Is this man a moral person?

[retro]

Exactly.

Then your premise is flawed and highlights your jealousy.

 

[Minor Axis]

Then your premise is flawed and highlights your jealousy.

So your morality includes excess. I'm fine with that. I would not describe my self as jealous as I live a pretty good life, but I gladly accept your verdict. Did you vote?

 

[retro]

So you morality excludes excess. I'm fine with that. I would not describe my self as jealous as I live a pretty good life, but I gladly accept your verdict. Did you vote?

I voted yes, but I should've voted that I couldn't make a determination because of a lack of evidence. But I saw nothing in the video that screams immoral to me.

You can't judge morality based on how much money someone does or doesn't have. But you believe that wealth should be spread evenly to everyone.

 

[retro]

So your morality includes excess.

How do you define excess? You say that you make a comfortable living... but that would be considered excess by other societies.

 

[Minor Axis]

But you believe that wealth should be spread evenly to everyone.

Absolutely not. I proposed a philosophical standard. A bunch of you disagree with me and fought for the individual's right to be excessive. Obviously most of those who have responded think it is moral. I just don't believe you should be able to acquire excessive amounts of wealth at others expense. And if you do acquire it the moral thing to do would not be to splurge it all on yourself and immediate family. And I said in a previous post that if someone in this situation used a substantial portion of this wealth to help others, I would alter my opinion of them. In actuality I have no idea how much this guy spends on the charity, but I did not sense it when he was asked about what he would say to the average person about his life style. It's mine, I earned it, I deserve it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Absolutely not. I proposed a philosophical standard. A bunch of you disagree with me and fought for the individual's right to be excessive. Obviously most of those who have responded think it is moral. I just don't believe you should be able to acquire excessive amounts of wealth at others expense. And if you do acquire it the moral thing to do would not be to splurge it all on yourself and immediate family. And I said in a previous post that if someone in this situation used a substantial portion of this wealth to help others, I would alter my opinion of them. In actuality I have no idea how much this guy spends on the charity, but I did not sense it when he was asked about what he would say to the average person about his life style. It's mine, I earned it, I deserve it.

So I'm still waiting to hear why you think this guy is immoral other than you prejudice about him being rich through his own hard work.

 

[Francis]

I accept you guys are not accepting my premise. However it's not prejudice, it's morality. :surrender

How do you know he isn't helping the poor unfortunates more than your average socialists? What you're saying is nothing more than factless preujudice.

I agree with Peter on this.. Just as many would trash Bill Gates, he has and is still giving billions away..

Why is anyone required to give away what they legally "worked for" ?

 

[retro]

I just don't believe you should be able to acquire excessive amounts of wealth at others expense

So you know that he acquired his wealth at the expense of others? Or is it metaphorical, that he got the money when other people should've been getting part of it?

 

[retro]

I agree with Peter on this.. Just as many would trash Bill Gates, he has and is still giving billions away..

Why is anyone required to give away what they legally "worked for" ?

I brought up Bill Gates earlier, and MA seems to have ignored it.

 

[Accountable]

How was his money made then? Or is your premise that making that much money simply immoral?

Exactly.



[...] Yes I started a thread about making too much money and I have called it immoral.

I think it's a pretty good assumption that the guy made his money through building businesses. Doing so creates jobs, making life better for others. I'd estimate that he sold several of the businesses once they became profitable. Doing so gives others the opportunity to make profits, making their lives better. The new business owners likely invested and expanded their newly purchased investments, which creates more jobs, making life better for others.

Sure, I spose he could have taken his profits, scraped off $500K for himself and plowed the rest back into the business, regardless of how many millions that would be, but a glass can only hold so much and pouring more into it just wastes it. I spose he could have raised his employees' salaries so that even the receptionists became millionaires, but such thinking is foreign to entrepreneurs. People who think that way do not think in ways that would build successful businesses in the first place.

Investing a million in new business creates more wealth, feeds more people, and helps communities, more than 3 million given to charity. The numbers are my opinion, but I do remember a documentary, probably on CNBC-PAC, that supports the statement if not the actual numbers.

