Taborada, Justin H.

GEC107
BS Biology

The Republic of Philippines was eradicated with street begging in late 1900’s
to cease this situation former President Marcos Sr. implemented the Mendicancy
Law of 1978 also called Anti Begging law of June 11, 1978. This law stated that
mendicants is illegal and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to two
years. Children below eighteen years old are exempted from prosecution under the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Protection Act of 2006 despite this the situation remain
the same but the majority if the medicants are children because of this the Section
20 of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act which stated that below 15 years old will be
released to the child’s nearest guardian. If the parents, guardians or nearest relative
cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to a
non-government or religious organization. Presidential Decree No.1563 under
section 4 of Mendicancy Law was implemented which states that children 8 years old
and below being apprehended as negligent child shall be committed to the custody
and care of the Department of Social Services and Development. If the court finds
that the juvenile offender committed the crimes alleged against him after hearing the
evidence through the normal judicial process, the court will consider the civil liability
against which he may be prosecuted. shall determine the penalties that may be
imposed, including but instead of returning a guilty verdict, the court stopped all
further proceedings and sent these minors to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development, government-run training centres, duly sanctioned agencies, or other
culprits. placed under the control of 21 years of age or such shorter period as the
court deems appropriate after considering the reports and recommendations of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or the agency or agency to which he
was admitted.

To take the stand of the General Population if the Mendicancy Law was truly
righteous a study was conducted by Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD), they aim to know what the average income of a common beggar in the
Philippines. DSWD chief Erwin Tulfo revealed that a beggar living in an urban area
could earn around 5,000 pesos every day. If we compare the income of a beggar to
a Filipino minimum wage earner which only earns 537 pesos per day, then unfairity
is obvious which made the public decide that the Mendicancy Law was a righteous
law to implement. The public find it alarming because if this is left out of hand then
the rate of unemployment can grow because of this, most of the Filipinos does agree
with the Mendicancy Law. There are many variables that made the public agree with
this law first, there is no guarantee that beggars who receive money will use it to
improve their quality of life. He/she could spend that money on alcohol and drugs,
eventually funding organized crime. Second, for every Peso we give to beggars,
begging becomes more favourable and labour becomes relatively less favourable.
This is bad because we want people to work without begging. Aside from the fact
that the most if not all of the right of the children are taken from them by their parents
therefore, it makes a lot of sense that begging is an illicit according to law and the
people. “Begging is at best neutral, and often a burden and a nuisance”. According
to DSWD former secretary Virginia N. Orogo, “Almsgiving is not the kind of help that
street children need, as this will only keep them on the streets and expose them to
more danger. What they need is responsible help from us,”. The view of a large
sample population is always arbitrary yet there are always one side that
preponderate among other, in this case it is the agreement for the begging to be
stopped for fair and justifiable income for everyone.

As a Filipino citizen and a citizen of General Santos City which currently is

eradicated by beggars, I strongly agree with the Implementation of the Mendicancy
Law because there are times when a person cannot or would not give them money
these beggars do aggressive actions like, spitting, punching, pushing, and even
harassing sexually and verbally. This is very alarming as a citizen of this City I must
take a stand to stop this unjustifiable action. Personally, I observed that most of the
time beggars mostly carry a shoulder bag with them. First, I wander why they all
carry this. Then, I find out that in this bag is where they hide their money which they
gained from begging, they hide it to put guilt on people passing by to make the
people think that they do not earn enough money for today and they may not eat but
the truth is they already earn much and they just hide it inside the bag they carry.
This is a guilt induction strategy where they try to manipulate other person by making
them think that something bad will happen if they do not give money to them. I also
observed that the parent or guardian of the children begging on and off the street are
also the ones that is supporting if not forcing their children to beg because the
money will also go to them, it is just like having more children also means gaining
more profit. Aside from this, the parent or guardian also use their child for sympathy
which is also a type of guilt induction which they use their children as a sympathetic
image to receive empathy to the people to gain money. The other reason why I do
not support begging because Childhood is truly a magnificent span of life as a man
but children who beg due to their parent forceful actions who forced them to beg is a
clearly an unjustifiable action. As person and a social being we are meant to exist to
support each other as there are no being can exist solely on his/her own, this is why
I strongly believed that beggars should function for the society not just to be the end
for the means of the society.

