My friend is an amateur painter. She has a degree from one of the best universities in the country (where she got top grades) and is physically healthy. After college, she decided to pursue her passion: painting. She hopes to work as a professional artist, but currently works as a part-time teacher. She comes from an upper-middle class family and I know that in the past she received some financial support from her parents. They are by no means lavish, but they live in a comfortable apartment with roommates and rent a separate art studio. I respect her pursuit of art and have no problem with her receiving support from her parents to paint.
A friend recently told me that she uses the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to buy her own food. I feel this is dishonest and exploits the welfare system in a way that hurts those who need it most. When I expressed my concern, she told me that she wasn’t taking “place” from anyone else. There is no limit to the number of people who use SNAP through Electronic Benefits Transfer cards (the modern version of food stamps), but my friend feels that she is taking away from people who need it.
People of all backgrounds can and should struggle with financial issues and benefit from what little social assistance the US offers. But I think my friend is disqualified from SNAP because she doesn’t try to work, doesn’t apply for full-time work, and takes her parents’ money and uses it to paint. At the same time, I think artists are an essential part of our national ecosystem, and I don’t think that having an EBT card should prohibit her from spending money on anything other than life-and-death necessities. But something about my friend’s situation seems odd to me. Is what she’s doing ethical? — Anonymous
From an Ethicist:
First, there is the question of whether she is officially eligible for SNAP benefits. While each state determines the eligibility of its residents, there are federal guidelines that states must follow. Some are about income limits, and to qualify for benefits for a long period of time, you must also meet work requirements if you are healthy and have no dependents (or other complicating circumstances). Approved volunteer work can be used toward the work requirement. The program is not designed to get you the highest paying job you can get. So let’s assume that she accurately describes her situation, including parental loans, and that she does in fact meet the program’s criteria.
But here’s the thing about how you think about this. When you say you feel your friend is getting benefits from the poor, you’re not saying that literally. SNAP helps tens of millions of people, and there’s no cap on the number of recipients. Her enrollment doesn’t make anyone poorer, but you know that. Instead, I think what you’re thinking is that you shouldn’t rely on benefits that come from the work of others unless you need them.
So you’re thinking of society as a system in which each of us should contribute whatever reasonable contribution we can, given our talents. From this perspective, avoidable public assistance might seem like an exploitation of citizens who earn enough to support themselves (some of whom might have jobs they don’t really like).
This way of thinking about work has a long history. Some of it has to do with the “poor have a right” story, but another influential expression is found in the socialist tradition. The 1936 Soviet Constitution declared that “in the USSR the socialist principle applies: from each according to his ability, from each according to his work.” (This is a reference to a slogan favored by French socialist thinkers in the first half of the 19th century, not to be confused with the slogan introduced by other French socialists at the time, which ends with “from each according to his need.”) The idea here is that in a decent society, anyone capable of working should be paid commensurate with the value he produces. Of course, socialists tended to doubt that in a capitalist labor market, the true value of work was adequately reflected by wages.
I have to admit that this maxim is unattractive in terms of either “ability” or “work.” First, I don’t believe that society has the right to ask us to do a job just because we can do it. Second, there is no reasonable evaluation system that can guarantee that what one contributes is commensurate with what one receives.
Still, I think there’s merit to the idea that we should all do our fair share so that social systems work for everyone. Whether I do my fair share may depend on my abilities, but people should have wide discretion in deciding how to contribute. Part of your friend’s contribution, as you mention in our cultural ecosystem, is through her work as an artist. She also helps through her work as a teacher. If those activities don’t provide enough money for food, I don’t see why she shouldn’t receive the support society decides to provide.
Readers’ reactions
The last question came from a reader who was wondering about the ethics of self-diagnosing. She wrote: “I am in my 30s and have multiple motor and vocal tics that began in my early teens and have never gone away. As far as I know, I fit the diagnostic criteria for Tourette’s syndrome. … Would I be able to say I have Tourette’s syndrome without getting a formal diagnosis? I am wary of doing so, as self-diagnosis is generally denigrated as a medical issue, and especially so for Tourette’s syndrome. I have seen a surge in people falsely claiming to have Tourette’s syndrome on social media recently. However, I feel that telling people I have Tourette’s syndrome, which many people recognize, would encourage me to talk more freely about my tics, and in so doing, ease the mild sense of shame I may feel around them. It may also educate others about the range of severity of Tourette’s syndrome, i.e. that it is not always noticeable. However, I am very concerned that I will seem to be internalizing the suffering of the group, and I am also not sure whether a formal diagnosis is necessary to be welcomed into a group of people with Tourette’s syndrome. What are your thoughts?”
As the ethicist points out in his response: “Diagnosis has depth. … But the diagnosis of Tourette’s syndrome has no such depth. It simply says that a person has certain symptoms (like those you mention) and that those symptoms began before the age of 18. A diagnosis is not a matter of a scan or blood test, unless other explanations have to be ruled out; it is a matter of a behavioral history that you report. So why not consult a medical professional? Despite your concerns about time and expense, a diagnosis does not have to be a drawn-out process. You don’t mention any other symptoms, but many people with Tourette’s syndrome have co-occurring conditions that a clinician might be able to help with. And if there is any medical reason to think it is not Tourette’s syndrome, it would be best to know that too.” (Read the full question and answer again here.)
⬥
I fully agree with the ethicist that the letter writer should discuss her symptoms with a medical professional to determine a diagnosis of Tourette’s syndrome. — Renee
⬥
At age 55, I discovered I had Autism Spectrum Disorder. I’d always been clumsy and had trouble with social interactions. I took some online tests and determined that this was the cause. Seven years later, I had good health insurance, so I decided to seek treatment. This formal process not only confirmed my self-diagnosis, but also gave me new perspective and advice on how to manage my ASD traits (for example, I exercise three times a week, focusing on balance exercises). By seeking professional advice, I learned that ASD is not a disorder, but a variation of it. — Jeffrey
⬥
I’m also in my 30s but have had undiagnosed tics since I was younger. I finally received a formal diagnosis a year ago and it has been a huge relief to have a name for my tics and a way to discuss my symptoms with others. It has changed my life a lot. I don’t think a formal diagnosis is necessary to classify the letter writer as having Tourette’s syndrome, but I think the diagnostic process will help her accept it. — Pamela
⬥
You don’t need to have a formal diagnosis to describe your symptoms. I don’t know if I have ADHD, but I have many of the symptoms associated with it. If the topic comes up, say, “I often have trouble concentrating, so I use tools that help people with ADHD.” Similarly, someone with a tic disorder can say, “I have tics that are similar to Tourette’s syndrome.” Anyone who says more than that is rude. — Lee
⬥
I am a physician. I agree with the ethicist. If I were the letter writer, I would consider how different it would be to say, “I have Tourette’s syndrome” than to say, “I have involuntary tics” or “I have tics that seem consistent with Tourette’s syndrome, but I have never seen a doctor.” The letter writer appropriately thinks about the impact of claiming a diagnosis as an identity, which can complicate actual medical evaluations and undermine people’s lived experiences with illness (which may be different from what the average person imagines). I would also agree with the ethicist that Tourette’s syndrome is a diagnosis of exclusion. The average person would benefit from having their primary care physician address any underlying health issues, but someone with an unknown cause for their involuntary tics would benefit from exploring the possibility of separate or concomitant problems further than the average person. — J
