Why homelessness is an absurd problem, philosophically

Being human is tough.

We're subjective creatures, as are all other animals. Yet unlike our fellow primates with whom we're closely related, us Homo sapiens possess a strong capacity for objectivity -- seeing the world from a perspective largely, though not completely, distinct from our personal viewpoint.

Many social problems are difficult to perceive clearly given the often-blurry double vision that comes with our twin capacity for empathetic subjectivity and detached objectivity.

Homelessness is one such problem.

I got to thinking about this after finishing a book by philosopher Thomas Nagel today, The View From Nowhere. Nagel is more famous for his "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" essay, but this book addresses some of the same questions surrounding objective and subjective views of reality.

In a concluding chapter, Nagel says, "So the absurd is part of human life."

He isn't talking about absurdity in the sense of ridiculousness. Rather, it is the consequence of people being capable of seeing things both from inside our own mind, and by extension the minds of others, and allso from a more objective view from nowhere.

Understand: both perspectives are part of being human. The challenge -- and the absurdity -- arises from the need to simultaneously grasp the individual and the universal; the personal and the impersonal; the intimate and the public.

Here's an excerpt that gives a flavor of what Nagel is speaking about.

Morality is a form of objective reengagement. It permits the objective assertion of subjective values to the extent this is compatible with the corresponding claims of others. It can take various forms, some of which I have discussed. 

All of them involve, to one degree or another, occupying a position far enough outside your own life to reduce the importance of the difference between yourself and other people, yet not so far outside that all human values vanish in a nihilistic blackout.

OK, those words aren't transparently clear.

Nagel, being a philosopher, often engages in philosophy-speak. However, his central thesis strikes me as indisputable. We are subjective beings who strive to see things as much as possible from an objective perspective when the situation demands it.

The situation of homelessness, for example. 

Here in Salem (Oregon), City officials are struggling to find an approach to this problem that is both compassionate and realistic. Homeless camps on both public and private land near Wallace Marine Park have been removed recently. A "sit-lie" ordinance that would prohibit sleeping/camping on sidewalks during the daytime is being considered. 

Two public forums on the ordinance have generated a lot of debate and discussion on social media. Advocates for homeless people see the ordinance as a heartless attack on vulnerable individuals who already are struggling mightily. Supporters of  businesses see the ordinance as a way to keep downtown welcoming to everyone.

Good arguments can be made on either side. 

This is especially true when individuals convey what it is like to be a homeless person or a business owner from their personal subjective point of view.

My heart goes out to someone who is forced to live outside through no fault of their own. My heart also goes out to someone trying to make a living from a retail store who sees customers going elsewhere because of homeless people and their belongings being so apparent on downtown sidewalks.

Today's homelessness debates remind me of my health policy work back when John Kitzhaber was president of the Oregon Senate. Kitzhaber, a physician, spoke forthrightly about the controversial subject of health care rationing. 

A 1990 Washington Post story, "Rationing Medical Care," told the story of Coby Howard.

A blunt kind of medical rationing began three years ago in Oregon.

It started a movement that could sweep the country.

In July 1987, trying to stretch dollars for care of poor Medicaid patients, Oregon legislators voted to stop funding many organ transplants -- cost, $65,000 to $250,000 apiece. They voted, instead, to use the money to give basic health services to 400 more women and 1,800 children.

Four months later, a 7-year-old boy with leukemia, Coby Howard, was denied a $100,000 bone-marrow transplant and died.

Told to "smile big," he had stood before TV cameras to help raise $60,000 toward the operation. But by the time a medical center agreed to accept that sum for the surgery -- the transplant that might or might not have saved his life -- he was too sick for it.

Coby Howard was a victim, the media told the public, of health care rationing. And he became a symbol of an emerging era in which Americans, like it or not, must face the fact that no government, no employer, no insurer, no individual can afford to pay for everything medicine can do.

This was a collision of the subjective and the objective, the emotional empathy felt toward a boy needing a bone-marrow transplant and the stark reality that if limited public money was spent on the transplant, others would go without basic medical care such as prenatal services.

Homelessness and health care rationing obviously are different issues. Still, the difficult-to-bridge gap between our subjective feelings about an individual who needs help and the more objective nature of what Nagel calls the "view from nowhere" is still very much alive in today's debates over how to address homelessness.

I don't have an answer. My goal in this blog post is simply to talk about the issue from a perspective that, while philosophical, also is distinctly real. 

Ralph Crawshaw, a psychiatrist I worked with in my role as publicist, and then executive director, of Oregon Health Decisions (a bioethics organization), liked to say, "Society must decide." He was speaking about health care rationing and death with dignity. The same holds true for homelessness.

I understand the passion of those who feel strongly about this issue, whether from the viewpoint of individuals lacking a home or the burden homeless people impose on others. Somehow we have to strive to listen to all viewpoints, recognizing that there isn't an easy way to come up with broadly acceptable policies in this area.

Life often is absurd, as Nagel correctly says. While living in, and as, this absurdity, we have to find ways of moving forward in as clear-sighted a manner as possible.