Is it justifiable to help a beggar? In what manner should we help them?

According to Bernard Gert is an American philosopher who focuses on Normative
ethics. He proposed the Bernards Gert’s System which claims that moral rules are
definite, negatively stated, and universal (that is, applies to everyone, everywhere).
This does not mean that all people accept all moral rules, but that if people were
rational then they would accept his list of moral rules.
These rules are:
1. Don’t kill
2. Don’t cause pain

3. Don’t disable.

4. Don’t Deprive people of freedom.

5. Don’t deprive people of Pleasure

6. Don’t deceive
7. Keep your promises.

8. Don’t cheat.
9. Obey the law.
10. Do your duty.

These moral rules are According to Gert, rational people want others to follow these
rules because without them life would be intolerable. Based on Gert's notion of
rationality and on the claim that all moral rules must be rational, Gert is bound to
present a negatively oriented list of moral rules. The desire not to be a saint is not
irrational, so any moral rule or principle requiring saintly actions is rejected. Similarly,
it is rational not to give to charity, so it is not irrational to reject a rule demanding that
we give to charity. Taking to consider the key point that are said in the third
paragraph, the children is deprived to have their right of autonomy as a child,
especially the right of enjoyment and pleasure and this deprivation of freedom from
children by their parents is clearly a violation under the Moral Rule of Gert which he
stated that a moral person should not deprive other person their freedom. Beggars
mostly do deceitful actions just like stated in the Third paragraph that beggars use
the guilt induction strategy which they use their infants to build guilt upon their victim
emotion. This is a deceitful action which is considered irrational in the moral rules of
Gert. According to Gert giving money to beggars is an irrational thing. Assuming
there is a beggar whom you see everyday from your way to work, he is not on the
immediate danger of starving therefore, you do not have a duty to intervene. On
different manner, if you see a drowning person and you are the only one that can
save him then you are obliged to take an action and intervene to save him at very
little inconvenience for yourself. In this case you have an ethical duty to intervene
because it is horrible if you did not. But the situation we face everyday is not that
dire, in this case it is helping the beggar, you see him everyday on that same street
not starving to death therefore, there is no need for you to intervene. To put it
otherwise, you have an obligation of non-maleficence (drowning case), but not
necessarily one of beneficence (giving money). Giving money to beggars is an
irrational thing according to Gert but according to him rather then giving them money
it is more wise to donate the money directly to the homeless shelter or other
organization that take care beggars. And sometime according to Gert basic human
contact will do. Perhaps you won’t give him money today, but you can still look him in
the eyes and say hello. Gert denies that his ten rules generate every right answer for
every circumstances. He states that most of the time we just need to be human in
not too intervening manner for we all live our own life.

To decide whether begging is justifiable or not is indeed arbitrary. On the

other side of the coin Aristotle reason that giving money to beggars can be
considered a virtuous act, this lies under the virtue of generosity. A person become
virtuous in such act when he do that act in practice. To set an example, no one is
born courageous. It is nurtured repeatedly doing courageous things. As well as the
Generosity it lies between stinginess and extravagance. A stingy person gives too
little. An extravagant person gives too much. A generous person will just gibe the
exact amount. Generosity is relevant, Bill Gates can give a 100 hundred dollars to a
beggar without the worry of loss but if a minimum wage earner person will do that he
will surely be in a worry of budgeting. Aristotle believe that it's the moral thing to do
give money to beggars sometimes, but not all the time because it's his opinion that
virtues are what make someone a good person. Being virtuous is how one should
live to have a rich, fulfilling life. Aristotle does not agree with the reasoning of
Bernard Gert because Bernard’s point of view lies in the deficiency where he
chooses not to give money to beggars at all. Why should we aim for the virtue? We
aim for the virtue because it leads us to the ultimate good in this case it is being
generous, then if we are on the side of Bernards Gert we are not virtuous because
we are on the side of deficiency leading our way away from goodness. In conclusion,
Aristotle agree with giving money to the beggars but in moderation, but Gert does
not agree leaving him on the deficient side.