Two competing views of reality:
1) The morality of possessing great wealth depends entirely upon how it is used. It is not immoral for Bill Gates to have a personal fortune of billions, so long as he creates charitable foundations, etc.
2) Wealth is a pie that can only be divided so many ways, therefore to possess great wealth necessarily entails the poverty (and exploitation) of another. Therefore, possessing great wealth is wrong per se.
I would love for all readers to have a look at the rationale given by Toby Ord, when he decided to give up most of his academic’s salary and live on the income of a student, for the rest of his life. Look at it here:
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/member-profiles.php
and tell me what you think. Whether you agree or disagree, please justify your response. If you agree, do you think everyone should feel obliged to do the same?
Tags: Giving What We Can, inequality, Money, Toby Ord, wealth redistribution
December 20, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
[...] previously posted on Toby Ord’s Giving What We Can foundation. They believe that everyone is morally [...]
June 24, 2010 at 9:13 am |
Toby is a noble man. With more like him in the world it could only be a better place.
The world and nature is a limited resource, as is the population that taps into and releases that wealth. For one to have excessive amounts beyond others, others must go without. Someone (or many) has to work like a slave for every idle millionaire. Someone has to produce all that they consume and do the endless hours of labour that they could not possibly do in their own lifetime so they can have all they have without putting in several lifetimes of effort to produce it. This is all part in parcel of today’s economic slavery and is an insidious evil dressed up by charlatans and snake oil salesmen as virtuous. The bankers are treated as holy men because they handle the most holy of things – money, the new god. Hence the assumption of greater holiness and being a better person the more you consume beyond your needs and the more you accumulate.
June 22, 2010 at 6:53 am |
Toby is to be applauded for his efforts. It makes him feel good and it does good to those on the receiving end of his donations.
We can’t all be expected to follow his example because we’re all at different places in our lives. I was always brought up to believe that it was important to remember others less fortunate and I have tried to do that. I have a charity account, and I am actively involved with a few projects and I make sure that a good proportion of what we do at work benefits charity but that’s because that suits me and because I can.
I also have a good lifestyle with a nice house in a nice neighbourhood and my children go to nice schools. Should I feel guilty about that because people like Toby have given it all up??
June 22, 2010 at 12:49 pm |
I don’t know, but I do know that well-off people usually do feel guilty all the time anyway; it’s a question our society never quite confronts, isn’t it?
Out of the two views I described, which do you think is true? Of course, you needn’t be confined by these two paradigms, but I think everyone has to at least address them. I think they’re in the back of your mind anyway. When people resent bankers having big bonuses, it’s not just because they messed up; it’s because of the implication that if bankers are super-wealthy it leaves less for everyone else and we are less indulgent of this during hard times. The instinctual moral feeling during hard times is that we should be fairer.
I think that in a just society people would find it morally unacceptable to have more wealth than the average person because we would sincerely wish for everyone on the planet to have enough. But in a just society things would be simpler; there are other causes of inequality besides rich individuals not sharing, I suppose. What I mean is, you would have to fix other things simultaneously with the financial inequality.
I know someone who used to give away money to folk in need all the time; they would usually piss it away. Now he only gives to children’s charities.
June 22, 2010 at 12:51 am |
Oh, if only we were all as pious as Toby! Yeah, right. I should preface this by saying I do respect what he is doing and I am sure he is helping many people; his efforts should be applauded.
The question arises, what benefit does he receive from this? Is it pure altruism? He finds his smiling face on a website for do-gooders, for hundreds or perhaps thousands of readers to appreciate. I’m sure that wasn’t his goal but surely it makes one more enthusiastic about the work they are doing. I am guessing I would not have all I needed to live a life of my choosing on a student stipend (to clarify, I am not sure how much that is — we don’t have that here).
Is whatever amount Ord donates helping as much as funds from Gates? I’m not sure the answer myself and the answer is probably a subjective one depending on your point of view. Still, it deserves some considering.
Wealth is an important factor when determining happiness, on both a personal and national scale: http://www.gallup.com/poll/104608/Worldwide-Residents-Richer-Nations-More-Satisfied.aspx
“..the sense of engagement in the project of making the world a better place is worth far more to me than some new gadgets or a slightly larger house.” Maybe Ord should take fewer swipes at people who don’t commit to his lifestyle — his solution to the largest issues facing the world (poverty, wars, disease) is a bandage approach. His efforts are not directed at closing any gaps between rich and poor — only temporary relief.
Our goal should to make everyone RICH not keep everyone POOR.
June 22, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
So you basically disbelieve in altruism? You think it’s only ever for egotistical satisfaction? Or not always, only sometimes? So then, what makes you so sure this applies to Ord?
How would you make everyone rich?