Comments

[Skyline]

First thing to dismiss is the recent misconception of homelessness as a new problem.
Here's a snip from Wikipedia:
"A hobo is a migrant worker or homeless vagrant, especially one who is impoverished. The term originated in the Western—probably Northwestern—United States around 1890.[1] Unlike a "tramp", who works only when forced to, and a "bum", who does not work at all, a "hobo" is a traveling worker. "
Notice the word, "WORKER"!
And therein is the crux of our little dilemma ; the shopkeeper working her or his ass off v.s. the transient parasite of 2019 that produces nothing for society and never will.
I have VERY fond memories of working at 377 Court St as a college job.
We had exposure way back then to walk-ins hard up on their luck.
Many of them walked away with a hefty sack lunch of left-overs at no charge as long as they understood NEVER to return.
But just the s l i g h t e s t hint of a problem and the Salem police were there in seconds, throwing them out in the street!
Sleeping in the doorway???? Not a chance! Didn't happen.
What changed?
Do a voice-over of Dana Carvy:
"Let's see. What could it be, what could it be??"
"Could it be FAILING LIBERAL POLICY??!!!!"
Something changed.
It wasn't the new restaurant owner of that shop and it wasn't me.
What changed, Brian, that has turned our fine city into a dysfunctional toilet?
And will our city manager's plan to hand out needles to junkies make things better?

[Lorrie]

Salem has not had a safety issue downtown with homeless people according to Salem PD. There was an assault on a business owner 1 & 1/2 year ago. Does anyone know the facts on that?
Salem’s downtown is safe. I am not deterred from shopping downtown because I may see a few homeless people. I know many personally.
I worked over 30 years in mental health. Mostly at Oregon State Hospital. The state of Oregon is not held accountable for dropping patients off on Salems & elsewhere sidewalks after the state spent millions to hospitalize. Some still in the same mental state as the day they went into the hospital. Why aren’t they going to court for recommitment? Lack of bed space. The numbers of mentally ill are not going down.
The state took away funding for group homes a few years ago. The mental health system is more broken than ever. The new hospitals are money pits.
Many homeless are mothers & children living in cars not hanging out downtown, yet. There aren’t enough places that take families. Children. There aren’t enough shelter beds.
Many people had homes until a disability, injury, medical issues. They are indeed us.
Most people are one paycheck away from homelessness. As rents go up people on fixed incomes / social security / disability get squeezed out of affordable homes and apartments.
Other than Shelters there are no places for people to go. There are not enough shelter beds for couples, children. or people with pets.
Where is it ok for them to go in Salem?
With park police sweeps happening almost daily more people are living in fear of where they can go & be safe in Salem. It isn’t easy or fun for people who are homeless in Salem.
They have to find new places daily.
Try getting a job when surviving day to day is
So difficult.

[Kurt]

Thank you Lorrie, for your well informed and objective summary.
Homeless people on the streets of Salem has little to do with liberalism or conservatism. It is a matter of law. As the rule of law continues to evaporate, those who find the presence of the homeless distasteful or inconvenient will find a way to dilute the laws that still, sorta, protect human rights.
It is certainly unfair and outrageous that honest business people are victimized but who is doing the victimizing and who has the ability to ameliorate the victimization?
The homeless have little or no ability to help themselves. On the other hand, government has the resources to make things better - they only lack the political will to do so.
I had a conversation with a wealthy individual recently and straight out asked him: Wouldn't your life be better if you lived in a world with less suffering? His response was: No, I am wealthy enough to avoid coming into contact with those who suffer. How is that for subjectivity?
I think homeless people on the street serve as a reminder to those that have retained a semblance of humanity that there are desperate and helpless people within this incredibly wealthy country.
It is unfortunate that hard working business people suffer through no fault of their own but their losses are the result of an uncaring society, not the will to continue living that a certain segment of society exhibits.
The removal of the homeless from Wallace Marine Park is simply cruel. They harm nobody except the overly sensitive - and they were there first.
Many years ago, I knew someone who stayed at UGM and she said that people were not allowed to stay inside during daytime hours even when they were not feeling well. Perhaps this policy, if it still exists, could be reexamined. This would certainly help to alleviate the problems that downtown businesses experience.
Perhaps the City might even provide a space where the homeless could hang out during the day. While the City would assert that the costs would be too high, rest assured, dear reader, that that is utter nonsense. It is simply a matter of priorities.
People in prisons are not let out during the day and that seems to work out ok. Light handed supervision of those on the inside is surprisingly effective in this environment made up of convicted criminals. Contrary to popular beliefs, they are human beings.
One should keep in mind that rarely are there perfect solutions. A reduction of the numbers of the homeless on the streets would be significant. Skyline is correct. The homeless have always been around. The difference is that, in the past, those who were homeless generally were that way by choice. There were opportunities that no longer exist.
Hopefully, UGM policies are created and can be modified by people and are not direct instructions from God.
BTW, thank you Brad Nanke and Sally Cook for your service.