Moralizing vs. Compassion

[MTL]

As I said earlier, we all share in the blame, pretty much from birth,
even despite our best efforts not to;
and the best ANY of us can really aim for
is to OFFSET the damage we do, with sincere endeavors to improve,
and make an effort to be responsible.

By no means do I hold up Bill Gates as perfect.
I'm merely pointing out that people bitterly moan about how people of his means can manage to enjoy their excessive luxury
whilst there are still children starving to death;
yet he does billions of dollars of philanthropic work that I, as a poor person, am simply not able to do,
despite the fact that I don't have it on my conscience that I enjoy great luxury while my fellow man suffers.

Well, Gawd bless Bill Gates! What would the world be without him to take money generated out of the savings accumulated from depriving children of food, shelter, and education, so that he could give a little back to them at his own convenience?

Maybe this world really doesn't need multi-billionaires to decide who should live and when. Maybe Gates isn't really the shining light which leads to a better world, but one who hijacks what is good in it for his own benefit, tweaking it here and there just like one of his operating systems.

On leading technological change, I have to hand it to the tech billionaires, it would never have happened without them. But the world isn't really better since the smartest office machine being used was the electric typewriter, it's only 1000x quicker and equally more tense.  Without the Bill Gateses of the world, hundreds of millions more people would not go cold or hungry, and millions more would have extra cash in their pockets, which they may donate to causes such as medical research which is pertinent to their family interests - and this is what democracy requires!

I'm rather amazed how this is focusing on Bill Gates.

I only chose him as an example of how money, in and of itself, is wrongly vilified for all the evil in this world.

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said about him.  At all.

My ultimate point was that simply being poor does not, in and of itself, make one morally better than the wealthy.

Yes, the wealthy, despite their vast contributions, may still enjoy luxuries while children perish, that is true.

Does Bill Gates profit by an industry that contributes to many social and environmental problems?  Sure.

But it is also true that to become wealthy, unless you inherit or win the money, is WORK.
It takes balls and brains and a lot of risk and hard work to accumulate that kind of wealth.

I am poor.

But I have, myself, in the past, run a small business for my family,
and it was backbreaking work.

The public are so prepared, especially nowadays, to scrutinize every move you make, as a businessperson,
sue you at the drop of a hat, shame you, and once bad things happen, even hold you responsible for not having had superhuman foresight into the future.  People take advantage of your goodwill and themselves don't care how well your business fares, or how your small profit margin suffers.  You have to swallow your pride and sometimes your beliefs, to cater to assholes and idiots, all the time...or your business can be subverted.

So when someone is self-made, and successful,
and is able to give something back,
I am mindful of how hard they had to work,
how smart and how tough they must be,
of the risks they took and the sacrifices they made.

I am also mindful that to invest, or profit, nowadays,
to any notable degree of success,
in a way that is COMPLETELY UNASSIALABLE and entirely without fault,
is very difficult, indeed.

Most products or services in some way could be criticized for being, at some level,
unethical, dirty, cruel, inhumane, wasteful, damaging...etc.

Despite all your best efforts as an informed, ethical businessperson,
somebody, somewhere, at some point in time,
will find fault with your business.

Of course I am also aware that some of the most successful businesspeople also got to where they are by being unscrupulous, ruthless and bloodthirsty, crushing others underfoot to get to the top, stealing ideas, breaking the law, and then shamelessly hiding their tracks.

But I am baffled as to at what point you guys got the idea
that because I acknowledge Bill Gates' philanthropic work,
that must mean I am his apologist or admirer.

It's beside the point.  I just cited him as an example.

I am simply acknowledging that money, in and of itself, is NOT the root of all evil as it is so often made out to be;

it is how that wealth was acquired, and (ab)used that wrongly results in that conclusion.

In the right hands, great wealth is still able to do more good than poverty can.

So, imagine, if you can:

a poor person, with brains and determination,
who comes up with the "perfect" business idea:

They are able to profit, and greatly,
with a perfect business idea....no one can rip off or copy or imitate it;
and it is without fault.....ethical, clean, humanitarian, etc.

