, you've just forced someone into slavery. Giving someone clothes and a home doesn't justify enslaving someone.

its not of the hobo agrees. most ocuntry laws allow "payment in goods" whicnh in this case would be food, clothes and place to live. as far as accounting is concerened, food and clothes that your employer give you is counted as "part of your pay". so if you pay him food, clothes, palce to live and one dollar, it is ok as long as it is above the minimum in country (if yours have that). legaly.
moraly: it is ok if you gave him a choice and thats what he chose.

Do people really think chores are slavery? This is the deal kids grow up with till they're 18 for crying out loud.

well i know some kids who look at chores as slavery so....

 

[MagunBFP]

Its moral to feed the hobo, it's moral to clothe the hobo and to house him, but legal work requires compliance with certain laws, minimum wage being one of them. If you were to give him work, pay him a legal wage and then sell him food, clothes and housing then you'd probably be a good guy, as long as he has the option to not buy them. If you go into the deal with a "I gave you a better life, so you have to do what I want" then you're just a dick. Slavery is bad regardless of how you acquire the slave.

 

[Vault101]

The OP said; "Pick up", not; "kidnap", I'm not sure where people are getting that impression.
.

pick up while unconcious on the gorund.....mabye