If you are right, and money is "the only reason he had to help his relative," that would actually prove his experiment failed -- that for all his pluck, his savings of $5,000 were not sufficient to help a sick relative. The fact that his relatives tend to be better off than those of the genuine poor would only reinforce this.

As it happens, his experiment might not actually be a failure, because what you're saying seems dubious -- people help sick relatives for all kinds of reasons beyond possessing money. If he quit the experiment to contribute love or support, for example, that does not conclusively prove it wrong (although it does raise the issue that it would be much harder for a poor person to contribute such support to a sick relative -- time is not free and quitting a job has more dire consequences when you're poor).

In absence of money, he would be unable to help the relative. The reason why he helped is because it's human to do so. The reason why that was an option is because he had money.

I see. So you're saying if he did really only have 5k to his name, that family member wouldn't have gotten any help from him and could have died. But hey, he'd have been in the right though, wouldn't he have? That's what's important after all. The family member's concerns are only secondary.

He certainly wouldn't be in the wrong. 5k won't get you anything as far as medical care in the US goes. If he were unable to do anything, how could he possibly be in the wrong for not doing anything?

He could have continued to pretend like he only had 5k, and like someone with only that much money been unable to do a thing, but then he would be wrong. What he did was not, and what anyone else would have had to do wouldn't be either.

Agreed. Dead family members are ok as long as you can't be blamed for their deaths.

Clearly you are being purposely dense.