I don’t mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.

I think many will say yes, they can be, though it may be rare. I was tempted to. I thought more about it and I wondered, are you really a good person if you’re hoarding enough money you and your family couldn’t spend in 10 lifetimes?

I thought, if you’re a good person, you wouldn’t be rich. And if you’re properly rich you’re probably not a good person.

I don’t know if it’s fair or naive to say, but that’s what I thought. Whether it’s what I believe requires more thought.

There are a handful of ex-millionaires who are no longer millionaires because they cared for others in a way they couldn’t care for themselves. Only a handful of course, I would say they are good people.

And in order to stay rich, you have to play your role and participate in a society that oppresses the poor which in turn maintains your wealth. Are you really still capable of being a good person?

Very curious about people’s thoughts on this.

  • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    3·
    1 year ago

    I disagree. Sometimes, due to your particular circumstances, life forces duties and responsibilities on you. If you choose to become a police officer, but you’re too cowardly to protect children from getting shot, that is a bad act and you are a bad person for doing it. If you are born into wealth, you are obligated to help the less fortunate. If you don’t do it, that is a bad act and makes you a bad person. It would take a LOT of other good acts to atone for that.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      3·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for disagreeing, and I will further disagree!

      I don’t think that it’s correct to do basic addition and subtraction (as in The Good Place) to determine whether someone is a “bad person.” People are complicated, and people can change, for better or worse. Of course, we need to make judgments about who people are, including ourselves, but my judgment about whether a given person is “good” or “bad” is not necessarily objective truth.

      In fact, I don’t think it ever can be objective truth, because I don’t think there is a universal arbiter of such things. The farther away from the center line you get, the more general agreement you’ll find: Fred Rogers was good, Hitler was bad. But as you get closer to the middle ground, things get fuzzier. Thomas Jefferson was … complicated. He was clearly brilliant, and held some very progressive positions in his time. And he owned slaves. Was he good? Bad? I don’t think you can boil Jefferson down quite like that. Looking at people in black and white abandons important nuances, and causes us to discard important concepts or embrace dangerous ones.

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        2·
        1 year ago

        I think we differ in what we consider extreme. A billion dollars isnso much money, I consider that extreme. Not to Hitler or Stalin levels of course, but closer to that than the middle.

        If you’re hoarding money that could be saving lives, you didn’t directly kill anyone, but you have some culpability.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          I think we differ in what we consider extreme.

          That falls right into my “Mr. Rogers vs Adolf Hitler” dichotomy example. A billion dollars is so extreme that we both agree on that, and I expect a large number of other people would also agree. Ten dollars is so extreme on the other end of the spectrum that I can predict with very high confidence that we both agree there, too. And when you’re somewhere in the middle, clearly more than average, clearly in the realm of luxury and surplus, then there’s going to be higher levels of disagreement.

          That’s why it’s important to have these discussions, because reasonable people can disagree, but for a properly functional society, we need to find out where we do (mostly) agree, so that we can all move forward together through thoughtful compromise.