Then, having somehow built up this mythical,
miraculously completely-blameless-yet-still-wildly-successful business
into a multi-billion-dollar empire,

....they keep absolutely nothing of its profits for themselves,
beyond the bare necessity for survival...

and although they pay all their employees very well,
and although the shareholders make money hand-over-fist,

every single employee and shareholder is equally devoted to recycling ALL of the profits
back into the betterment of the world,
keeping nothing for themselves above what is necessary to live a healthy life.

So even though it was YOUR brains and the enormous risks YOU took and the sacrifices YOU made
to make YOUR idea a huge success....

...you keep no significant rewards for yourself...you give EVERYTHING back,
because to do otherwise would be unethical.


Can you imagine anyone doing anything like that?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Well, Gawd bless Bill Gates! What would the world be without him to take money generated out of the savings accumulated from depriving children of food, shelter, and education, so that he could give a little back to them at his own convenience?

Maybe this world really doesn't need multi-billionaires to decide who should live and when. Maybe Gates isn't really the shining light which leads to a better world, but one who hijacks what is good in it for his own benefit, tweaking it here and there just like one of his operating systems.

On leading technological change, I have to hand it to the tech billionaires, it would never have happened without them. But the world isn't really better since the smartest office machine being used was the electric typewriter, it's only 1000x quicker and equally more tense.  Without the Bill Gateses of the world, hundreds of millions more people would not go cold or hungry, and millions more would have extra cash in their pockets, which they may donate to causes such as medical research which is pertinent to their family interests - and this is what democracy requires!

I'm rather amazed how this is focusing on Bill Gates.

I only chose him as an example of how money, in and of itself, is wrongly vilified for all the evil in this world.

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said about him.  At all.

My ultimate point was that simply being poor does not, in and of itself, make one morally better than the wealthy.

Yes, the wealthy, despite their vast contributions, may still enjoy luxuries while children perish, that is true.

Does Bill Gates profit by an industry that contributes to many social and environmental problems?  Sure.
But it is also true that to become wealthy, unless you inherit or win the money, is WORK.
It takes balls and brains and a lot of risk and hard work to accumulate that kind of wealth.

I am poor.

But I have, myself, in the past, run a small business for my family,
and it was backbreaking work.

The public are so prepared, especially nowadays, to scrutinize every move you make, as a businessperson,
sue you at the drop of a hat, shame you, and once bad things happen, even hold you responsible for not having had superhuman foresight into the future.  People take advantage of your goodwill and themselves don't care how well your business fares, or how your small profit margin suffers.  You have to swallow your pride and sometimes your beliefs, to cater to assholes and idiots, all the time...or your business can be subverted.

So when someone is self-made, and successful,
and is able to give something back,
I am mindful of how hard they had to work,
how smart and how tough they must be,
of the risks they took and the sacrifices they made.

I am also mindful that to invest, or profit, nowadays,
to any notable degree of success,
in a way that is COMPLETELY UNASSIALABLE and entirely without fault,
is very difficult, indeed.

Most products or services in some way could be criticized for being, at some level,
unethical, dirty, cruel, inhumane, wasteful, damaging...etc.

Despite all your best efforts as an informed, ethical businessperson,
somebody, somewhere, at some point in time,
will find fault with your business.

Of course I am also aware that some of the most successful businesspeople also got to where they are by being unscrupulous, ruthless and bloodthirsty, crushing others underfoot to get to the top, stealing ideas, breaking the law, and then shamelessly hiding their tracks.

But I am baffled as to at what point you guys got the idea
that because I acknowledge Bill Gates' philanthropic work,
that must mean I am his apologist or admirer.

It's beside the point.  I just cited him as an example.

I am simply acknowledging that money, in and of itself, is NOT the root of all evil as it is so often made out to be;

it is how that wealth was acquired, and (ab)used that wrongly results in that conclusion.

In the right hands, great wealth is still able to do more good than poverty can.

So, imagine, if you can:

a poor person, with brains and determination,
who comes up with the "perfect" business idea:

They are able to profit, and greatly,
with a perfect business idea....no one can rip off or copy or imitate it;
and it is without fault.....ethical, clean, humanitarian, etc.

