It is immoral to let a poor child starve on the streets when you can help them in some way shape or form, but what if that money goes to some child trafficker or what if the child is only acting as a beggar as a means of getting money for personal use? These unknown factors cause a lot of people to ignore such beggars when coming accross them and while it is immoral, we still have our reasons.
It is really a sad and sorry state of affairs when in our affluent society that actually is a legitamite question. If I actually need to give you an argument to say that not helping a homeless and a helpless child, I can not bother wasting my thumbs to try and make you have a set of moral sensibilities.
Children in need are extremely vulnerable. For that matter, adults in need are pushed into acts of desperation, i.e. crime. If I have cash on me, I will part with a couple of dollars. Once, I saw a man begging by the road & I gave him the box of Cinnabons I had bought at the mall.
"40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Whenever I see a person in need, I am reminded of Matthew 25,
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."
Or we could just go by this definittion: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Aparticular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
The extent to which an action is right or wrong.
So I'd say it comes down to what society thinks right and wrong is. Most people would say cruel is wrong and kind is right.
They can't get a job, they can't buy a home, what else can they do? They don't have options as a minor, and that needs to really be considered when you walk past a person who is homeless who is a child. They don't have any other viable options, really.
No one owes anyone anything. We don't HAVE to help anyone, and we can't be considered immoral for not putting ourselves out. Think about this - how is a beggar on the street different than kids starving in third world countries, especially in this day and age?
It is a moral good to be charitable, it is a moral bad to actively make someone's life worse. To not intervene in someone else's life is morally ambiguous, I would say morally neutral.
The idea of this being immoral is basically saying that we are obligated to simply give away everything we have simply because we stumbled across the right/wrong people in the course of a day. Then you have two beggars, not one.
We have to stop perpetuating this idea of mandated charity. If you feel like you are pressured to do it to avoid some social repercussions, vice doing it out of a genuine care for another person, it is no longer charitable. It simply becomes unofficial taxation mandated by the courts of social justice.
But of course that premise is entirely false since their are definitely other ways, which may even be more efficient, to help them. For example, donating money to homeless shelter (that you conducted proper research on). This might even be a more efficient way of helping since it may be much harder to know if a homeless person would use the money for the right reasons when you gave money to him directly.
Whilst it is unknown whose pocket your money is really going into, the beggars, mafia, trafficker, etc it is definitely certain that by giving money you are only encouraging more begging in that area so it is not worth it. Giving money could mean the mafias/ traffickers getting more children to beg. By not giving money you are making the system less successful which hopefully means less children getting involved. Be slightly cruel to these children in the hope you are helping another child somewhere else.
In third world countries, I can definitely say without a doubt NO its not. I live in thailand and we have 8 year olds on busy intersections selling flowers and other little things, and also the markets have a lot of child beggars. They're owned by a mafia organization that just take the money and beat them anyways. In these circumstances you are just supporting fat gangsters who own the kids.
I'm from India, and over here, more often than not, there's a trafficker waiting behind the scenes to collect the child's earnings. Of course there are times when one can't be sure, but I do believe that the passers-by get the benefit of the doubt. But then again, there will be people who fell it's immoral to harvest the "benefit of doubt". I'm offering my own opinion.