ABSTRACT
The chapter analyses public judgments of welfare abuse across three categories: welfare optimisation, overuse, and misuse. Most respondents condemn unethical practices such as concealing income, using false disability certificates or selling non-financial benefits. However, moral evaluations depend on context: some optimisation strategies are considered justifiable in difficult life situations, and conditional tolerance emerges when actions are perceived as common or necessary. Reasons for non-justification typically refer to harm to other citizens, ethical standards and systemic inefficiency. Socio-demographic factors influence respondents’ tolerance, though overall attitudes reveal widespread concern about abuse. The findings highlight a complex moral landscape in which Poles generally support welfare provision but are sensitive to behaviours that violate fairness, deservingness or the integrity of the system. These evaluations reflect an important component of benefit morale, illuminating how people negotiate morally ambiguous practices within welfare institutions.
