5 ms·

You know how Steve Jobs said, "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life"? Well, I agree, and I take that idea very seriously. People

You know how Steve Jobs said, "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life"? Well, I agree, and I take that idea very seriously. People should keep their money (earned by trading time from their lives), and use it to make the most of their own lives. Moral credit ought to go to those who create the most, not to those that give up everything. Contrary to what your mother will tell you, giving money to charity does not make you a better person. But creating things and otherwise making the most of your life (you only have one), does. If you want to give money to charity, make sure you're doing it for the right reason (i.e., because you know that the specific cause you're supporting will make your own life better), and that you have enough money so that you're not sacrificing your primary values (your own goals, family, friends, for example) by doing so. Don't give up the one life you have, or any part of it - it's yours, and it's all you've got.

rgbrenner 13y ago
The quote you started off with directly contradicts the rest of your post. You say people should live the life they want to, then you tell people how they should live their lives. If someone wants to donate money to charity, they should donate money to charity. That's the life they want to live.
Afforess 13y ago
Not everyone subscribes to such a dark, cynical view of the world. I realize that there are thousands of invisible advantages I have over an identical me born in Africa. Giving to charity is a small way of shrinking the gap.
- maxharris 13y ago
  There is nothing dark or cynical in what I have said. What is dark about "live the best life you can live" and "make the most of what you've got"? Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort.
  - festivusr 13y ago
    Sticking Fact: in front of something doesn't make it true. Living your best life, and achieving your own goals, doesn't mean ignoring everyone else in the world's well-being (for most values of "your own goals" and "your best life").
  - Afforess 13y ago
    Anyone who believes that charity and giving are not morally good actions clearly has a warped and extremely cynical worldview.
    - maxharris 13y ago
      Straw man. Charity and giving are morally neutral actions. On its own, charity doesn't improve your life. Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. A morality (that's good for life) should not tell you to suffer, give up what you care about and die.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. This statement itself is a controversial moral position, rather than a universally-accepted statement of the purpose of morality.
        maxharris 13y ago
        It depends. In America, most people agree with my statement. Elsewhere, sometimes, but not necessarily. But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. The choice each of us has when reading anything is: "well, what do I think about this?" And for that, the number of people that agree or disagree is irrelevant.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > It depends No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. It doesn't depend. > In America, most people agree with my statement. Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, I see no evidence that this is true. > But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference). The problem with your claim about the purpose of morality is that it presented a value claim as if it were a true statement of fact.
comatose_kid 13y ago
I read SJ's quote as about being intentional in the things you choose to do and to not let other people's expectations guide your life choices. This is orthogonal to whether or not a person chooses to donate money/time to others. I think yours is a pretty selfish viewpoint. I wonder how world war II soldiers would feel about what you say.
kvb 13y ago
Why ought moral credit go to those who make the most, regardless of the opportunities that they're given? Americans and Western Europeans, on average, start from an advantageous position compared to those in poor regions. As a side note, it seems quite plausible to me that redistribution from the "lucky" to the "unlucky" will result in a growing pie for all, though perhaps it won't grow to the extent that the very lucky are better off than if the redistribution didn't happen. By all means be a miser if that makes you feel better, but don't cloak your actions in "morality".
- maxharris 13y ago
  Why ought moral credit go to those who make the most, regardless of the opportunities that they're given? Opportunities are not "given". I don't go to work thinking, "just look at all the opportunity I'm creating for other people by contributing to industrial civilization." Rawls is wrong. The idea that "you didn't earn your brain, your family, your upbringing, etc." is completely in error because the concept "earn" only applies to situations where choice is involved. In reality, "earn" distinguishes the hardworking doctor or construction worker from a 30-year old man that won't get a job and still lives with his parents. I say that if you make the most of what you've got, it doesn't matter if you started out with $5 or $5e7. What matters is that you make the most of the opportunities that are out there. What matters is how much you improve your lot. I say that the purpose of morality is to have a happy life, here on earth. It sounds like you are against "enjoy yourself and live." Edit: Here I give the answer to most of the people that are downvoting me. Clicking the down arrow to shut out other viewpoints won't help anyone get to the truth on the matter.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kvb 13y ago
    We should, of course, incentivize people to work hard, and I'm certainly not against enjoying life! I'm also not suggesting that people take vows of poverty, or try to move society towards a Harrison Bergeron-esque dystopia. Like I said, keep every last cent of your money if it means so much to you! However, success in today's world is not driven solely by "creating value" for a variety of reasons. Don't succumb to the "just world" fallacy - it's easy to moralize about how the unsuccessful must be lazy, but applying a little bit of critical thinking should make it clear that a rural shepherd in a third world country isn't necessarily poor because he "chooses" not to work hard and become a surgeon. Indeed, well-targeted charity may increase the returns to hard work.
Mikeb85 13y ago
Many people derive great personal satisfaction from giving to others...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tcgv 13y ago
Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
arscan 13y ago
I just think you should spend money in a way that maximizes your own happiness. Studies indicate that spending money on others is one of the best ways to increase your own happiness. I don't have references handy, but check out the book "Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending." That is loaded with references to studies that support that claim.
betterunix 13y ago
"People should keep their money (earned by trading time from their lives)" What about people born into wealth, who inherited the money their parents or grandparents earned by doing something useful for society? Where do they fit into your picture? On the flip side, what about people who cannot find any job that pays enough for them to save money, who are literally living paycheck to paycheck. Do you want to live in a society where we have a class of people who have no social mobility at all, and who lack the power needed to change anything about that? Ayn Rand's image of the heroic capitalist who amasses a fortune by solving society's problems is very unrealistic. Even people like Mike Bloomberg and Bill Gates, billionaires whose fortunes were amassed as a result of their own work, received help early on. Who do you think paid for Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg to go to Harvard, where they met the people that worked with them to build their businesses?
- finnw 13y ago
  > What about people born into wealth, who inherited the money their parents or grandparents earned by doing something useful for society? There isn't really any difference. The parents kept the money they earned, and (quite rationally) chose to spend it on giving the children an economic advantage (that the children, more often than not, could not have earned for themselves.) To tax the children is to tax the parents.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "The parents kept the money they earned, and (quite rationally) chose to spend it on giving the children an economic advantage (that the children, more often than not, could not have earned for themselves.)" So the children, who could not have earned that money themselves, should get it anyway? Why are they particularly special -- why not redistribute money to other people who have trouble earning their way? Why does the fact that you are someone's descendant someone exempt you from having to earn your way just like everyone else?
    - finnw 13y ago
      That depends whether you agree with the parents having the choice of how the money they earned is used. My point is that if we take the money from the children on the grounds that they do not deserve it, we implicitly deny the parents that choice. Which may be what you want. But if you do give them the choice of how to spend what they earn, you must accept that they may choose to spend it on people (or charities, or products etc.) that you consider undeserving.
Sven7 13y ago
I suggest you spend an hour at your local cancer hospital or orphanage, cause I have personally seen, stronger views than this, melt away in minutes. Helping others is deeply ingrained in our nature. But ofcourse, there are Kobe Bryant's out there being brought up by eskimos, who have no concept of basketball.
dcalacci 13y ago
a solipsist's life is far from an ethical one. you mention creating, but nowhere do you mention who one should create for. the ethical reason for creating a product is to better others lives, not your own. you also suggest that bettering others' lives does not better your own: >i.e., because you know that the specific cause you're supporting will make your own life better this ignores the joy that most people experience when they genuinely help others, the sense of community people feel when they come together as a group for a cause, and the feeling of hope that your community service or charity may impart on those who are less fortunate than you can likely imagine. assisting a charity is not 'giving up' your life for most. It's enriching it. As an aside, your comment detracts from the value of charity to begin with, when the article is about whether or not a specific _form_ of charity is more beneficial than others. I think your comment adds little to the discussion and ignores the content of the article entirely.
danielweber 13y ago
He has decided that this is how he will make the most of his own life.
glomph 13y ago
What makes your life worth more than other peoples?

