4 ms·
Probably not for useful definitions of "generous," which should take into account the actual utility (in money or time), given away. Someone who donates half o
by elliptic 14y ago
Probably not for useful definitions of "generous," which should take into account the actual utility (in money or time), given away. Someone who donates half of their life savings of 50k is (I would say, at least) more generous than someone who donates 90% of 1 billion.
- ryguytilidie 14y agoI would not define someone who gave 25k as more generous than someone who gave 900million, no.
- jlgreco 14y agoWould you define someone who gave away until they only had 100million remaining as more or less generous than someone who gave away until they only had 25k remaining? How about if the person with 50k gave away 25k, but the billionaire gave away double that? Who is more generousness in that case? It seems fairly plain to me that utility of what was given away is by far the most important factor in determining generosity.
- ryguytilidie 14y agoI see your point, but I simply disagree. The utility to the person is much different, but after that, money is money and 900m provides much more utility to starving kids, etc than 25k does, no matter how you slice it.
- a3voices 14y agoI would say the person with 50k is making a larger personal sacrifice, but is not being "more generous" objectively.