3 ms·
It's not noble to waste opportunity like that. If he doesn't like money, he should take the money then give it away. A lot of poor people would kill to have tha
by Aqueous 13y ago
It's not noble to waste opportunity like that. If he doesn't like money, he should take the money then give it away. A lot of poor people would kill to have that money to feed themselves and their families, or send their kid to school - if he feels so inclined he should take it and give it to them. If not, he's wasting a huge opportunity to either be very rich or very charitable out of some poorly thought-through righteousness.
- awakeasleep 13y agoSo you advocate doing things you find morally objectionable while telling yourself that it is the right thing to do because you can give the money away afterwards? That sounds insane to me.
- Aqueous 13y agoI think it's morally objectionable to waste a rare opportunity when one could just as easily channel that opportunity towards the benefits of others.
- Varcht 13y agoThis really does not compute for me, so it's bad to stop ruining people's lives if in ruining their lives you could help other people's lives? What if the people addicted and raging over Flappy Bird are the same ones that you think should be helped?
- derefr 13y agoYou're conflating two acts: he has produced a game, and being addicted to games ruins some people's lives. But if he withdraws his game, their lives don't suddenly get un-ruined. They just switch to some other game. Basically, you're suggesting that an equilibrium of (1 person-hour stolen by addiction : 1 person-hour of ad impressions given to charity) should be replaced with (1 person-hour stolen by addiction [just to some other game] : 0 person-hours of ad impressions given to charity). Note that there is no "0 person-hours stolen by addiction" option.
- Aqueous 13y agoI mean let's just think about it here. Is Flappy Bird really ruining people's lives? Flappy Bird? Really?
- 97s 13y agoYeah this is basically like drug dealers saying I give all the money to charity.
- derefr 13y agoActually yes: a casino run by a cult of effective altruists would probably do more for the world than most charities.
- scotty79 13y agoHe doesn't produce the money. He just takes money from people. Giving it away is not the same as not taking it in the first place.
- kordless 13y agoNo, it's not noble, but being noble isn't such a great thing either. It's being true to one's self and following the path you choose. Nothing more, nothing less.