Then, having somehow built up this mythical,
miraculously completely-blameless-yet-still-wildly-successful business
into a multi-billion-dollar empire,

....they keep absolutely nothing of its profits for themselves,
beyond the bare necessity for survival...

and although they pay all their employees very well,
and although the shareholders make money hand-over-fist,

every single employee and shareholder is equally devoted to recycling ALL of the profits
back into the betterment of the world,
keeping nothing for themselves above what is necessary to live a healthy life.

So even though it was YOUR brains and the enormous risks YOU took and the sacrifices YOU made
to make YOUR idea a huge success....

...you keep no significant rewards for yourself...you give EVERYTHING back,
because to do otherwise would be unethical.


Can you imagine anyone doing anything like that?

Bill Gates is just the name behind Microsoft to me, but what you said on the previous page of him may be mistaken to suggest some of the values (if they can be called that) of Ayn Rand's rather twisted socio-economic philosophy. You probably wouldn't like that if you happen to be poor.

Of course you are correct that being poor doesn't make anyone a better person, in fact it is more commonly the result of being a shitty and particularly ignorant person. It may also be from being too much of a nice, gullible doormat, and then it may be from an overwhelming accumulation of bad luck.

I don't want to say anything racially denigrating, because the situation in Africa has nothing to do with this. It's ultimately geographic conditions which work against African people, ultimately keeping huge populations there held in the chains of socioeconomic desperation, which feeds their ignorance with more ignorance, making them easy prey for those who use them against each other.

To become rich you need to be not necessarily a good person, but a smarter person in most cases, also charisma, ruthlessness, and a general ability to make others fear you will get you far. You can spend your whole life working hard with nothing to show for it, and you really don't need to work that hard to go far. "Hard work" for those at the top invariably translates to working hard at getting other people to take care of it all. It's also helpful to have the advantage of inherited wealth for investment in venture capital, staff salaries and wages, rents and other operational costs.

Finally, that story you told in this post is classic Ayn Rand, and it's a ridiculous non-sequitor. Nobody is expected not to enjoy the fruits of their work at all, and then the corporate culture isn't about working hard at all - it's about the unethical practice of monopolizing markets. Without this, there wouldn't be any American billionaires, but more Americans would be financially well-off, living in a world where true competition drives perfection. When this culture existed is when people were proud of being part of this country, and no such era will ever exist again until such conditions are restored (nationalism today has nothing to feed it other than dangerously moronic militarists). I know there are, and always will be failing business owners who want to sell, but there needs to be some limitations to curb monopolization of markets by the most ruthlessly ambitious buyers.

[MTL]

I'm rather amazed how this is focusing on Bill Gates.

I only chose him as an example of how money, in and of itself, is wrongly vilified for all the evil in this world.

I don't disagree with anything you guys have said about him.  At all.

My ultimate point was that simply being poor does not, in and of itself, make one morally better than the wealthy.

Yes, the wealthy, despite their vast contributions, may still enjoy luxuries while children perish, that is true.

Does Bill Gates profit by an industry that contributes to many social and environmental problems?  Sure.
But it is also true that to become wealthy, unless you inherit or win the money, is WORK.
It takes balls and brains and a lot of risk and hard work to accumulate that kind of wealth.

I am poor.

But I have, myself, in the past, run a small business for my family,
and it was backbreaking work.

The public are so prepared, especially nowadays, to scrutinize every move you make, as a businessperson,
sue you at the drop of a hat, shame you, and once bad things happen, even hold you responsible for not having had superhuman foresight into the future.  People take advantage of your goodwill and themselves don't care how well your business fares, or how your small profit margin suffers.  You have to swallow your pride and sometimes your beliefs, to cater to assholes and idiots, all the time...or your business can be subverted.

So when someone is self-made, and successful,
and is able to give something back,
I am mindful of how hard they had to work,
how smart and how tough they must be,
of the risks they took and the sacrifices they made.

