Fake Altruism
Some American billionaires have announced to part with half of their money. Superficially and to many people, they appear as altruistic people deserving admiration. But this warrants a more critical evaluation.
If they were genuinely unselfish and altruistic people, how did they ever get that much money?
Besides rare cases of getting suddenly rich by winning the lottery or finding a gold mine, in the most cases, money is either inherited or the result of some successful business endeavor. I suggest to read entry 16 on Competition or Cooperation about the ruthless way of business success.
As an example, there is Mr. G., who has become rich by selling software. There is nothing wrong with his selling his product to gain a comfortable life for himself and his family and to create employment, so that others can also earn a comfortable life.
But there is a limit, beyond which the further amassing of riches cannot be ethically justified. After Mr. G. had acquired a comfortable life without any need to work himself any more, then how can he justify to continue selling his products for prices, for which some less lucky people have to work 10 or even 20 hours? Were he sincerely altruistic, he would reduce the price, so that everybody could afford the product by investing maybe half an hour of their own life time.
If Mr. G. now gives his money away, subjectively as a donation, he does not give it back to them, from whom he took it. He gives away, what should never have been his, and he does this for some personal benefits, not by true altruism. According to google, Mr. G. is portrayed as not religious, but Mrs. G. is, and she might be the one, who wants to buy herself a place in heaven and avoid the purgatory. But Mr. G. may have enjoyed the power to get that much money, and may now enjoy the power to decide, what to do with it, and he might especially enjoy the influence and impact, that the power of choice the target of his donation gives him upon society and upon other peoples' lives.
Mrs. and Mr. G. are breeders. They have a daughter, who will inherit all their money. For all breeders' instinct, there is an immanent logic, that the more resources they bestow upon the bearers of their genes, the greater the chance, that they in turn will be fit and capable to spread their genes in the future. A rich daughter has a better chance to procreate with a fit and healthy alpha male than a poor daughter.
Breeders greedily amass, what they can get. Were there a radical limit of the maximum amount of wealth, that can be inherited by any person, and anything above that limit goes to the community, then even breeders would have much less instigation to be selfishly greedy. Even Mr. G. would probably think twice about the rational reason to greedily grub, whatever he can by selling their products for too high prices, if most of it would go to the government at his death instead of to his daughter.
True altruism would mean to make sacrifices of what someone has rightfully earned. Fairness means not to take from others, what is beyond a fair balance of giving and receiving.
Becoming rich beyond having an income in a decent proportion of the income compared with life time invested it neither altruistic nor fair.
Some American billionaires have announced to part with half of their money. Superficially and to many people, they appear as altruistic people deserving admiration. But this warrants a more critical evaluation.
If they were genuinely unselfish and altruistic people, how did they ever get that much money?
Besides rare cases of getting suddenly rich by winning the lottery or finding a gold mine, in the most cases, money is either inherited or the result of some successful business endeavor. I suggest to read entry 16 on Competition or Cooperation about the ruthless way of business success.
As an example, there is Mr. G., who has become rich by selling software. There is nothing wrong with his selling his product to gain a comfortable life for himself and his family and to create employment, so that others can also earn a comfortable life.
But there is a limit, beyond which the further amassing of riches cannot be ethically justified. After Mr. G. had acquired a comfortable life without any need to work himself any more, then how can he justify to continue selling his products for prices, for which some less lucky people have to work 10 or even 20 hours? Were he sincerely altruistic, he would reduce the price, so that everybody could afford the product by investing maybe half an hour of their own life time.
If Mr. G. now gives his money away, subjectively as a donation, he does not give it back to them, from whom he took it. He gives away, what should never have been his, and he does this for some personal benefits, not by true altruism. According to google, Mr. G. is portrayed as not religious, but Mrs. G. is, and she might be the one, who wants to buy herself a place in heaven and avoid the purgatory. But Mr. G. may have enjoyed the power to get that much money, and may now enjoy the power to decide, what to do with it, and he might especially enjoy the influence and impact, that the power of choice the target of his donation gives him upon society and upon other peoples' lives.
Mrs. and Mr. G. are breeders. They have a daughter, who will inherit all their money. For all breeders' instinct, there is an immanent logic, that the more resources they bestow upon the bearers of their genes, the greater the chance, that they in turn will be fit and capable to spread their genes in the future. A rich daughter has a better chance to procreate with a fit and healthy alpha male than a poor daughter.
Breeders greedily amass, what they can get. Were there a radical limit of the maximum amount of wealth, that can be inherited by any person, and anything above that limit goes to the community, then even breeders would have much less instigation to be selfishly greedy. Even Mr. G. would probably think twice about the rational reason to greedily grub, whatever he can by selling their products for too high prices, if most of it would go to the government at his death instead of to his daughter.
True altruism would mean to make sacrifices of what someone has rightfully earned. Fairness means not to take from others, what is beyond a fair balance of giving and receiving.
Becoming rich beyond having an income in a decent proportion of the income compared with life time invested it neither altruistic nor fair.
