4 ms·

His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. I believe "d

by edw519 13y ago

His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time. If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good. You do good by the way you treat other people and in the hard work and good deeds that you do. And it can be just about anything. You don't have to do charity work or walkathons or open source or make giant donations for all to see in order to do good. If your work provides value to someone else, then you're doing good. It's up to you to decide how good your doing good is. And the best time to start doing good is now. Every little bit matters.

codegeek 13y ago
Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to someone who makes $50K.
- grimtrigger 13y ago
  The article could have been titled "Get Rich, Save the World" since it really has nothing to do with Wall Street. Which, when you look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is pretty hard to disagree with. Unfortunately, I think most people in this thread are unwilling to pass up an opportunity to bash Wall Street. Which is a shame, because they are rallying against a viable form of altruism.
- ca98am79 13y ago
  I disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.
  - wbl 13y ago
    To the extent Gandhi was responsible for the poor economic performance of post-independence India, as well as the Partition, he is responsible for millions of deaths.
    - kamakazizuru 13y ago
      thats a very broad statement..based on...nothing?
  - glomph 13y ago
    Mother Teresa is an extremely controversial figure to choose for 'magnitude more good'.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
davorak 13y ago
> If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good. Some times this choice is obvious, under feeding myself to feed other would probably reduce the amount of long term good I could do for the world. Saving my money now so that I can be in a good finical position to take advantage of economic opportunities is not as obvious, but can lead to considerably more good being done.
awwstn 13y ago
>if you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good. I don't really understand this criticism of him. He isn't trying to save up millions of dollars before doing good, he's working for money and giving it away as fast as it comes in. Sure, making more money isn't the only way to do more good, but if he has chosen charities that use money to do good then his logic can't be refuted: "The more he makes, the more good he can do."
chollida1 13y ago
> His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. >It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. >I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time. I think you've really missed the mark on this... The two view points can easily reconcile. You can make more and donate more while still always doing good. There is nothing wrong with doing both and I'm sure the people mentioned in the article are. I'm not sure what you have against his idea that the more he makes the more good he can do.
astrofinch 13y ago
I agree with everything you've said, but given that Against Malaria Foundation can save a life for $2,500, does treating your co-workers well and writing quality code really compare?
barry-cotter 13y ago
Doing good is indeed something that can be done all the time but he's not optimising for doing a little good all the time but for doing as much good as he can. Every litle bit may matter but ten lives saved is ten times better than one.

by edw519 13y ago

codegeek 13y ago

Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to someone who makes $50K.

grimtrigger 13y ago
The article could have been titled "Get Rich, Save the World" since it really has nothing to do with Wall Street. Which, when you look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, is pretty hard to disagree with. Unfortunately, I think most people in this thread are unwilling to pass up an opportunity to bash Wall Street. Which is a shame, because they are rallying against a viable form of altruism.
ca98am79 13y ago
I disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.
- wbl 13y ago
  To the extent Gandhi was responsible for the poor economic performance of post-independence India, as well as the Partition, he is responsible for millions of deaths.
  - kamakazizuru 13y ago
    thats a very broad statement..based on...nothing?
- glomph 13y ago
  Mother Teresa is an extremely controversial figure to choose for 'magnitude more good'.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

davorak 13y ago

> If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good. Some times this choice is obvious, under feeding myself to feed other would probably reduce the amount of long term good I could do for the world. Saving my money now so that I can be in a good finical position to take advantage of economic opportunities is not as obvious, but can lead to considerably more good being done.

awwstn 13y ago

>if you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get done while you're on your journey to being able to do good. I don't really understand this criticism of him. He isn't trying to save up millions of dollars before doing good, he's working for money and giving it away as fast as it comes in. Sure, making more money isn't the only way to do more good, but if he has chosen charities that use money to do good then his logic can't be refuted: "The more he makes, the more good he can do."

chollida1 13y ago

> His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. >It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. >I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time. I think you've really missed the mark on this... The two view points can easily reconcile. You can make more and donate more while still always doing good. There is nothing wrong with doing both and I'm sure the people mentioned in the article are. I'm not sure what you have against his idea that the more he makes the more good he can do.

astrofinch 13y ago

I agree with everything you've said, but given that Against Malaria Foundation can save a life for $2,500, does treating your co-workers well and writing quality code really compare?

barry-cotter 13y ago

Doing good is indeed something that can be done all the time but he's not optimising for doing a little good all the time but for doing as much good as he can. Every litle bit may matter but ten lives saved is ten times better than one.