4 ms·

Scott Alexander had a compelling argument against this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.c

Scott Alexander had a compelling argument against this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

hiccuphippo 7y ago
If they are deterred from donating to charity by the negative press, was it philanthropy in the first place?
- GarrisonPrime 7y ago
  I love my family members, but when one of them started beating my mother we cut him out of our lives. Did I not really love him in the first place?
- ben509 7y ago
  Why does it matter if their motives are pure? You don't need a moral justification to do a thing that helps other people and is entirely at your personal expense.
  - zpallin 7y ago
    You're right, but unless a person is spending money for a social-cause that benefits us all, they absolutely do not deserve any special status, press coverage or a title such as "philanthropist." They're just spending money for themselves, and that's nothing special. Anyone can do that.
    - ben509 7y ago
      If everyone has to benefit, this seems to define philanthropy to be an impossible feat. I suspect you're thinking of some celebrities or causes you agree with and assuming their motives must be pure because they agree with your interests. This isn't saying you have some devious intent, I'm just pointing out a potential unquestioned assumption you may hold. Maybe the compromise is this: Wanting people to like you (or wanting good PR) may be an impure motive, but it's also the least concerning impure motive. After all, if a very powerful person wants to be liked by others, that motivation forces them to then listen to others and consider their interests.
      - zpallin 7y ago
        I didn't try to define philanthropy at all. Call it what you will. I'm not thinking of any celebrities, and it's really weird that you made that assumption. It's simply unimpressive to me when people give away money through foundations or other organized means just cause they're rich. The bar should be much higher to earn anyone's praise. That's all I'm saying. And I don't have anything to add to what you've written.
geraltofrivia 7y ago
In my opinion, the problem isn't that people hate on Billionaires for philanthropic acts, but increasing wealth gap. In other words - very fact that billionaires exist.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Unless you believe everybody is equally skilled at managing money, investment and entrepreneurship, it's natural that some people will be more successful than others. China 70 years ago had no wealth gap, because everyone was dirt poor (except maybe the Party members).
  - bonoboTP 7y ago
    Calling it skill is one option, but is a very ideologically colored one. Ideally, yes skill and hard work would lead to money as a reward and as a way to promote the most skilled to powerful positions so they can use those skills to improve the common good. 1) In my opinion, on an everyday scale of richness, the most important causal factor is family background, including inheritance. Would you support abolishing all forms of inheritance? Then skill could develop on an even, level playing field. For some reason the same people who say the rich are rich because they are skilled and work hard, are the same people who really want to keep the system of inheritance intact. 2) On the billionaire level of richness it is mostly luck, out of a strictly limited pool of potential candidates.
  - geraltofrivia 7y ago
    Look I'm not saying that managing money, technical skills, investment etc should not matter. Of course it should. Of course it's true that some people work harder than others (even if we discount the upbringing, and the family's economic situation). That said, the difference in standard of living, and the difference in the number of zeros in bank balances surely do not reflect the aforementioned differences. Surely you don't believe that someone works a thousand time better than me (current income ~ 2.5k EUR)? I'm saying that the wealth gap is far too wide for any reasonable justification. I'm not rooting for a completely egalitarian/communist society, but the current situation needs to change.

Scott Alexander had a compelling argument against this: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

hiccuphippo 7y ago

If they are deterred from donating to charity by the negative press, was it philanthropy in the first place?

GarrisonPrime 7y ago
I love my family members, but when one of them started beating my mother we cut him out of our lives. Did I not really love him in the first place?
ben509 7y ago
Why does it matter if their motives are pure? You don't need a moral justification to do a thing that helps other people and is entirely at your personal expense.
- zpallin 7y ago
  You're right, but unless a person is spending money for a social-cause that benefits us all, they absolutely do not deserve any special status, press coverage or a title such as "philanthropist." They're just spending money for themselves, and that's nothing special. Anyone can do that.
  - ben509 7y ago
    If everyone has to benefit, this seems to define philanthropy to be an impossible feat. I suspect you're thinking of some celebrities or causes you agree with and assuming their motives must be pure because they agree with your interests. This isn't saying you have some devious intent, I'm just pointing out a potential unquestioned assumption you may hold. Maybe the compromise is this: Wanting people to like you (or wanting good PR) may be an impure motive, but it's also the least concerning impure motive. After all, if a very powerful person wants to be liked by others, that motivation forces them to then listen to others and consider their interests.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      I didn't try to define philanthropy at all. Call it what you will. I'm not thinking of any celebrities, and it's really weird that you made that assumption. It's simply unimpressive to me when people give away money through foundations or other organized means just cause they're rich. The bar should be much higher to earn anyone's praise. That's all I'm saying. And I don't have anything to add to what you've written.

geraltofrivia 7y ago

In my opinion, the problem isn't that people hate on Billionaires for philanthropic acts, but increasing wealth gap. In other words - very fact that billionaires exist.

logicchains 7y ago
Unless you believe everybody is equally skilled at managing money, investment and entrepreneurship, it's natural that some people will be more successful than others. China 70 years ago had no wealth gap, because everyone was dirt poor (except maybe the Party members).
- bonoboTP 7y ago
  Calling it skill is one option, but is a very ideologically colored one. Ideally, yes skill and hard work would lead to money as a reward and as a way to promote the most skilled to powerful positions so they can use those skills to improve the common good. 1) In my opinion, on an everyday scale of richness, the most important causal factor is family background, including inheritance. Would you support abolishing all forms of inheritance? Then skill could develop on an even, level playing field. For some reason the same people who say the rich are rich because they are skilled and work hard, are the same people who really want to keep the system of inheritance intact. 2) On the billionaire level of richness it is mostly luck, out of a strictly limited pool of potential candidates.
- geraltofrivia 7y ago
  Look I'm not saying that managing money, technical skills, investment etc should not matter. Of course it should. Of course it's true that some people work harder than others (even if we discount the upbringing, and the family's economic situation). That said, the difference in standard of living, and the difference in the number of zeros in bank balances surely do not reflect the aforementioned differences. Surely you don't believe that someone works a thousand time better than me (current income ~ 2.5k EUR)? I'm saying that the wealth gap is far too wide for any reasonable justification. I'm not rooting for a completely egalitarian/communist society, but the current situation needs to change.