I am also mindful that to invest, or profit, nowadays,
to any notable degree of success,
in a way that is COMPLETELY UNASSIALABLE and entirely without fault,
is very difficult, indeed.

Most products or services in some way could be criticized for being, at some level,
unethical, dirty, cruel, inhumane, wasteful, damaging...etc.

Despite all your best efforts as an informed, ethical businessperson,
somebody, somewhere, at some point in time,
will find fault with your business.

Of course I am also aware that some of the most successful businesspeople also got to where they are by being unscrupulous, ruthless and bloodthirsty, crushing others underfoot to get to the top, stealing ideas, breaking the law, and then shamelessly hiding their tracks.

But I am baffled as to at what point you guys got the idea
that because I acknowledge Bill Gates' philanthropic work,
that must mean I am his apologist or admirer.

It's beside the point.  I just cited him as an example.

I am simply acknowledging that money, in and of itself, is NOT the root of all evil as it is so often made out to be;

it is how that wealth was acquired, and (ab)used that wrongly results in that conclusion.

In the right hands, great wealth is still able to do more good than poverty can.

So, imagine, if you can:

a poor person, with brains and determination,
who comes up with the "perfect" business idea:

They are able to profit, and greatly,
with a perfect business idea....no one can rip off or copy or imitate it;
and it is without fault.....ethical, clean, humanitarian, etc.

Then, having somehow built up this mythical,
miraculously completely-blameless-yet-still-wildly-successful business
into a multi-billion-dollar empire,

....they keep absolutely nothing of its profits for themselves,
beyond the bare necessity for survival...

and although they pay all their employees very well,
and although the shareholders make money hand-over-fist,

every single employee and shareholder is equally devoted to recycling ALL of the profits
back into the betterment of the world,
keeping nothing for themselves above what is necessary to live a healthy life.

So even though it was YOUR brains and the enormous risks YOU took and the sacrifices YOU made
to make YOUR idea a huge success....

...you keep no significant rewards for yourself...you give EVERYTHING back,
because to do otherwise would be unethical.


Can you imagine anyone doing anything like that?

Bill Gates is just the name behind Microsoft to me, but what you said on the previous page of him may be mistaken to suggest some of the values (if they can be called that) of Ayn Rand's rather twisted socio-economic philosophy. You probably wouldn't like that if you happen to be poor.

Of course you are correct that being poor doesn't make anyone a better person, in fact it is more commonly the result of being a shitty and particularly ignorant person. It may also be from being too much of a nice, gullible doormat, and then it may be from an overwhelming accumulation of bad luck.

I don't want to say anything racially denigrating, because the situation in Africa has nothing to do with this. It's ultimately geographic conditions which work against African people, ultimately keeping huge populations there held in the chains of socioeconomic desperation, which feeds their ignorance with more ignorance, making them easy prey for those who use them against each other.

To become rich you need to be not necessarily a good person, but a smarter person in most cases, also charisma, ruthlessness, and a general ability to make others fear you will get you far. You can spend your whole life working hard with nothing to show for it, and you really don't need to work that hard to go far. "Hard work" for those at the top invariably translates to working hard at getting other people to take care of it all. It's also helpful to have the advantage of inherited wealth for investment in venture capital, staff salaries and wages, rents and other operational costs.

Finally, that story you told in this post is classic Ayn Rand, and it's a ridiculous non-sequitor. Nobody is expected not to enjoy the fruits of their work at all, and then the corporate culture isn't about working hard at all - it's about the unethical practice of monopolizing markets. Without this, there wouldn't be any American billionaires, but more Americans would be financially well-off, living in a world where true competition drives perfection. When this culture existed is when people were proud of being part of this country, and no such era will ever exist again until such conditions are restored (nationalism today has nothing to feed it other than dangerously moronic militarists). I know there are, and always will be failing business owners who want to sell, but there needs to be some limitations to curb monopolization of markets by the most ruthlessly ambitious buyers.

sure, ok.

I just wanted to clear up that I'm not Bill Gates' apologist or admirer.

