Damn, Erika must be hanging around the wrong spaces. Don’t get me wrong, the liberalist ones are full of idealistic drivel like that, it’s true, but any Marxist space will drill into you their famous quote:
The document is best remembered for its epigrammatic 11th and final thesis, “Philosophers so far have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it”, which is engraved on Marx’s tomb.
This thread is keyboard warriors complaining that a billionaire is taking action to save millions of people, from the comfort of their couches. One wise man even suggested poverty exists because countries spent all their money on Windows keys
Like I don’t like billionaires existing either, but this is objectively a good thing.
This thread is keyboard warriors complaining that a billionaire is taking action to save millions of people, from the comfort of their couches.
You say this as if Gates isn’t making their announcements in luxury. It’s an odd point, as if it would invalidate their objections somehow.
[Bill Gates announcing they will eventually donate money] is objectively a good thing.
It’s more complex when you look at the bigger picture surrounding philanthropy. (As a side note: moral concepts like “good” and “evil” can’t be objective in the first place; there wouldn’t be these arguments if it was)
Saving many innocent lives from preventable disease benefits those societies in need, I’m not disagreeing with that. I donate to fund malaria nets and vitamin supplements too, I think it’s a worthy cause, and more money does mean more help.
My objection is that this is philanthropy being used as buying good will. Bill Gates gained their money through exploiting the needy and continues to do so. We should not pretend that donating a minor chunk to charity makes this ok, can redeem Gates, or can make them a “good billionaire” (quoting others, not you). It’s better than nothing, yes! It’s also not enough to justify their actions.
Nor should we be satisfied with far-off statements, like “I’ll donate most of it to good causes when I’m dead”, or “I’ll donate most of it in 20 years”, and interpret them as selfless or noble actions - in fact, delaying some of these life-saving donations until 2045 is allowing large numbers of innocent people to die. Isn’t that clearly a bad thing?
Philanthropy is almost always reputation laundering, not some uncharacteristic Scrooge-like change of heart. It’s a simple trick and we shouldn’t enable it and defend Gates for it - we are obliged to re-iterate that Gates is still a greedy billionaire. Because Gates isn’t the first to play this transparent trick and won’t be the last.
Damn, Erika must be hanging around the wrong spaces. Don’t get me wrong, the liberalist ones are full of idealistic drivel like that, it’s true, but any Marxist space will drill into you their famous quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theses_on_Feuerbach
This thread is keyboard warriors complaining that a billionaire is taking action to save millions of people, from the comfort of their couches. One wise man even suggested poverty exists because countries spent all their money on Windows keys
Like I don’t like billionaires existing either, but this is objectively a good thing.
You say this as if Gates isn’t making their announcements in luxury. It’s an odd point, as if it would invalidate their objections somehow.
It’s more complex when you look at the bigger picture surrounding philanthropy. (As a side note: moral concepts like “good” and “evil” can’t be objective in the first place; there wouldn’t be these arguments if it was)
Saving many innocent lives from preventable disease benefits those societies in need, I’m not disagreeing with that. I donate to fund malaria nets and vitamin supplements too, I think it’s a worthy cause, and more money does mean more help.
My objection is that this is philanthropy being used as buying good will. Bill Gates gained their money through exploiting the needy and continues to do so. We should not pretend that donating a minor chunk to charity makes this ok, can redeem Gates, or can make them a “good billionaire” (quoting others, not you). It’s better than nothing, yes! It’s also not enough to justify their actions.
Nor should we be satisfied with far-off statements, like “I’ll donate most of it to good causes when I’m dead”, or “I’ll donate most of it in 20 years”, and interpret them as selfless or noble actions - in fact, delaying some of these life-saving donations until 2045 is allowing large numbers of innocent people to die. Isn’t that clearly a bad thing?
Philanthropy is almost always reputation laundering, not some uncharacteristic Scrooge-like change of heart. It’s a simple trick and we shouldn’t enable it and defend Gates for it - we are obliged to re-iterate that Gates is still a greedy billionaire. Because Gates isn’t the first to play this transparent trick and won’t be the last.