3 ms·
> Either way: when your logic has established that you can obtain moral superiority by literally buying indulgences, it has officially proven too much, and if y
by naasking 4y ago
> Either way: when your logic has established that you can obtain moral superiority by literally buying indulgences, it has officially proven too much, and if you can't recognize that, something has gone terribly wrong in your thinking
Buying indulgences was wrong because it was used to cover up moral wrongdoing or reduce ones penance for wrongdoing, not because the concept of money buying moral praise is intrinsically false or corrupt. It seems pretty clear from Scott's example that this is not the scenario he was describing.
Phrased differently, all else being equal, a person that contributed billions to charities deserves more moral praise than one who didn't or can't. Edit: and if you don't think so, then why do we give such people awards and recognition?
This won't be convincing to everyone of course, and I expect the dividing line will be whether you think utilitarianism is the correct way to approach ethics. Of course if you don't, then you won't subscribe to EA anyway.
- CobaltFire 4y agoSomeone who has made millions or billions is, on average, doing this by making life worse for many people than if they were not in the loop taking profits. There are exceptions (Notch, etc.) where they took profits that were freely given rather than those that were skimmed off the top. So you are literally saying that by taking a portion of that money and donating it they are morally superior to the poor they took it from (compared to those individuals we are almost ALL poor). This is circular logic to support profit taking beyond what is reasonable.
- naasking 4y ago> Someone who has made millions or billions is, on average, doing this by making life worse for many people than if they were not in the loop taking profits. See the part where I said "all else being equal".