34 ms·

Charity is morally neutral. I believe that being good means making the most of your own life. If you want to help someone, or even a lot of people through char

Charity is morally neutral. I believe that being good means making the most of your own life. If you want to help someone, or even a lot of people through charity, that's fine, but it should not earn you any moral credit. Moral credit should only come from what you've truly achieved, and that means creating value somehow (invention, scientific discovery, beautiful art, and honest work of any kind). Anyone can give away fifty million dollars, but not many can actually earn the same sum in their lifetimes.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
Charity is not morally neutral. One part of being good means making the most of your own life. Another part of being good means helping other people. No one can give away fifty million dollars that they don't have. There is no inherent moral good in earning fifty million dollars (Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, AIG, your local arms dealer, etc. etc.) There is often significant moral good in earning far less than fifty million dollars (teachers, nurses, etc).
- maxharris 16y ago
  Bernie Madoff did not earn anything. He stole. You cannot justly equate a destroyer of value (Madoff) with a creator of value (Jobs).
  - nickbp 16y ago
    Those who would be benefited by a charity are unlikely to be impacted by Jobs' computers. What Haitian can afford or would be helped by a MacBook?
    - maxharris 16y ago
      The question, rephrased is: does anyone have a right to exist as a free person when there is suffering anywhere in the world? I say yes. Need is not a valid claim on anyone else's life. I didn't make them poor. My moral responsibility lies with making my own life the best. In doing so, I'm not harming anyone, because it's not in my interest to sacrifice others to myself (just as it is not in my interest to sacrifice myself to others.) Instead of begging or stealing, I advocate trading.
      - nickbp 16y ago
        If you witness a car accident, do you ignore it because you didn't cause the crash? Do you walk up to the shattered window to yell "I'm not responsible!"? Or do you help them out of their current situation so that they can better help themselves in the future?
        maxharris 16y ago
        That depends on the context. (Do you pick up hitchhikers? If so, when?) If I have to choose between something I value more (say my wife is in anaphylactic shock and needs to be driven to the hospital), and someone I see in a car wreck on the way to the hospital, I'm going to choose my wife, because she's a higher value to me than anyone else. However, if I don't have something that pressing to worry about, and I physically come across someone is injured in this way (so this is an emergency context, which is by definition something that doesn't happen frequently), I'll help. The sight of someone suffering from an unforeseeable emergency is an awful thing, and if I happen to come across it, I'd do what I could to help, so long as it wasn't a sacrifice for me (didn't leave me significantly poorer, less able, etc.) None of this means that I should drive around town looking for people that are stranded or injured, or that I need to give my money to people that I'll never meet. I hope this clarifies things.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    Bernie Madoff earned his money by stealing it. The same could be said for many people that aren't sitting in jail and who aren't generally/politically believed to have done anything that should cause them to be sitting in jail. I did not equate Jobs to Madoff (or AIG or arms dealers), I simply stated that being in possession of fifty million dollars does not provide any indication of moral value of the possessor.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      Bernie Madoff earned his money by stealing it. This is a contradiction in terms. To earn something means to trade for it honestly, exchanging one value for another. To steal something means something altogether different (taking something by force or fraud). These two words do not mean the same thing; they are, in fact, opposites.
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