So if successful investing helps more than giving, and successful investing creates more wealth for the investor, it stands to reason that someone that created thousands of jobs (feeding tens of thousands of people) would end up with millions in his pocket, and someone that created millions of jobs would end up with billions in his pocket.

I guess he could give the money to entrepreneurs, but I would guess that even the best entrepreneur working with free money would likely waste the investment and fail. Spending the money on "excess" such as large houses and classic cars employs people just as surely as buying a pair of shoes at the local department store, and helps the community more than charitable giving does.

Even still, I'm sure this guy has given more to charity than I've made in my lifetime.

 

[dt3]

This concept cuts right at your conservative core. I should not have to help anyone else, just me and mine. No he is immoral because he lives in extreme wealth while others around him do without. He lives in a society. We band together for the mutual good. This counts for nothing in your mind. Is your version of morality every man for himself?

No, my version of morality is freedom. The freedom for everyone to make their own choices in life (within reason and the law of course), and not be judged for it. It isn't my place to force my morality on others.

 

[dt3]

In fact, my morality says that you are immoral for passing judgment on this guy without knowing all the facts, and believing that society should follow your morality over the morality of others.

 

[Minor Axis]

So I'm still waiting to hear why you think this guy is immoral other than you prejudice about him being rich through his own hard work.

I've all ready said the context of the immorality- acquiring excessive amounts of wealth is immoral. I should add that it is the keeping of it all that is the problem.

I admit for the purpose of this thread, and regarding "prejudice", I unfairly judged this guy, but I picked him as an example of a billionaire for making a point about excess. More info would be needed for an accurate judgment. And I've all ready addressed the charity aspect of it and questioned if I would be immoral if I found myself in this position. I would not call Bill Gates immoral. His name is on a foundation that has given billions away. Are you happy now?

The question of morality is still a valid one. And I question the validity of a economic system that allows an individual to attain excessive wealth. I realize that "excessive" is all in the eye of the beholder. And it is really interesting how "excess" has been defended in this thread, don't you think?

 

[Minor Axis]

No, my version of morality is freedom. The freedom for everyone to make their own choices in life (within reason and the law of course), and not be judged for it. It isn't my place to force my morality on others.

So freedom trumps all and excess falls within your definition of morality?

In fact, my morality says that you are immoral for passing judgment on this guy without knowing all the facts, and believing that society should follow your morality over the morality of others.

You are right. I was unfairly using this billionaire as an example. Although my original intent to to make an illustration, I admit in hindsight using this video without more background info undermined my argument which is stall a valid argument. Regarding you last statement, yes I do, don't you? In other words, don't you feel that the country would be a better place if they followed your moral standards? The political party I believe you have affinity towards has some definite ideas about spreading their standard of morality across the country and into the halls of power.

 

[dt3]

So freedom trumps all and excess falls within your definition of morality?



You are right. I was unfairly using this billionaire as an example. Although my original intent to to make an illustration, I admit in hindsight using this video without more background info undermined my argument which is stall a valid argument. Regarding you last statement, yes I do, don't you? In other words, don't you feel that the country would be a better place if they followed your moral standards? The political party I believe you have affinity towards has some definite ideas about spreading their standard of morality across the country and into the halls of power.

Of course I think the country would be better off if they followed my moral standards. But I have no right to attempt to force my morality on others (and neither does anyone else). Our country is supposed to be governed by the collective "will of the people", and I presume that would include their version of morality. For instance, I think abortions are immoral, but I fully support each state's right to decide the issue on their own. I think gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, but have no problems with a state choosing not to allow it.

I have absolutely no affinity for any political party at this point. I'm a registered Republican only because Florida has closed primaries and I wanted to be able to vote in them. Both parties have proven themselves completely unfit to govern a nation over the last few decades. The Republican's are starting to sound better lately, but history shows that if they regain power they will simply abuse it until the pendulum swings back in favor of the other side. Lather, rinse, repeat.

To answer your first question, yes, freedom trumps all in my mind. If one leads a life that doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others, then I can't see a reason to find them immoral. If, hypothetically, this guy is a completely greedy self-serving fuck who dodges taxes and doesn't do anything to help others, then personally I would find him to be a reprehensible human being. But not immoral. Immorality, to me, doesn't begin until someone is actively infringing on the freedoms of others.

