What Should a Billionaire Give - and What Should You? (2 Viewers)

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I think that's pretty understandable. Would you want to be involved in a rape and murder? Or would you rather let someone else call the cops and walk away if you could? I know which I would rather do.

I'd rather be involved.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

.


Aren't those more or less the same thing?

They are actually the exact opposites. Kant proposes that we do not perform moral deeds because they give us a warm fuzzy feeling inside. We do them because it is out duty to do so. It's not out of self-interest, it's out of necessity.

Bill Gates already has a name in history, any top10 list of "influential people in computing" you could ask people to make up, he would be in it. So it's not like he needs more publicity for his name. I doubt that anything he will end up doing as a donor will even come close to that.

Maybe, but surely being the greatest philanthropist of history is worthy of acknowledgement, wouldn't you say?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Maybe, but surely being the greatest philanthropist of history is worthy of acknowledgement, wouldn't you say?

Wrong.

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2006/07/13/buffett-makes-largest-donation-ever/

 

[Martin]

They are actually the exact opposites. Kant proposes that we do not perform moral deeds because they give us a warm fuzzy feeling inside. We do them because it is out duty to do so. It's not out of self-interest, it's out of necessity.

I don't think that makes it different. If Kant does something out of his own sense of duty, then an inner force (however we describe it) is compelling him to do it. In other words, if he hadn't done it he'd feel worse. So he's doing it to ease his own suffering (such as it would have been). In other words, he's doing it "because it feels good", or at least "in order that it won't feel bad".

Maybe, but surely being the greatest philanthropist of history is worthy of acknowledgement, wouldn't you say?

Sure. But if so that means his selfish motive is aligned with a communal one, which is when a lot of good things happen. If you could make a ton of cash right now on feeding starving kids, you'd do it. It'd be both lucrative and it'd be a good thing to do.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Create a drug that cures AIDS for 1 cent, sell it for $1,000.

 

[rounder]

I think that's pretty understandable. Would you want to be involved in a rape and murder? Or would you rather let someone else call the cops and walk away if you could? I know which I would rather do.

I think the majority of people would rather let someone else do it.

I don't think that makes it different. If Kant does something out of his own sense of duty, then an inner force (however we describe it) is compelling him to do it. In other words, if he hadn't done it he'd feel worse. So he's doing it to ease his own suffering (such as it would have been). In other words, he's doing it "because it feels good", or at least "in order that it won't feel bad".

I see. But there's one crucial difference in that Kant's theory can apply to altruism while the other one can't. Any selfless deed that causes more harm to oneself than reward would be considered a duty according to Kant. It would have no place altogether if you accepted that all moral motives are selfish.

Sure. But if so that means his selfish motive is aligned with a communal one, which is when a lot of good things happen. If you could make a ton of cash right now on feeding starving kids, you'd do it. It'd be both lucrative and it'd be a good thing to do.

No argument there.

 

[Martin]

I see. But there's one crucial difference in that Kant's theory can apply to altruism while the other one can't. Any selfless deed that causes more harm to oneself than reward would be considered a duty according to Kant. It would have no place altogether if you accepted that all moral motives are selfish.

I don't claim they are selfish, but I do accept the rather vague and empty explanation that they happen "because they feel good". And it's perfectly possible that doing some kind of self sacrifice can still feel good.

 

[rounder]

Wrong.

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2006/07/13/buffett-makes-largest-donation-ever/

Right, but he did start the charity. It's named after him, after all. Second greatest philanthropist of all time ain't too shabby either.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

But Bill Gates is a faggot.

 

[icemaη]

I see that Martin is getting his weekly dose of debate

 

[rounder]

I don't claim they are selfish, but I do accept the rather vague and empty explanation that they happen "because they feel good". And it's perfectly possible that doing some kind of self sacrifice can still feel good.

This where I have a problem. I believe there's a difference between something that 'feels good' and something that 'feels right'. I think it would feel good if I gave a beggar on the street some pocket change and made him happy. I think it feels right to commit suicide if it mean saving hundreds of lives. It's not that dying would make me feel good, but just that I would feel compelled to value the lives of hundreds of other people over my own.

Anyway, I'm no expert in Kantian philosophy but I do think that the 'categorical imperative' at least suggests that our personal feeling aren't relevant to moral situations.