This is a very interesting debate, and could be the founding papers for a better society.
On the one side you have those who believe that the rules are the rules, and you should maximize the rules to your personal advantage.
In the other camp you have a group that believes people should through confiscation policies force society to take care of others, and taking advantage of certain rules is ok when it applies to their needs, but taking advantage of others is deplorable.
The one thing missing from the debate, and I would believe we aren't that far apart, is should we take care of others who can't take care of themselves, and if we should what is the best way to accomplish that goal.
Though I believe the rules are the rules. As such under the current society, I fundamentally believe that redistribution policies encourages as opposed to discourages unethical albeit legal behavior. In other words "I'm stupid not to get mine when all around me people are getting money for nothing".
Being a landlord, I can personally testify to the unintended consequences run a muck under the current rules with regard to section 8 housing, WIC, and other welfare programs. As a result, I'm of the mindset I'd prefer the government to over correct on stopping the redistribution policies. With that being said I don't want to see the elderly, children and handicapped begging in the street either.
My theory is that if the government would get out of the charity business, society would step in to fill the need. You would see a resurgence of fraternal, churches and community organizations. Along with more extended family support.