There is a common moral narrative that encourages us to help others unconditionally. While this stems from a place of compassion, the application of that idea requires caution and discernment. Helping someone who cannot help themselves is often an act of necessary kindness. But continuing to help those who can help themselves often results in enabling, not empowering.

The difference lies in capacity and choice. Someone unable to act due to physical, mental, or circumstantial limitations needs support to regain independence. But someone with the capability to act, who consistently avoids responsibility, is not in need of more assistance — they are in need of consequence.

Helping capable people who choose inaction often removes the very struggle that would produce their growth. It keeps them dependent, stunts their development, and erodes their problem-solving abilities. It also reinforces an unconscious belief that they do not need to change because someone else always will carry the weight for them.

Enabling comes disguised as kindness. It looks like stepping in to help, offering resources, or shielding someone from the outcomes of their own decisions. But in reality, it creates a loop where effort is avoided and reliance grows. Over time, it makes the person more fragile, not more free.

By contrast, empowering someone means holding them accountable to their potential. It means stepping back when it’s time for them to step up. This is not cruel. It is principled. When people realize they must solve their own problems, they either rise or fall — and if they fall, they learn. That learning process is what helps them become stronger.

Helping those who can’t help themselves is moral responsibility. But constantly helping those who won’t help themselves is a form of sabotage. It teaches them to rely on your energy instead of building their own.

Compassion must be paired with discernment. Otherwise, our help becomes harm.