4 ms·
Sure, but a rich person is also a person that is rich. Their calculus in determining a potentially "ethical" decision is much different than, say, a developer
by yarou 11y ago
Sure, but a rich person is also a person that is rich.
Their calculus in determining a potentially "ethical" decision is much different than, say, a developer struggling in the former eastern bloc.
People rarely ever operate in a vacuum, and a person is subconsciously influenced by a variety of factors, of which financial status is one. In this particular instance, it would be a bit disingenuous to assume that Marco made this decision on his own, operating in a vacuum. The real world is a lot more complex than the simple case you are making it to be.
- vacri 11y agoSo... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" isn't a simple case? That's what I'm arguing against. You're projecting this 'vacuum' idea onto me, because I said nothing of the sort.
- coldtea 11y ago>So... you're saying that "rich people can't act morally, because they have fat wallets" No, he's saying it's easy for rich people to act morally in such cases, and in others too (e.g. not steal). Especially in the case of giving back money / charity, that we're talking about in this thread: if both a rich and a poor person give $10.000 to a charity, for a rich person it could be 1/1000 of his income, whereas for an average person it could be 1/5 of his income. It's not even debatable which made the bigger sacrifice, it's pure math. In fact (and continuing with the $1m/year vs $50k/year) the rich person giving $10.000 --which can have people swoon, news coverage and a front seat to the charity's dinner party--, would be equivalent (as percentage of income) to the average person giving $50 to his local charity, which nobody would see as particularly great.