What's a good man to do?

[hmkpoker]

Let's say we have a good, honest businessman who, after two decades of hard work, good economic sense, and wise investing, has accumulated ten million to his name. He decides he's tired of making money for himself, and wants to do some good.

He has two options:

A) He can donate a large portion to charity, and living modestly off the rest, making the remaining ends meet with charitable social work for the poor.

B) He can start a much-needed business with his business skills and strong bankroll. He could employ many, and the proceeds from the business would be greatly in excess of ten million, most of which could be donated to charity with enough left over for him to still live a comfortable life, if he so chooses. Economically and socially, this is a better alternative, in that it does more good for more people.

He cannot do both; running a business would consume far too much of his time. He is aware that B does more good than A.

Is it wrong for him to choose A?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's his money, it's his life. If he wants to blow it all on craps and hookers in Reno he hasn't done anything wrong.

Choice B would be the better choice from a utilitarian perspective. I don't agree with that perspective, though, so I don't think it would be wrong to choose A. A is still a lot better for the common good than many otherthings he can do.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's his money, it's his life. If he wants to blow it all on craps and hookers in Reno he hasn't done anything wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find someone beaten up in the street who needs help, is it wrong not to help him?

No. If you don't you're an [censored] though.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
No. If you don't you're an [censored] though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the same as being wrong /images/graemlins/tongue.gif (This is tough for me too since I'm usually one of the first people to argue that there is no right or wrong /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Wrong in the sense that some supreme being will punish you for it: no.

Wrong in terms of how our society deems it: yes.

Wrong in some societies: perhaps not, though I would not want to live there.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's his money, it's his life. If he wants to blow it all on craps and hookers in Reno he hasn't done anything wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find someone beaten up in the street who needs help, is it wrong not to help him?

[/ QUOTE ]

The man on the street is not owed your help. It may be nice to help him out, and if you want to and it makes you feel good, go for it. If you enjoy watching him suffer, go for it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If you think that your initial question is an analogous circumstance to seeing someone beaten up on the street, you're mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's his money, it's his life. If he wants to blow it all on craps and hookers in Reno he hasn't done anything wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find someone beaten up in the street who needs help, is it wrong not to help him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is a) a simple application of the golden rule and b) not a very good analogy.

[hmkpoker]

It is analogous in a way, as I see it. We are equally responsible for non-action as action. The fellow in the street needs help, as do the masses of poor people in the businessman's case. Both the (good?) Samaritan and the businessmen are aware of suffering and given an option to exert effort and aid it. The businessman choosing not to spend his money in Vegas is therefore analogous to the passerby leaving the beaten man to the vultures.

(Yes, I know that I'm playing devil's advocate here ^_^)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Not a good analogy at all.

An equivalent analogy would be taking the beat-up guy to the ER vs. paying for his rehabilitation.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

We are equally responsible for non-action as action.

We absolutely are not. Yours is a very dangerous philosophy. It assumes that we exist not as an end in itself, but solely as a means to the ends of others.

*note to self* watch last episodes of Seinfeld and post conclusion when finished

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
We are equally responsible for non-action as action.

We absolutely are not. Yours is a very dangerous philosophy. It assumes that we exist not as an end in itself, but solely as a means to the ends of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that as if I claim that there is some responsibility for action /images/graemlins/smile.gif

We are responsible, in the end, for ourselves. The only difference in analogical terms between passing the beaten man and blowing the money in Vegas is a quantitative one; aiding the beaten man is a much more immediate and simple course of action.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it wrong for him to choose A?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he would be just as happy doing A and B, then he should choose B. If he would be very unhappy doing B, when he could be doing A, then B might not be realistic, whereas A is, and he should choose A. If it's something in between, he should flip a coin. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it wrong for him to choose A?


[/ QUOTE ]

If it's his time and money, why would it be wrong to chose A?

[RJT]

Not to nit pick, but I think a better A) is - He can donate a large portion to charity, and living modestly off the rest, making ends meet in a life of leisure/retirement.

I say this only because you ask the “Is it wrong” part; because the answer to this question seems to be easily answered no it is not wrong to choose A. Who would “fault” a person for slowing down so to speak? If you look at the story of Martha and Mary in the Bible, even Jesus chastised Martha for not taking some down time.

Btw, I think the person in question is really going to have a harder time if he chooses A rather than B. Good honest business folk like the man in question generally will get frustrated knowing that he could run the charitable organization better than whoever is doing the job, or start one himself and run it the way he sees fit. It just isn’t in most folk like him to not be a catalyst.

If this is a real life question (I seem to remember you talking about your dad a while back - perhaps I am confusing you with another poster) I would want to know how much volunteer work he has done in the past. If his experience is limited I would suggest he get some first hand knowledge of volunteer work before donating any monies away. The first committee meeting he attends will pretty much answer whether he is capable of plan A. He will either a) bang his head against the wall b)stay with A, but eventually take on a more leadership role in the group or c) revert to plan B.