rgbrenner 13y ago

The quote you started off with directly contradicts the rest of your post. You say people should live the life they want to, then you tell people how they should live their lives. If someone wants to donate money to charity, they should donate money to charity. That's the life they want to live.

Afforess 13y ago

Not everyone subscribes to such a dark, cynical view of the world. I realize that there are thousands of invisible advantages I have over an identical me born in Africa. Giving to charity is a small way of shrinking the gap.

maxharris 13y ago
There is nothing dark or cynical in what I have said. What is dark about "live the best life you can live" and "make the most of what you've got"? Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort.
- festivusr 13y ago
  Sticking Fact: in front of something doesn't make it true. Living your best life, and achieving your own goals, doesn't mean ignoring everyone else in the world's well-being (for most values of "your own goals" and "your best life").
- Afforess 13y ago
  Anyone who believes that charity and giving are not morally good actions clearly has a warped and extremely cynical worldview.
  - maxharris 13y ago
    Straw man. Charity and giving are morally neutral actions. On its own, charity doesn't improve your life. Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. A morality (that's good for life) should not tell you to suffer, give up what you care about and die.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. This statement itself is a controversial moral position, rather than a universally-accepted statement of the purpose of morality.
      - maxharris 13y ago
        It depends. In America, most people agree with my statement. Elsewhere, sometimes, but not necessarily. But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. The choice each of us has when reading anything is: "well, what do I think about this?" And for that, the number of people that agree or disagree is irrelevant.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > It depends No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. It doesn't depend. > In America, most people agree with my statement. Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, I see no evidence that this is true. > But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference). The problem with your claim about the purpose of morality is that it presented a value claim as if it were a true statement of fact.

comatose_kid 13y ago

I read SJ's quote as about being intentional in the things you choose to do and to not let other people's expectations guide your life choices. This is orthogonal to whether or not a person chooses to donate money/time to others. I think yours is a pretty selfish viewpoint. I wonder how world war II soldiers would feel about what you say.