And I don't think money is evil, by itself...nor is ambition, in and of itself, necessarily negative.
and I don't think being poor makes you a better person, morally, than wealthy people, right across the board.

I'm ashamed to admit I've never read Ayn Rand...so I didn't realize.

All that was just my own thought process.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Bill Gates is just the name behind Microsoft to me, but what you said on the previous page of him may be mistaken to suggest some of the values (if they can be called that) of Ayn Rand's rather twisted socio-economic philosophy. You probably wouldn't like that if you happen to be poor.

Of course you are correct that being poor doesn't make anyone a better person, in fact it is more commonly the result of being a shitty and particularly ignorant person. It may also be from being too much of a nice, gullible doormat, and then it may be from an overwhelming accumulation of bad luck.

I don't want to say anything racially denigrating, because the situation in Africa has nothing to do with this. It's ultimately geographic conditions which work against African people, ultimately keeping huge populations there held in the chains of socioeconomic desperation, which feeds their ignorance with more ignorance, making them easy prey for those who use them against each other.

To become rich you need to be not necessarily a good person, but a smarter person in most cases, also charisma, ruthlessness, and a general ability to make others fear you will get you far. You can spend your whole life working hard with nothing to show for it, and you really don't need to work that hard to go far. "Hard work" for those at the top invariably translates to working hard at getting other people to take care of it all. It's also helpful to have the advantage of inherited wealth for investment in venture capital, staff salaries and wages, rents and other operational costs.

Finally, that story you told in this post is classic Ayn Rand, and it's a ridiculous non-sequitor. Nobody is expected not to enjoy the fruits of their work at all, and then the corporate culture isn't about working hard at all - it's about the unethical practice of monopolizing markets. Without this, there wouldn't be any American billionaires, but more Americans would be financially well-off, living in a world where true competition drives perfection. When this culture existed is when people were proud of being part of this country, and no such era will ever exist again until such conditions are restored (nationalism today has nothing to feed it other than dangerously moronic militarists). I know there are, and always will be failing business owners who want to sell, but there needs to be some limitations to curb monopolization of markets by the most ruthlessly ambitious buyers.

sure, ok.

I just wanted to clear up that I'm not Bill Gates' apologist or admirer.

And I don't think money is evil, by itself...nor is ambition, in and of itself, necessarily negative.
and I don't think being poor makes you a better person, morally, than wealthy people, right across the board.

I'm ashamed to admit I've never read Ayn Rand...so I didn't realize.

All that was just my own thought process.

Oh, don't worry about reading Ayn Rand - I read only the first thirty pages of "Atlas Shrugged" before I threw it across the room in disgust, and didn't get too far into "The Fountain" (movie based on the book) before I could stand no more of it - the rest I saw quoted by others with stronger stomaches than mine. Before I came to really understand just what the content was about which the amazing Geddy Lee was screaming out, written by the the talented drummer (and ultimate Rand devotee) Neil Peart, I was a fan of the band RUSH. Also, there was a pretty interesting movie about Rand and her followers, based on a book by one her former followers "The Passion of Ayn Rand". She had quite a strange cult going, and it was all about extolling the "virtues" of maximally selfish behavior.

Of course money and ambition aren't necessarily evil, or they just happen to be necessary evils - necessary, but when the limits of their necessity are exceeded, they become problematic. It pretty much follows the basic patterns of life, in that everything, even the nutrients which we depend on, are toxic at or beyond a certain dosage (Paracelsus paraphrased), so it is with the organism Society.

[bennyboy]

So even though it was YOUR brains and the enormous risks YOU took and the sacrifices YOU made
to make YOUR idea a huge success....

...you keep no significant rewards for yourself...you give EVERYTHING back,
because to do otherwise would be unethical.


Can you imagine anyone doing anything like that?

I can imagine someone doing that, because it's the essential message of the Christian religion: absolute dedication to the idea of God, with no concern for the needs of the self.

Of course, there are very, very few Christians who live that way, but the number is non-zero. And there are people of other religions or philosophical persuasions who live that way as well-- asceticism with a goal, basically.

