5 ms·

> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christi

> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. [1] However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in amount and allocation). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite [2] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

ebg13 6y ago
Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.
- progman32 6y ago
  Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    Op specifically used the word "unimpressive", not "unimportant".
- vasco 6y ago
  He did not start with everything.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      In what way does he still have everything? It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income in my state. That’s a long walk from everything in my book.
      - ebg13 6y ago
        > It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income Oh come on. He's 89 years old and has millions of dollars still. How long do you expect him to live? "Sustainably generating" a median household income in perpetuity is an interesting bar to set. You're aware that most of the country doesn't have any savings at all, yeah? That the current median _at_retirement_age_ savings for the US is around 150K? That he's still getting an actual income from social security payments because why not?
        sokoloff 6y ago
        My challenge was to your hyperbolic claim that he "still has everything" and an insinuation that that makes giving away $8 billion (with a B) over his lifetime not as impressive because he didn't give away the last 0.025% of his wealth. That he's getting payments from Social Security after a lifetime of contributions to Social Security is also of no concern to me (I view it as the overwhelming default and entirely proper).
teruakohatu 6y ago
Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away. It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million. In other words, I don't think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don't need and can't use.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    One could argue that there is probably some correlation between great wealth and good judgement about the effective use of money. In that regard, perhaps it’s good to have social intervention performed by a mixture of democratic and individualistic entities. Perhaps one will address things that the other might miss.
  - gringoDan 6y ago
    You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or (b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down. Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US Government is a more effective way to generate positive impact in the world than personal charitable donations. If I could pay my taxes to Bill Gates I would – my tax dollars would be used to eradicate polio or malaria, rather than on bureaucracy and starting wars.
SeanLuke 6y ago
> This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. I don't think it's what matters necessarily, but I do think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere. That's a problem, because if we're going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of money. Now Feeney certainly has had more of an impact, and that's great, but he had that impact because he was fortunate enough to have billions of dollars to give away in the first place. Being lucky is not a valid reason to be praised, I think. Indeed I don't think Feeney wants to be praised: he just wants to be rid of his wealth in a meaningful way.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it? We have to assume that in the given scenario the other person needed it more and nobody else was stepping up. > Why praise sacrifice at all? You don't even have to praise the concept of sacrificing in general to praise caring enough to help those less fortunate even when helping has a cost. The alternative is for nobody to help except those for whom money no longer has any meaning, ie billionaires, and I don't see Jeff Bezos building homes for the homeless. > Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. The first sentence is false. Donation is zero-sum in absolute dollar terms, no money is gained or lost, but money _does_ have diminishing utility to the individual, so the raised person can gain more than the lowered person loses. So a person can sacrifice AND maximize positive impact. For what it's worth, I think the right approach is to eat the billionaires instead of waiting for the person with $25 to sacrifice even further for the person with $5. Clearly eating all of the billionaires would maximize positive impact.
biztos 6y ago
I am very happy he donated all that money, and I greatly respect him for doing it without calling too much attention to himself, especially compared to others. But it says a whole lot about Forbes that having at least $2M -- and I'm betting maybe a small apartment and a modest car and possibly even health insurance -- counts as "officially broke" in America.
- nnt38 6y ago
  Well he lost 98%+ of his wealth, that could be considered as going broke in relative terms.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
It's also a Muslim way of looking at charity: https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 But Muslims also have a standard flat rate of charity which is mandatory from every person, so they cover both bases there.
Robotbeat 6y ago
Not just Christian, but other religions and philosophy as well. Utilitarianism isn't necessarily the default and is easy to subvert for selfishness. "See, really, me getting as rich as possible is justified because someday I'll be able to use this to solve some abstract problem I've decided is the REAL issue that needs to be solved..." As long as you convince yourself that the returns to compound interest are higher than the returns to charity at any one point, it's easy to justify just pushing off your donation time to sometime arbitrarily far in the future, and high luxuries can be justified as "self-care" that enhance your own productivity or whatever. Utilitarianism can too easily become perverted to just being self-serving.

ebg13 6y ago

Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.