kvb 13y ago

Why ought moral credit go to those who make the most, regardless of the opportunities that they're given? Americans and Western Europeans, on average, start from an advantageous position compared to those in poor regions. As a side note, it seems quite plausible to me that redistribution from the "lucky" to the "unlucky" will result in a growing pie for all, though perhaps it won't grow to the extent that the very lucky are better off than if the redistribution didn't happen. By all means be a miser if that makes you feel better, but don't cloak your actions in "morality".

maxharris 13y ago
Why ought moral credit go to those who make the most, regardless of the opportunities that they're given? Opportunities are not "given". I don't go to work thinking, "just look at all the opportunity I'm creating for other people by contributing to industrial civilization." Rawls is wrong. The idea that "you didn't earn your brain, your family, your upbringing, etc." is completely in error because the concept "earn" only applies to situations where choice is involved. In reality, "earn" distinguishes the hardworking doctor or construction worker from a 30-year old man that won't get a job and still lives with his parents. I say that if you make the most of what you've got, it doesn't matter if you started out with $5 or $5e7. What matters is that you make the most of the opportunities that are out there. What matters is how much you improve your lot. I say that the purpose of morality is to have a happy life, here on earth. It sounds like you are against "enjoy yourself and live." Edit: Here I give the answer to most of the people that are downvoting me. Clicking the down arrow to shut out other viewpoints won't help anyone get to the truth on the matter.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kvb 13y ago
  We should, of course, incentivize people to work hard, and I'm certainly not against enjoying life! I'm also not suggesting that people take vows of poverty, or try to move society towards a Harrison Bergeron-esque dystopia. Like I said, keep every last cent of your money if it means so much to you! However, success in today's world is not driven solely by "creating value" for a variety of reasons. Don't succumb to the "just world" fallacy - it's easy to moralize about how the unsuccessful must be lazy, but applying a little bit of critical thinking should make it clear that a rural shepherd in a third world country isn't necessarily poor because he "chooses" not to work hard and become a surgeon. Indeed, well-targeted charity may increase the returns to hard work.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Many people derive great personal satisfaction from giving to others...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tcgv 13y ago

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

arscan 13y ago

I just think you should spend money in a way that maximizes your own happiness. Studies indicate that spending money on others is one of the best ways to increase your own happiness. I don't have references handy, but check out the book "Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending." That is loaded with references to studies that support that claim.

betterunix 13y ago

"People should keep their money (earned by trading time from their lives)" What about people born into wealth, who inherited the money their parents or grandparents earned by doing something useful for society? Where do they fit into your picture? On the flip side, what about people who cannot find any job that pays enough for them to save money, who are literally living paycheck to paycheck. Do you want to live in a society where we have a class of people who have no social mobility at all, and who lack the power needed to change anything about that? Ayn Rand's image of the heroic capitalist who amasses a fortune by solving society's problems is very unrealistic. Even people like Mike Bloomberg and Bill Gates, billionaires whose fortunes were amassed as a result of their own work, received help early on. Who do you think paid for Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg to go to Harvard, where they met the people that worked with them to build their businesses?

finnw 13y ago
> What about people born into wealth, who inherited the money their parents or grandparents earned by doing something useful for society? There isn't really any difference. The parents kept the money they earned, and (quite rationally) chose to spend it on giving the children an economic advantage (that the children, more often than not, could not have earned for themselves.) To tax the children is to tax the parents.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "The parents kept the money they earned, and (quite rationally) chose to spend it on giving the children an economic advantage (that the children, more often than not, could not have earned for themselves.)" So the children, who could not have earned that money themselves, should get it anyway? Why are they particularly special -- why not redistribute money to other people who have trouble earning their way? Why does the fact that you are someone's descendant someone exempt you from having to earn your way just like everyone else?
  - finnw 13y ago
    That depends whether you agree with the parents having the choice of how the money they earned is used. My point is that if we take the money from the children on the grounds that they do not deserve it, we implicitly deny the parents that choice. Which may be what you want. But if you do give them the choice of how to spend what they earn, you must accept that they may choose to spend it on people (or charities, or products etc.) that you consider undeserving.

Sven7 13y ago

I suggest you spend an hour at your local cancer hospital or orphanage, cause I have personally seen, stronger views than this, melt away in minutes. Helping others is deeply ingrained in our nature. But ofcourse, there are Kobe Bryant's out there being brought up by eskimos, who have no concept of basketball.

dcalacci 13y ago

a solipsist's life is far from an ethical one. you mention creating, but nowhere do you mention who one should create for. the ethical reason for creating a product is to better others lives, not your own. you also suggest that bettering others' lives does not better your own: >i.e., because you know that the specific cause you're supporting will make your own life better this ignores the joy that most people experience when they genuinely help others, the sense of community people feel when they come together as a group for a cause, and the feeling of hope that your community service or charity may impart on those who are less fortunate than you can likely imagine. assisting a charity is not 'giving up' your life for most. It's enriching it. As an aside, your comment detracts from the value of charity to begin with, when the article is about whether or not a specific _form_ of charity is more beneficial than others. I think your comment adds little to the discussion and ignores the content of the article entirely.

danielweber 13y ago

He has decided that this is how he will make the most of his own life.

glomph 13y ago

What makes your life worth more than other peoples?