(April 10, 2015 at 2:54 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: No, understanding and accepting that taking the tiniest portion of your finite time and giving it to someone else far surpasses the giving of any amount of time from an eternal pool is what you don't seem to understand.
An example you may understand better:
Joe earns $60,000/year and is the sole bread winner for a family of 4. Jill is a multibillionaire who can't spend all the money she earns just from the interest on her fortune. Joe donates $3,000/year to charity. Jill donates $60,000/year. Which one feels the pinch? Scarcity it what makes something valuable. To Jill, $60,000 is nothing. To Joe, it's a years labor.
This is a little more complicated than it may appear.
By donating to charity, Joe sacrifices more of his own narrow happiness for the sake of lesser happiness to another. Jill both sacrifices less and produces more good. Clearly, in terms of the happiness generated by each person's action, Jill wins heads down. Insofar as there is a distinct virtue of magnificence, Jill has it, and Joe does not.
Therefore, Joe's love for himself and his neighbor are relatively close, but absolutely weak; on the other hand, Jill seems not to love her neighbor as much as herself relatively, but her love is greater absolutely, due to the superior effect on others' welfare from the Jill's $60,000 as opposed to the Joe's $3,000.
