When Ayn Rand railed against altruism as the “morality of sacrifice”, *this* is what she was talking about. The complete inversion where benevolence is gone, you no longer care about benefit to the world, you just want to tear down the rich and successful.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Some followup after 3k+ likes and many many replies. First, “pain” was not the clearest word. Maybe substitute “how much effort it took” or “how difficult it was”.
Show this thread -
The most thoughtful responses I got amount to: The effort required is irrelevant to the benefit conferred, but it *is* relevant to evaluating the generosity of the donor. (
@RealtimeAI and@davidklaing were the most articulate at making this point, thank you.) I agree, but—Show this thread -
1. Someone's generosity has to be evaluated in the context of *all* their giving, which was flatly ignored here. Zuckerberg has already pledged to donate 99% of his wealth. And more importantly—
Show this thread -
2. When someone offers a gift, the correct response is “thank you.” Not, “you could easily have given more!” The first is gratitude. The second is entitlement.
Show this thread -
And that's the real crux of the issue, and the most common reply I got: the idea that Zuckerberg didn't earn his billions and doesn't deserve them, that he owes something to “society”, that he has a moral obligation to “give back”.
Show this thread -
To the people who deeply believe this, even 99% of Zuck's wealth isn't enough. Nothing could ever enough. Even if he gave it all away, they'd still be upset with him for ever having touched it in the first place.
Show this thread -
They're upset now that he, and other billionaires, even get to choose where their money goes! That's how deep the entitlement runs. And that's what's disingenuous about the “0.045% of his wealth” comment. It's not actually the point.
Show this thread -
I loathe the entitlement mentality. Zuck didn't steal his billions, nor did Gates, nor Bezos. And you don't have a right to them. So when they give a gift, evaluate their generosity however you want—but keep your mouth shut except to say “thank you”.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It seems to me more admirable if a poor person gives away a small sum which is a large fraction of their wealth/income, than if a rich person gives away a large sum which is a small fraction of their wealth/income. That's not to say the latter isn't good.
-
Why is that more admirable? By what standard?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.