5 ms·
> Does anyone really think Bill Gates is a superior moral person with no ulterior motive at all? And if you think so, can you provide proof, or just assumption?
by croon 9y ago
> Does anyone really think Bill Gates is a superior moral person with no ulterior motive at all? And if you think so, can you provide proof, or just assumption?
> History almost universally shows that the rich and powerful manipulate both the people and their image for their own good, not for the well being of the peasants.
I never have any heroes, because they can all fall from grace. In Bills case I'm sure he did some unsavory things in the name of making that money at Microsoft, both in terms of industry and business.
However, "morals" is a construct. I don't mean that in a nihilist way, but merely in a "how do we even measure that?".
What we can do is judge him from his actions. Actions are proof of what he's doing. If that is our metric, then he is morally superior to a whole lot of especially rich people.
There are a lot of very rich people in the world. Some are sitting on their money. Some are using their money for lobbying and propaganda in order to accrue more money. Some are using their money for public good.
Bill Gates currently falls very much into the latter. If you want to criticize rich people, maybe don't start with the people actually doing something good, who've also pledged most of their money away.
- tux1968 9y agoWell to be fair, half the money came from Melinda.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago>What we can do is judge him from his actions. Actions are proof of what he's doing. It's very easy to give something you have an abundance of. I don't see how his good is better than other rich peoples, just because we know about it? Because it's front page news? That makes it "good"? I am not willing to jump to the conclusion his motives are altruistic for these reasons alone. Do you know if he is getting a kick back from this payment? Or preferential treatment of some kind? What if he is allowed to hide some heinous acts in Nigeria because of this payment? And it's actually a bribe? Considering how the world works, this seems a more likely explanation. Again, how do you know this is a "good" thing that he paid someone's debt? I mean, in truly absolute terms? I don't see how it's possible to "know". I think you can guess and assume, that is all. Look up the financial crises in many other countries, why did he help only Nigeria? This just seems suspicious to me. Perhaps I am unreasonably cynical. If he does this again and again, maybe that will be proof? But just one country? That is not convincing, that is suspicious.
- saint_fiasco 9y ago> why did he help only Nigeria? This just seems suspicious to me. Perhaps I am unreasonably cynical. If he does this again and again, maybe that will be proof? Bill Gates has been a philanthropist for a while. They have helped poor people in several countries in several ways like malaria/polio eradication, education and family planning. For each project they always write about why they think it is a good use of their money. For example, they don't spend their money in charities that help charismatic cute puppies find owners, which is what I would do if I wanted to look generous. They don't spend in expensive hospital and university buildings which is what I would do if I wanted to take kickbacks. You can read more about it in their website https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ https://www.gatesfoundation.org/
- RobertRoberts 9y agoI could and should do research on the gates foundation. But that wasn't my question. It's why do we assume they are altruistic in their endeavours? (specifically in this case with Nigeria and debt toward Japan, a very, very odd mix of circumstances that don't seem to be allowed to be questioned here)
- croon 9y ago> It's very easy to give something you have an abundance of. I don't see how his good is better than other rich peoples, just because we know about it? Because it's front page news? That makes it "good"? Tell that to the Kochs/Mercers/etc of the world. I doubt that Gates puts much effort into publicizing their current work. It's front page news because they're doing it. > Do you know if he is getting a kick back from this payment? Or preferential treatment of some kind? What if he is allowed to hide some heinous acts in Nigeria because of this payment? And it's actually a bribe? Considering how the world works, this seems a more likely explanation. I strongly disagree. Considering they've put up $3B to cure polio, paying off a loan that was put forth to aid in eliminating polio, I think (until further notice) it's very straightforward to call a spade a spade. Ockham's razor and all that. > Again, how do you know this is a "good" thing that he paid someone's debt? I mean, in truly absolute terms? I don't see how it's possible to "know". I think you can guess and assume, that is all. Why do you expect/want this? Why do you demand something like this? What are you withholding until someone delivers something undeliverable? Are you refusing to give a pat on the back until you get an undisputable report with support from multiple trusted third parties? You are basically asking for someone to prove that a zebra is a zebra, because it might be a painted horse, even if there are no reasonable hints indicating it might be so. > Look up the financial crises in many other countries, why did he help only Nigeria? Because it's about polio, not finance.