Testing moral intuitions.

I fucking hate doing this style of moral philosophy, but I'm about to try to squeeze something past my dissertation committee, and I'm trying to make sure it doesn't sound absolutely insane. Consider the following case:

There are two people in poverty and we can only help one. Person A was a rich aristocrat who pissed all his money away on the ponies. Person B started off poor and has been poor all his life. A, however, has undergone a character transformation and has reformed his pissing-money-away disposition. Assume that A and B are the same age with the same future life prospects, and if they were to be given assistance, they both would achieve the same level of anti-poverty (in other words, no danger of backsliding--which is the significance of A's reform). No other facts are relevant. Do you think we should: 1) help A; 2) help B; 3) flip a coin?

Consider honestly and lemme know. I'll tell you what I think and why in a few days.