I'd argue that Buddhism, in its pure form, is necessarily ascetic, though this is founded more in the idea of lifting illusion than in a moral compunction about having stuff others don't.

[robvalue]

I once talked to a Buddhist monk, and was rather surprised.

She maintained that the point of life is to meditate and to enjoy the feeling it gives as much as possible. I find this rather baffling. I see meditation as a tool to help you with the rest of your life.

Of course, that was just her take on it.

She implied this is the way to getting a good reincarnation, which makes me wonder how a horse would go about it.

[MTL]

So even though it was YOUR brains and the enormous risks YOU took and the sacrifices YOU made
to make YOUR idea a huge success....

...you keep no significant rewards for yourself...you give EVERYTHING back,
because to do otherwise would be unethical.


Can you imagine anyone doing anything like that?

I can imagine someone doing that, because it's the essential message of the Christian religion: absolute dedication to the idea of God, with no concern for the needs of the self.

Of course, there are very, very few Christians who live that way, but the number is non-zero.  And there are people of other religions or philosophical persuasions who live that way as well-- asceticism with a goal, basically.

I'd argue that Buddhism, in its pure form, is necessarily ascetic, though this is founded more in the idea of lifting illusion than in a moral compunction about having stuff others don't.

Actually, I wasn't even presuming such a selfless individual would be Christian, or a Theist at all.

In fact, I have sort of adopted this philosophy as my own, in life, as an Agnostic/Anti-Theist.

I have always experienced a type of guilt about being paid well or getting a promotion,
or getting anything that someone else may perhaps "deserve" more than I do,
and I have self-sabotaged my own success, at times, driven by that guilt.

This philosophy frees me to do well, and enjoy my success,
without the guilt associated with being prosperous in a world filled with want;

By no longer vilifying money, itself, as evil,
I can finally free myself to pursue prosperity,
and accept my successes as deserved,
even if perhaps there is someone out there who is better at my job than I am,
because I know that I came by my success through honourable means,
and that I will be sharing the majority of the fruits of my labours.

I don't need a mansion or a flash car or a super-yacht or a massive diamond on my finger,
or a closet full of designer clothes;
I just want to be free to thrive, guilt-free,
and I would be grateful for a way to do so.

Being able to sleep at night, with a clear conscience, is worth something,
and it would be far preferable to be able to do so without having to be in the poorhouse to accomplish it.

[MTL]

I once talked to a Buddhist monk, and was rather surprised.

She maintained that the point of life is to meditate and to enjoy the feeling it gives as much as possible. I find this rather baffling. I see meditation as a tool to help you with the rest of your life.

Of course, that was just her take on it.

She implied this is the way to getting a good reincarnation, which makes me wonder how a horse would go about it.

WELL SAID

[robvalue]

I wish I'd have thought to ask her that at the time

To be honest I had loads of questions and I could have ripped everything she said to shreds, but it was a formal setting in front of others and I didn't feel it was appropriate. She did invite questions, though. I took pity

That, and my wife would have torn me to shreds afterwards. I had to promise to behave.

[MTL]

I wish I'd have thought to ask her that at the time

yes, it sucks when we only think of the wittiest responses once it's too late, doesn't it? lol

But thanks to you, that's one more answer I'll have ready, if I ever find myself in a similar situation! lol

To be honest I had loads of questions and I could have ripped everything she said to shreds, but it was a formal setting in front of others and I didn't feel it was appropriate. She did invite questions, though. I took pity

I've been there.

It's too bad that Theists don't usually show the same degree of diplomacy, humility, or consideration for other's views.

That, and my wife would have torn me to shreds afterwards. I had to promise to behave.

I've been there, too.

Even when we'd like to respond, we are collared by the social pressures and expectations of our families
to cater to the privilege of Theism.

I just tell myself that by showing them more diplomacy then I am, myself, being shown,
maybe that "goes in the bank", as it were,
and may someday help my case if the opportunity presents itself, again in the future;

the Theist in question may recall their own arrogance on the previous occasion,
and may also recall the wisdom and diplomacy that YOU showed, by constrast.

Small comfort, but there it is.