 

[Minor Axis]

Of course I think the country would be better off if they followed my moral standards.

You accused me of:

believing that society should follow your morality over the morality of others.

Just an observation- I see no real difference between what you feel and what you accused me of regarding our personal moral standards.

But I have no right to attempt to force my morality on others (and neither does anyone else). Our country is supposed to be governed by the collective "will of the people", and I presume that would include their version of morality.

I'm not forcing any standard on anyone, just discussing morality in a forum thread. I agree that the majority does rule for good or bad.

 

[Accountable]

Just an observation- I see no real difference between what you feel and what you accused me of regarding our personal moral standards.

Well said. Did you miss #30? I hate posting at the end of a page because I don't know if people just missed it or think it was not worth responding to.

 

[Minor Axis]

I did not mean to ignore this well thought out response.

I think it's a pretty good assumption that the guy made his money through building businesses. Doing so creates jobs, making life better for others. I'd estimate that he sold several of the businesses once they became profitable. Doing so gives others the opportunity to make profits, making their lives better. The new business owners likely invested and expanded their newly purchased investments, which creates more jobs, making life better for others.

Depends. You may be helping others make a ton of money, or you may be helping a select few in the right place to enrich themselves, or you could actually be creating well paid jobs, but for the populace in general that is not the trend. The trend is lower costs so "I" the architect of wealth can make more. It's not a safe assumption.

Sure, I spose he could have taken his profits, scraped off $500K for himself and plowed the rest back into the business, regardless of how many millions that would be, but a glass can only hold so much and pouring more into it just wastes it. I spose he could have raised his employees' salaries so that even the receptionists became millionaires, but such thinking is foreign to entrepreneurs. People who think that way do not think in ways that would build successful businesses in the first place.

It could be as simple as paying them well, giving them health care, and matching 401k contributions, ie, spreading the wealth. Another option is lowering expectations, telling the people you hire, the going rate is this, we can't afford it, and it's easy to replace you.

Investing a million in new business creates more wealth, feeds more people, and helps communities, more than 3 million given to charity. The numbers are my opinion, but I do remember a documentary, probably on CNBC-PAC, that supports the statement if not the actual numbers.

It depends, see my response below, but it's important to note what kind of jobs are being created. Well paying jobs or minimum wage dead end jobs.

So if successful investing helps more than giving, and successful investing creates more wealth for the investor, it stands to reason that someone that created thousands of jobs (feeding tens of thousands of people) would end up with millions in his pocket, and someone that created millions of jobs would end up with billions in his pocket.

I can see that. But it still goes back to how much money does one need to live a comfortable life? Does one need excessive wealth? Is it moral to live like a king head and shoulders above your fellow human beings? Should the system be designed to plow the excessive wealth back into the system? I realize the counter argument is, what will be done with the excessive wealth- will it be used effiecnetly or will it be squanderd by big government bureaucrats? That is a good question.

My point that I have been making from the start of this thread, is that you might be incredibly smart and can generate incredible amounts of wealth, but does that mean you DESERVE incredible wealth for the effort? Or should the reward be something on a higher level than lavish living? A substantial portion of the pushback I've received in this thread has been people defending the concept of making billions and deserving it as long as no law has been broken. I'm asking is it moral and so far the group opinion is that greed is good or at least it is acceptable, and more importantly in the context of morality, it's not wrong. It is also really interesting that knowing no more about this man than I do, 4 people were willing to pronounce this person a moral person based on the fact that he is a billionaire! I suggest the people who voted for "moral" are more focused on the principle of the freedom to be excessive, than on the morality of it. Most interesting to contemplate, if this portrait is not greed, then there is no such thing as greed.

I guess he could give the money to entrepreneurs, but I would guess that even the best entrepreneur working with free money would likely waste the investment and fail. Spending the money on "excess" such as large houses and classic cars employs people just as surely as buying a pair of shoes at the local department store, and helps the community more than charitable giving does.

