My only point is that to me, giving cash to Kenyans and giving cash to beggars seems morally equivalent. Not saying you shouldn't do either but I do think if you give Kenyans cash but have qualms with giving beggars money, well I don't think that makes much sense.
I believe there are people with the necessary character to be economically successful, but who have never had the economic opportunity to move beyond their basic needs and are therefore poor. I also believe there are people who have had many economic opportunities, but have squandered them, and are therefore poor.
In the context of the adage "give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach him to fish and he'll be fed for life," one can expect cash given to the first group to be spent on fishing rods, while cash given to the second to be spent on fish.
I find giving cash to the first group to be morally different than giving cash to the second group, and I suspect that poor Kenyan villagers are likely to belong to the first group, while beggars in wealthy developed countries are likely to belong to the second.
If giving $20 to a Kenyan does more good, and you think the most moral thing is to direct your efforts where they do the most good, then there's how they're not morally equivalent.
Not really. Giving beggars has the side effect of incentivising begging, which many people would not consider to be a morally neutral decision.
One can also reasonably judge that on the balance of probability, aid money will almost certainly have a significant positive effect on the lives of Kenyans. The effect of a comparable amount of cash on the lives of beggars in Western countries is much less unequivocally positive (potentially a net negative if its spent on substances that harm the beggar's health, or the income disincentives them from seeking programs that aim to help them with more than just their next meal)
Most people measure morality by looking at the difference between consequences as a result of Action X or Action Y. It's fairly obvious that giving $20 to someone making $1/day is likely to have better consequences than giving it to someone making $40/day (or who has more than the purchasing power of $40/day of social aid available to them). That's why we say the actions are morally different.
I'm surprised you think there's no moral difference. There would be a moral difference between saving someone's life with $20 and treating someone to a meal at Starbucks for $20, right?
Morally they're equivalent, but practically they're not.
While I would like those beggars to receive money, I don't want them to be the exclusive recipients of cash aid, excluding the many poor people who don't happen to be actually begging on the street. I want an organized program that takes the available cash (donations or taxes) and distributes it in a "fair" way among the poor. What constitutes fair is difficult to answer, but I certainly don't have enough information available to make that decision right when someone asks me for money.
No, the opposite. Give Directly finds the very poorest people in a village (as judged by the materials their house is made from), and the Uganda study used self-selected entrepreneurs. Both of these were trying to maximize the impact of each dollar by giving the money to the people for whom it would do the most good.
Giving money to a beggar in the US would not do nearly as much good, both because the US has excellent safety nets (hospitals that will treat you, food banks) and because everything in the US costs more (so you can provide less of it to someone in need per dollar).