        Nonsense. To earn: obtain in return for labor or services. Honesty has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the word. And in any case, selling heroin to high schoolers fits your new definition of "earning". I surely see no moral good that comes from that. As such, earning fifty million, or five dollars has zero correlation to morality.
        maxharris 16y ago
        What labor or service did Madoff perform for his victims in exchange for their money?
        OpieCunningham 16y ago
        I'm not interested in debating such a thing. Let's just say (agree?) the labor/services Madoff performed were not the labor/services his investors had hoped for. And since his labor/services were in opposition to agreed upon contracts, he is sitting in jail. I have already provided at least 2 other examples of people immorally earning (per your new definition) money, you have ignored both to focus on semantics involving Madoff. My point remains. Your original post and overall point is invalid. In fact, it is 100% backwards. Money is morally neutral. It's how you get money and what you do with it that determines morality.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  Low pay is a pricing signal. A surplus of teachers and nurses are disregarding other kinds of work society is announcing a greater unmet need for, in favor of what they feel driven to do. While they are entitled to say "to hell with whatever society values most from me", I wouldn't call it noble.
  - gazrogers 16y ago
    Yes, damn those selfish teachers and nurses for choosing to something that they a) are good at, and b) enjoy. Perhaps we should force children to do the same job as their parents when they grow up to maintain the correct distribution of workers to jobs?
    - maxharris 16y ago
      Doing something that you're good at and that you enjoy is great, but it's not necessarily enough if you want to get paid. You also have to do something that other people want enough to pay you! Fortunately, humans are conceptual beings, and everyone is capable of doing at least some variety of things. There is no right of stagnation. No one should be forced by law to pay anyone against their will, or to pay more than they agree to privately.
ck2 16y ago
If you live a society that doesn't morally (or physically) oppress you, so you CAN make the most of your own life you've already benefited from it. You've already taken for granted something you owe back.
- maxharris 16y ago
  I'm not responsible for anyone's lot in life but my own. I pay taxes which keeps the government going, which keeps each of us from robbing the other. Having already paid to keep order (and for a whole lot of additional stuff that violates my rights), I owe nothing. Steve Jobs pays a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.
  - nickbp 16y ago
    Given his $1 salary, his effective income is all capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. In any case, taxes are (in theory at least) paid in return for services provided to you and your country, whereas charity is paid in return only for the feeling you've contributed to a greater good. It's best to not confuse the two.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      So I (or anyone else, including Steve Jobs) somehow owe society something just for being born, or just for living? If that's what you mean, I absolutely do not agree.
      - nickbp 16y ago
        Not at all. "Charity is not for the sake of others."
- kevin_morrill 16y ago
  No one owes anything back to society for existing, much less thriving.
- nickbp 16y ago
aik 16y ago
>> Anyone can give away fifty million dollars No they can't. Giving away money is incredibly difficult for most people regardless of how much they have. So yes, it is is an act of good will and speaks of one's character. That being said, I don't believe you have to contribute to random charities to be moral, as long as the cash is helping (or will help) in some other way at some point, and not being used purely for selfish motives. So much of our lives are guided by chance. One who has a lot hasn't earned everything they have, and a person who has nothing hasn't necessarily earned that nothingness. We live in an unfair world and assisting those with worse luck in certain parts of their life is good will. What doesn't make sense is for someone to judge someone else for either giving or not giving in any particular moment (or even 14 years).

