Is it hypocritical to oppose murdering homeless people if you would not take them into their homes?

[amigocabal]

It could be pointed out that if you do not take the homeless into your homes, you really do not care about their lives and as such can not credibly oppose other people murdering them.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The hell is wrong with you?

There is a huge difference between not taking in homeless people if you are not in a position to be able to effectively help and being unable to credibly oppose people advocating murdering them.

Again, what the hell is wrong with you?

[amigocabal]

The hell is wrong with you?

There is a huge difference between not taking in homeless people if you are not in a position to be able to effectively help and being unable to credibly oppose people advocating murdering them.

Again, what the hell is wrong with you?

I agree.

This identical argument has been used in other debates over euthanasia.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Euthanasia is a hell of a lot more complex issue than murdering the homeless. For one thing, you can (and people do) freely argue about whether or not it's murder. This, on the other hand, is murder.

[Zixinus]

The only people who would seriously think that "not letting strangers live in your home" and "murdering them on sight" are the same probably have been stuck in an echo chamber that they confuse it for the real world.

[Formless]

Euthanasia is a hell of a lot more complex issue than murdering the homeless. For one thing, you can (and people do) freely argue about whether or not it's murder. This, on the other hand, is murder.

Yeah, its a clear case of Begging the Question. The person making the argument is inserting their ethical conclusions about euthanasia directly into the premise of the argument and expecting you not to notice the deceit. Unless, of course, both parties have an agreement up front that euthanasia is homicide and are arguing whether it is justifiable or not. But this can't be assumed since, for instance, many arguments over "euthanasia" are actually over physician assisted suicide, and neither party is using correct terminology. If so, the ethical considerations are slightly different, since physician assisted suicide is so called for a reason. And even when it is over euthanasia, there is often the question of whether the person being euthanized will survive no matter what medical treatment they receive. And, well, that's where the debate gets far too complicated for this equivocation to be valid. So you are either dealing with a dishonest person, or a moron. Either way, better to just leave the person out of any future ethical/political debate you are having IMO.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, no, fuck no, adding my inconsequential vote to the thus far thankfully unanimous nos.

[Lord Revan]

no, it wouldn't be hypocritical at all, since there's multiple ways for me to support the homeles other then taking one into my home, for example, I can support plans for more affordble housing for them, I can support building and maintaining homeless shelters or and this might come as a surprice to some oppose murdering homeless. as others have pointed out this is trying to reduce a complex issues into simple black and white via a false or poorly selected analogy.

EDIT:after all even if I did refuse to take a homeless person into my home, (s)he could possibly survive even if it wasn't a good life, murdering someone kind of ends their life assuming the murderer succeeds.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, the more you think about this, the more levels of bullshit become apparent.

[Adam Reynolds]

I'm pretty sure he means euthanasia of animals. In particular the case of animal shelters without funding.

[mr friendly guy]

Even if one didn't give a shit about the homeless, one can still care about their rights as human beings. Their right to life allows them the opportunity to improve their situation. Murdering them denies them this opportunity.

[Formless]

I'm pretty sure he means euthanasia of animals. In particular the case of animal shelters without funding.

In that case, he's guilty of equivocating a human life with an animal life, and unless you are a member of PETA most people will find insulting to their intelligence.

[Lord Revan]

It should also be noted that most animals kept as pets are utterly incapable of surviving on their own having taken care of for most their lives, while your typical homeless person would at least theoretically be capable of taking care of themselves well enough that they're not dependent on you taking them in, it will most likely not be a good life but still they're not dead.

EDIT:It really boils down to this. A homeless person can in theory take care of themselves good enough to survive even if I don't take them in, also there's ways I can help homeless people without having to invite them to my home. Intentionally killing homeless people robs them of any opportunity to improve their lot in life even if said opportunity is merely theoretical, it's not my place to take it away from them. Most pet animals lack the natural insticts (due having been taken care of for their whole life) that they need to survive thus simply letting them go on their merry way isn't an option.

[LaCroix]

It should also be noted that most animals kept as pets are utterly incapable of surviving on their own having taken care of for most their lives, *snip* Most pet animals lack the natural insticts (due having been taken care of for their whole life) that they need to survive thus simply letting them go on their merry way isn't an option.

Not quite right. Even a hamster, bunny or a guinea pig can survive quite well on their own. Cats and dogs, just as well - just ask an Australian on how well they take to even the most hostile wildlife.Or anybody in a rural area where stray cats and dogs are literally everywhere.

In fact, most pets are more likely to survive without outside help than humans in a *homelessness* situation.

[Formless]

Right, that's one of the reasons I consider the argument a false equivalence. Many animals do so well, in fact, that extermination is sometimes considered as a way to protect ecosystems from invasive species, like rabbits, rats, and even hogs. Likewise hunting is allowed (in the US at least) because of an imbalance in the natural predator-prey populations; there can easily be too many deer, or too many coyotes, etc. And this is considered acceptable when killing humans almost never is because we place differential value on animal lives than on human lives. But then, we might flip our stance in other situations, like in Africa, where poachers are routinely shot at by law enforcement to protect endangered species.

These examples might not seem immediately relevant to the situation at the average animal shelter which takes in mostly domesticated animals (and hey, I doubt anyone is saying animal shelters are bad), but there are in fact places where cats are considered invasive, or feral dog packs are considered a danger to human health and safety (the Bahamas, for example). Point is that the underlying principle assumed by the argument is not held by the average person, and this has practical implications for how we prioritize the welfare of different life forms. If a shelter simply does not have the ability to take in enough animals and has to resort to euthanasia to deal with the sickest ones, that's just the way it goes. Just make sure that the shelter is actually run by an organization that actually allows adoption, as opposed to PETA's so called "shelters."

(sorry, but I couldn't help myself.)

[cadbrowser]

Big Fat NO here.

Sounds like someone just got through watching The Purge.

[Raw Shark]

Not to dogpile, but speaking as an Eagle Scout, I'd make the best damn homeless guy ever if I had to, and I would personally think it would be a million times more fucked for somebody to murder me than for someone to not let me crash at their place.

Homeless people are still human beings. When I'm on foot and at work, I dress like I'm homeless myself and easily blend in with that crowd. Helps me to not get robbed. Several homeless people in my neighborhood and downtown where I work and I know each other on a first-name basis, for years in some cases. I never give out cash, but I share my pot when I have it, and most of the random crap I find in my cab or by the building's dumpster gets donated. I gave my favorite homeless guy a pair of expensive sunglasses last night (with the advice to pawn them), and he always gets the lost packs of cigarettes. One time a rich guy whose date walked out on him before their food arrived gave me an entire ribeye steak with grilled asparagus and a baked potato from a fancy restaurant as a tip for a ride, and I split it with my homeless buddy. The two of us stood there in the parking lot at 20th and Market, cut everything in half, and laughed our asses off about it. Being homeless sucks, but it's not a death sentence for anybody who knows how to beg, borrow, steal, entertain, or scavenge.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wow, some jack hole actually voted yes? I was hoping it would stay unanimous, just to underline the stupidity of this whole question.

[SCRawl]

This is fucking stupid.