3 ms·
Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems,
by noirbot 7y ago
Potentially, but just because people aren't doing the 100% most altruistic thing all the time doesn't mean they should be shamed for doing something that seems, at worst, neutral to everyone else.
"What if rich people gave away all their money to causes I support" is almost always a valid position, but one that doesn't really help advance any discussion of the merits of any other action that's more viable.
- TheCraiggers 7y agoIt's not the most altruistic thing. If the problem is that their new expensive house has inadequate firefighter coverage, helping fund a closer one is very much in their interest. Having the locals fund it after you've helped get it off the ground and the charitable write-offs you could probably get aren't either. If they were funding a fire station in a third world country where they have zero business interests, than sure, call it altruism. But I was just trying to show that there are more options, some potentially even better for everybody.
- david38 7y agoI disagree. If my house is in danger, I’m going to protect it, no the whole town. I already pay taxes for the town’s coverage but I cannot support everyone. I’m pretty sure wealthy owners have done the math and know exactly where altruism begins. Now if all my neighbors want to put a lot more money into the pot, then we can talk.