4 ms·
> Moreover, in reality the choice is usually between a villain "who wants to buy his way into heaven" and a villain who doesn't give a fuck. I'll take the forme
by croon 9y ago
> Moreover, in reality the choice is usually between a villain "who wants to buy his way into heaven" and a villain who doesn't give a fuck. I'll take the former over the latter any time, because forever-saints with lots of money generally do not happen.
Indeed. There's also an immense difference between doing a genuinely good act for self-serving reasons (ie getting into heaven), and masquerading a self-interest as a noble good, meaning the act will have tangible negative effects, in conflict with its image.
What I mean is that "buying your way into heaven" and being a saint with tons of money doesn't have any meaningful difference. It doesn't matter if I build wells and schools in a third world country for instantaneous euphoria or for delayed euphoria through praise or for speculated reward in the afterlife.
As long as you're not building the school in order to indoctrinate the children into supporting your plans of world domination, you can and should do good for whatever reasons you want.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI agree. > What I mean is that "buying your way into heaven" and being a saint with tons of money doesn't have any meaningful difference. It doesn't at the act of doing the spending, yes. The difference I meant was of history - by "a saint with tons of money" I meant someone who never did anything questionable throughout their entire life, and yet somehow still ended up in command of millions (or billions) of dollars. That pretty much doesn't happen (especially because there is always someone who'll find something questionable in everything and will spin it as evil; even Jesus got tried and executed for pissing off the establishment).