progman32 6y ago
Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.
- ebg13 6y ago
  Op specifically used the word "unimpressive", not "unimportant".
vasco 6y ago
He did not start with everything.
- ebg13 6y ago
  That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    In what way does he still have everything? It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income in my state. That’s a long walk from everything in my book.
    - ebg13 6y ago
      > It looks like he’s got enough to sustainably generate about a median household income Oh come on. He's 89 years old and has millions of dollars still. How long do you expect him to live? "Sustainably generating" a median household income in perpetuity is an interesting bar to set. You're aware that most of the country doesn't have any savings at all, yeah? That the current median _at_retirement_age_ savings for the US is around 150K? That he's still getting an actual income from social security payments because why not?
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        My challenge was to your hyperbolic claim that he "still has everything" and an insinuation that that makes giving away $8 billion (with a B) over his lifetime not as impressive because he didn't give away the last 0.025% of his wealth. That he's getting payments from Social Security after a lifetime of contributions to Social Security is also of no concern to me (I view it as the overwhelming default and entirely proper).

teruakohatu 6y ago

Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away. It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million. In other words, I don't think anyone claims that $100 will help more than $100 million, but there is no great personal moral achievement in giving away something you don't need and can't use.

andrepd 6y ago
Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?
- whiddershins 6y ago
  One could argue that there is probably some correlation between great wealth and good judgement about the effective use of money. In that regard, perhaps it’s good to have social intervention performed by a mixture of democratic and individualistic entities. Perhaps one will address things that the other might miss.
- gringoDan 6y ago
  You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or (b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down. Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US Government is a more effective way to generate positive impact in the world than personal charitable donations. If I could pay my taxes to Bill Gates I would – my tax dollars would be used to eradicate polio or malaria, rather than on bureaucracy and starting wars.

SeanLuke 6y ago

> This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. I don't think it's what matters necessarily, but I do think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere. That's a problem, because if we're going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of money. Now Feeney certainly has had more of an impact, and that's great, but he had that impact because he was fortunate enough to have billions of dollars to give away in the first place. Being lucky is not a valid reason to be praised, I think. Indeed I don't think Feeney wants to be praised: he just wants to be rid of his wealth in a meaningful way.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?
- ebg13 6y ago
  > Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it? We have to assume that in the given scenario the other person needed it more and nobody else was stepping up. > Why praise sacrifice at all? You don't even have to praise the concept of sacrificing in general to praise caring enough to help those less fortunate even when helping has a cost. The alternative is for nobody to help except those for whom money no longer has any meaning, ie billionaires, and I don't see Jeff Bezos building homes for the homeless. > Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it. Maximizing positive impact should be the goal. The first sentence is false. Donation is zero-sum in absolute dollar terms, no money is gained or lost, but money _does_ have diminishing utility to the individual, so the raised person can gain more than the lowered person loses. So a person can sacrifice AND maximize positive impact. For what it's worth, I think the right approach is to eat the billionaires instead of waiting for the person with $25 to sacrifice even further for the person with $5. Clearly eating all of the billionaires would maximize positive impact.

biztos 6y ago

I am very happy he donated all that money, and I greatly respect him for doing it without calling too much attention to himself, especially compared to others. But it says a whole lot about Forbes that having at least $2M -- and I'm betting maybe a small apartment and a modest car and possibly even health insurance -- counts as "officially broke" in America.

nnt38 6y ago
Well he lost 98%+ of his wealth, that could be considered as going broke in relative terms.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

It's also a Muslim way of looking at charity: https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 But Muslims also have a standard flat rate of charity which is mandatory from every person, so they cover both bases there.

Robotbeat 6y ago

Not just Christian, but other religions and philosophy as well. Utilitarianism isn't necessarily the default and is easy to subvert for selfishness. "See, really, me getting as rich as possible is justified because someday I'll be able to use this to solve some abstract problem I've decided is the REAL issue that needs to be solved..." As long as you convince yourself that the returns to compound interest are higher than the returns to charity at any one point, it's easy to justify just pushing off your donation time to sometime arbitrarily far in the future, and high luxuries can be justified as "self-care" that enhance your own productivity or whatever. Utilitarianism can too easily become perverted to just being self-serving.