I agree that creating jobs is better than giving to charity, if the charity is only designed to maintain. But if that charity is designed to get people on their feet and becoming productive it could be just as important.

Even still, I'm sure this guy has given more to charity than I've made in my lifetime.

It is possible, but is this a safe assumption?

 

[Accountable]

I did not mean to ignore this well thought out response.

...ooOO(This passive aggressive stuff really works!)
:humm:

Depends. You may be helping others make a ton of money, or you may be helping a select few in the right place to enrich themselves, or you could actually be creating well paid jobs, but for the populace in general that is not the trend. The trend is lower costs so "I" the architect of wealth can make more. It's not a safe assumption.

It could be as simple as paying them well, giving them health care, and matching 401k contributions, ie, spreading the wealth. Another option is lowering expectations, telling the people you hire, the going rate is this, we can't afford it, and it's easy to replace you.

Maybe he is paying more and giving bennies. The Google Guys can buys & sell the guy in your OP, and their people are some of the best-paid, best-pampered on the planet. You get what you pay for, and if you want really high quality, you pay a really high premium. The result is really high profits ... highest in history.

It seems that you assume this guy got his money in dishonest or at least abusive ways, and you've got nothing but a car collection to base it on.

I can see that. But it still goes back to how much money does one need to live a comfortable life? Does one need excessive wealth? Is it moral to live like a king head and shoulders above your fellow human beings? Should the system be designed to plow the excessive wealth back into the system? I realize the counter argument is, what will be done with the excessive wealth- will it be used effiecnetly or will it be squanderd by big government bureaucrats? That is a good question.

Whether the gov't is responsible or efficient with the money is not so important as the sacred right to own property, to be able to create something and call it your own. The guy presumably played by the rules and won - big. It is his to do with as he sees fit. If he is the jackass you claim him to be, the money will naturally flow back into the system, just not as quickly or forcefully as you seem to want. If he's not, then he's a far wiser steward of the money than anybody that has trod the hallowed halls of Congress in many a decade. Let him continue to make his money make more people rich, create more jobs, feed more mouths, and yes make yet more money. It's far better for the country than handouts or any government program I've heard of.

My point that I have been making from the start of this thread, is that you might be incredibly smart and can generate incredible amounts of wealth, but does that mean you DESERVE incredible wealth for the effort? [Yes, absolutely] Or should the reward be something on a higher level than lavish living? [such as what?] A substantial portion of the pushback I've received in this thread has been people defending the concept of making billions and deserving it as long as no law has been broken. I'm asking is it moral and so far the group opinion is that greed is good or at least it is acceptable, and more importantly in the context of morality, it's not wrong. It is also really interesting that knowing no more about this man than I do, 4 people were willing to pronounce this person a moral person based on the fact that he is a billionaire! I suggest the people who voted for "moral" are more focused on the principle of the freedom to be excessive, than on the morality of it. Most interesting to contemplate, if this portrait is not greed, then there is no such thing as greed.

Making or possessing money is neither moral or immoral. We don't know what this guy is doing in addition to living the lifestyle he's apparently worked hard to afford. Are you saying it is immoral to live "better", more comfortably than others? Or are you saying that it's immoral to live so much more comfortably? How is what this guy is doing any less moral than what Congress is doing with our money, and logically would do with his?

I agree that creating jobs is better than giving to charity, if the charity is only designed to maintain. But if that charity is designed to get people on their feet and becoming productive it could be just as important.

If it's designed to only get people on their feet then stop, then is does far less than the job that money would otherwise create.

My point is that people should be allowed to choose what to do with the money they have earned. There shouldn't be a magic number beyond which some bureaucrat declares it property of the politburo. If the guy wants to build a car collection, a barbie doll collection, or just pile all the cash in the middle of the room and have a really expensive marshmallow roast, that's his right. It's neither moral nor immoral. It's just his. No one else is entitled to it when it's $30K; no one else is entitled to it when it's $30 billion.

 

[Minor Axis]

It seems that you assume this guy got his money in dishonest or at least abusive ways, and you've got nothing but a car collection to base it on.

I was turned off by this statement. Be back tomorrow.