3 ms·

Serious albeit philosophical question: Why not more? Why not $160B?

• fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  Why not both fund this and pay Amazon employees more?
• kashyapc 8y ago
  Your question reminds me of the Australian moral philosopher (and one of the founders of the "Effective Altruism" movement) Peter Singer. I have an inkling that you know him. He talks about (and makes people squirm) "how much should one give?": "[...] In particular, he expands upon some of the arguments made in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", in which he posits that citizens of rich nations are morally obligated to give at least some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor. He supports this using the drowning child analogy, which states that most people would rescue a drowning child from a pond, even if it meant that their expensive clothes were ruined, so we clearly value a human life more than the value of our material possessions. As a result, we should take a significant portion of the money that we spend on our possessions and instead donate it to charity." People have punched some solid holes through his argument, I can't link to them all, as I'm typing on the phone. But regardless, it's impossible to ignore Singer's arguments.
  • detcader 8y ago
    An "anonymous" author sharpens this argument in a Current Affairs essay called It's Basically Just Immoral To Be Rich. The logic works better applied to super-rich people than trying to get to the assertion that everyone should give up expensive things they have or want and live in some minimal way. Also check out This Little Rock And All Who Sail On It on the same website.
    • kashyapc 8y ago
      True; Singer's argument that "everyone should get enlightened on this" is a hard sell and isn't going to happen in real life. Thanks for the other recommendations.