OpieCunningham 16y ago

Charity is not morally neutral. One part of being good means making the most of your own life. Another part of being good means helping other people. No one can give away fifty million dollars that they don't have. There is no inherent moral good in earning fifty million dollars (Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, AIG, your local arms dealer, etc. etc.) There is often significant moral good in earning far less than fifty million dollars (teachers, nurses, etc).

maxharris 16y ago
Bernie Madoff did not earn anything. He stole. You cannot justly equate a destroyer of value (Madoff) with a creator of value (Jobs).
- nickbp 16y ago
  Those who would be benefited by a charity are unlikely to be impacted by Jobs' computers. What Haitian can afford or would be helped by a MacBook?
  - maxharris 16y ago
    The question, rephrased is: does anyone have a right to exist as a free person when there is suffering anywhere in the world? I say yes. Need is not a valid claim on anyone else's life. I didn't make them poor. My moral responsibility lies with making my own life the best. In doing so, I'm not harming anyone, because it's not in my interest to sacrifice others to myself (just as it is not in my interest to sacrifice myself to others.) Instead of begging or stealing, I advocate trading.
    - nickbp 16y ago
      If you witness a car accident, do you ignore it because you didn't cause the crash? Do you walk up to the shattered window to yell "I'm not responsible!"? Or do you help them out of their current situation so that they can better help themselves in the future?
      - maxharris 16y ago
        That depends on the context. (Do you pick up hitchhikers? If so, when?) If I have to choose between something I value more (say my wife is in anaphylactic shock and needs to be driven to the hospital), and someone I see in a car wreck on the way to the hospital, I'm going to choose my wife, because she's a higher value to me than anyone else. However, if I don't have something that pressing to worry about, and I physically come across someone is injured in this way (so this is an emergency context, which is by definition something that doesn't happen frequently), I'll help. The sight of someone suffering from an unforeseeable emergency is an awful thing, and if I happen to come across it, I'd do what I could to help, so long as it wasn't a sacrifice for me (didn't leave me significantly poorer, less able, etc.) None of this means that I should drive around town looking for people that are stranded or injured, or that I need to give my money to people that I'll never meet. I hope this clarifies things.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  Bernie Madoff earned his money by stealing it. The same could be said for many people that aren't sitting in jail and who aren't generally/politically believed to have done anything that should cause them to be sitting in jail. I did not equate Jobs to Madoff (or AIG or arms dealers), I simply stated that being in possession of fifty million dollars does not provide any indication of moral value of the possessor.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    Bernie Madoff earned his money by stealing it. This is a contradiction in terms. To earn something means to trade for it honestly, exchanging one value for another. To steal something means something altogether different (taking something by force or fraud). These two words do not mean the same thing; they are, in fact, opposites.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      Nonsense. To earn: obtain in return for labor or services. Honesty has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the word. And in any case, selling heroin to high schoolers fits your new definition of "earning". I surely see no moral good that comes from that. As such, earning fifty million, or five dollars has zero correlation to morality.
      - maxharris 16y ago
        What labor or service did Madoff perform for his victims in exchange for their money?
        OpieCunningham 16y ago
        I'm not interested in debating such a thing. Let's just say (agree?) the labor/services Madoff performed were not the labor/services his investors had hoped for. And since his labor/services were in opposition to agreed upon contracts, he is sitting in jail. I have already provided at least 2 other examples of people immorally earning (per your new definition) money, you have ignored both to focus on semantics involving Madoff. My point remains. Your original post and overall point is invalid. In fact, it is 100% backwards. Money is morally neutral. It's how you get money and what you do with it that determines morality.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
Low pay is a pricing signal. A surplus of teachers and nurses are disregarding other kinds of work society is announcing a greater unmet need for, in favor of what they feel driven to do. While they are entitled to say "to hell with whatever society values most from me", I wouldn't call it noble.
- gazrogers 16y ago
  Yes, damn those selfish teachers and nurses for choosing to something that they a) are good at, and b) enjoy. Perhaps we should force children to do the same job as their parents when they grow up to maintain the correct distribution of workers to jobs?
  - maxharris 16y ago
    Doing something that you're good at and that you enjoy is great, but it's not necessarily enough if you want to get paid. You also have to do something that other people want enough to pay you! Fortunately, humans are conceptual beings, and everyone is capable of doing at least some variety of things. There is no right of stagnation. No one should be forced by law to pay anyone against their will, or to pay more than they agree to privately.

ck2 16y ago

If you live a society that doesn't morally (or physically) oppress you, so you CAN make the most of your own life you've already benefited from it. You've already taken for granted something you owe back.

maxharris 16y ago
I'm not responsible for anyone's lot in life but my own. I pay taxes which keeps the government going, which keeps each of us from robbing the other. Having already paid to keep order (and for a whole lot of additional stuff that violates my rights), I owe nothing. Steve Jobs pays a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.
- nickbp 16y ago
  Given his $1 salary, his effective income is all capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. In any case, taxes are (in theory at least) paid in return for services provided to you and your country, whereas charity is paid in return only for the feeling you've contributed to a greater good. It's best to not confuse the two.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    So I (or anyone else, including Steve Jobs) somehow owe society something just for being born, or just for living? If that's what you mean, I absolutely do not agree.
    - nickbp 16y ago
      Not at all. "Charity is not for the sake of others."
kevin_morrill 16y ago
No one owes anything back to society for existing, much less thriving.
nickbp 16y ago

aik 16y ago

>> Anyone can give away fifty million dollars No they can't. Giving away money is incredibly difficult for most people regardless of how much they have. So yes, it is is an act of good will and speaks of one's character. That being said, I don't believe you have to contribute to random charities to be moral, as long as the cash is helping (or will help) in some other way at some point, and not being used purely for selfish motives. So much of our lives are guided by chance. One who has a lot hasn't earned everything they have, and a person who has nothing hasn't necessarily earned that nothingness. We live in an unfair world and assisting those with worse luck in certain parts of their life is good will. What doesn't make sense is for someone to judge someone else for either giving or not giving in any particular moment (or even 14 years).