3 ms·

I think the single most important aspect of Chuck Feeney's philanthropy was that it was done quietly, often in secret. He had already secretely given away much

I think the single most important aspect of Chuck Feeney's philanthropy was that it was done quietly, often in secret. He had already secretely given away much of his money before he was outed. If I'm funding the Sean Luke Home for Distressed Kids, or publically giving $100M to, I dunno, the Red Cross, it's not really charity. It's buying a name for myself. The highest charity is giving where there is no quid pro quo at all. This means in secret. (Yes, I know, a public gift by the Bill Gates Foundation might have a chance at attracting other charity, so public charity could in some situations be positive. But it's still a lesser gift compared to Feeney). Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear. Feeney gave away all of his money, as if it were a burden and his duty was to relieve himself of it. [Edit: I should have worded this better. I'm not a Mother Teresa style morality = pain person. But the value of money is highly nonlinear. I think that to be considered real charity, the amount of giving must be considered (nonlinearly) in context of the wealth of the individual. $50 is amazing from someone who is poor. $100M is practically nothing from someone who is superrich, and they should not be lionized for their trivial contribution by Objectivists.] Were I as impressive a man as this. I am not. But I aspire to be. Edit: this statement is terrible: > In 2011, Feeney signed the “Giving Pledge,” a commitment started by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett that encourages America’s wealthiest families and individuals to dedicate their wealth to philanthropic endeavors. This obfuscates the fact that Gates's Giving Pledge was inspired by what Feeney had done. Feeney didn't agree to live to Gates's principles, but the other way around.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
You really can't "secretly" give away 100m dollars. You just hope they don't dig deep enough and try to uncover you. But 100m gives a lot of attention to muck rackers. >Charity should also hurt. I'm not sure I agree. "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need." I don't see the philiophical argument for significant sacrifice to be required. Charity isn't altruism. And if we're being pragmatic, 0.1% of a billionaire's riches means a lot more than half the riches of 1000 minimum wage workers. Even if the latter is much more altruistic. Most religions that ask for tithes and offerings work in a similar vein. Tithe literally means "tenth" after all (as in,10% your wealth).
- SeanLuke 3y ago
  Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. 10% of one's earnings is extremely difficult if you make $20K a year, while if you make 10 million a year, 10% is barely noticeable.
  - eadmund 3y ago
    > Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. No, it’s not: regressive would be if the poor had to pay a larger percentage than the rich. They don’t. Progressive indicates that the rich must pay a larger percentage than the poor. Meanwhile, a flat fee would be the same number for everyone. I get what you’re trying to say: folks’ utility functions may be different, and a rich man may possibly miss his 10% less than the poor man. But ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ have specific meanings in this context.
  - tcbawo 3y ago
    I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. It might increase hardship in a poor person, or increase inconvenience in a richer person. There is no “right” amount. The fact that people are willing and able to give any significant amount of their wealth to improve the world is cause for celebration.
    - SeanLuke 3y ago
      > I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference between your baby having healthcare or not. 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. The value of money is nonlinear. And furthermore most religions (in the US) position the percentages as pretax, so wealthy people actually pay rather less in percentage tithing than poor people do. If religions wanted people to donate to the degree they were capable, the percentage function would be exponential. If you make $20K you donate $200. If you make $1 billion you donate $950 million.
      - eadmund 3y ago
randallsquared 3y ago
> Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear. Your idea of charity appears to be about ensuring the charitable suffer, rather than about relieving suffering for recipients. That seems like exactly the opposite view than that which would make everyone better off: it discourages charitable giving, rather than encouraging it. Is that your aim?
- glimshe 3y ago
  "Suffering" charity is also often unsustainable, hurting the people who depend on the charity in the long run. It can even be a mental disease; some people get a dopamine boost by giving money to others at the expense of their basic welfare. Not saying it is the case here, I'm just supporting your argument.
- SeanLuke 3y ago
  No, I don't subscribe Mother Teresa's unfortunate philosophy. I'm pointing out that Objectivists going "Oooh Bill Gates gave away $100M, what a wonderful guy" should be smacked good and hard with a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Giving $100M was trivial for him to do.
  - lusus_naturae 3y ago
    > Giving $100M was trivial for him to do. So? Expecting altruism to the point of self-sacrifice is narcissistic and selfish. I can appreciate however why humans have evolved to foster altruistic attitudes. The problem is that people with less affable personality types often manipulate, abuse or control such altruism, which is dangerous, counterproductive and inhumane.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

You really can't "secretly" give away 100m dollars. You just hope they don't dig deep enough and try to uncover you. But 100m gives a lot of attention to muck rackers. >Charity should also hurt. I'm not sure I agree. "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need." I don't see the philiophical argument for significant sacrifice to be required. Charity isn't altruism. And if we're being pragmatic, 0.1% of a billionaire's riches means a lot more than half the riches of 1000 minimum wage workers. Even if the latter is much more altruistic. Most religions that ask for tithes and offerings work in a similar vein. Tithe literally means "tenth" after all (as in,10% your wealth).

SeanLuke 3y ago
Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. 10% of one's earnings is extremely difficult if you make $20K a year, while if you make 10 million a year, 10% is barely noticeable.
- eadmund 3y ago
  > Tithing is horribly, gruesomely regressive. No, it’s not: regressive would be if the poor had to pay a larger percentage than the rich. They don’t. Progressive indicates that the rich must pay a larger percentage than the poor. Meanwhile, a flat fee would be the same number for everyone. I get what you’re trying to say: folks’ utility functions may be different, and a rich man may possibly miss his 10% less than the poor man. But ‘regressive’ and ‘progressive’ have specific meanings in this context.
- tcbawo 3y ago
  I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. It might increase hardship in a poor person, or increase inconvenience in a richer person. There is no “right” amount. The fact that people are willing and able to give any significant amount of their wealth to improve the world is cause for celebration.
  - SeanLuke 3y ago
    > I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference between your baby having healthcare or not. 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. The value of money is nonlinear. And furthermore most religions (in the US) position the percentages as pretax, so wealthy people actually pay rather less in percentage tithing than poor people do. If religions wanted people to donate to the degree they were capable, the percentage function would be exponential. If you make $20K you donate $200. If you make $1 billion you donate $950 million.
    - eadmund 3y ago

randallsquared 3y ago

> Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear. Your idea of charity appears to be about ensuring the charitable suffer, rather than about relieving suffering for recipients. That seems like exactly the opposite view than that which would make everyone better off: it discourages charitable giving, rather than encouraging it. Is that your aim?

glimshe 3y ago
"Suffering" charity is also often unsustainable, hurting the people who depend on the charity in the long run. It can even be a mental disease; some people get a dopamine boost by giving money to others at the expense of their basic welfare. Not saying it is the case here, I'm just supporting your argument.
SeanLuke 3y ago
No, I don't subscribe Mother Teresa's unfortunate philosophy. I'm pointing out that Objectivists going "Oooh Bill Gates gave away $100M, what a wonderful guy" should be smacked good and hard with a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Giving $100M was trivial for him to do.
- lusus_naturae 3y ago
  > Giving $100M was trivial for him to do. So? Expecting altruism to the point of self-sacrifice is narcissistic and selfish. I can appreciate however why humans have evolved to foster altruistic attitudes. The problem is that people with less affable personality types often manipulate, abuse or control such altruism, which is dangerous, counterproductive and inhumane.