The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: sol on July 27, 2012, 05:24:05 PM
-
Background:
One of the primary ideas presented by this blog is that individuals can free themselves to pursue their personal interests and values by freeing themselves from workaday slavery. MMM says if you save a large fraction of your income you can retire early, and then spend your time on things that really matter to you. He's chosen to be a full-time parent to his son, but someone else might choose to open a bike co-op or build orphanages or travel the world.
This ERE plan assumes that people have some value system that they wish to pursue, something they want to accomplish in life that they cannot do while working a 9-5. I will not presume to tell anyone what that value system should be, but instead posit that everyone has one whether they recognize it or not.
The proposed method of achieving the financial freedom that will facilitate this goal is frugality; cut your expenses low enough by recognizing that you don't need "more" to be happy, and you can then save enough money to support those low expenses in only a few years. Once you no longer need to work for money, you can chase your dream instead. The more expenses you can cut, the sooner you can get on with the really important stuff.
Hypothesis:
The single-minded focus on achieving personal wealth through frugality has, for many people, displaced the larger focus on achieving freedom to pursue personal interests and values. It's like some mustachians have turned to the dark side of the force.
Discussion:
If what you really value is the lifestyle you envision for yourself after early retirement, why would you sacrifice that lifestyle in the runup to retirement? In MMM's case, would it have made any sense for him to have a child at age 23 and then work 15 hour days and never see his child until he achieved FI, retired, and became a full time parent?
What other goals that you value are you sacrificing in the blind pursuit of the financial independence that you think will enable pursuit of those same goals?
For me, one of my personal goals for my post-retirement life is to do my little part to make the world a better place. Without any promise of rewards in an afterlife, I focus on the here and now. Here and now, many of the 7 billion people on earth suffer horribly from preventable diseases, poor sanitation, oppressive governments, and a host of other maladies that individuals in the here and now have the power to fix, and I find it morally repugnant that a person with a million dollars in the bank would think it better to spend his money on a $4 latte five days a week than on feeding a starving child who would otherwise suffer and die a miserable death by virtue of having lost the lottery of birth.
I was born into an Amercian society that rewards hard work and ability with opportunities for wealth, opportunities that are not available to most of humanity. I feel a certain sense of obligation accompanies my birth-priviliege, and I cringe when my fellow Americans instead claim they are entitled to third-row seating in their SUVs because they "earned it".
If you passed a child flailing in a duck pond in a city park, would you walk by and let her drown? Would you call for help, or maybe even wade in yourself? I think most of us would feel a moral imperative to offer help somehow, even to a total stranger, even at risk of personal loss, to help a drowning child. Having travelled to the far corners of the world and seen the conditions under which much of humanity labors, I sometimes find it difficult to justify my continued devotion to growing my stache, to diligent savings and investments in the US stock market, to tax sheltered investments and asset allocations and Roth IRA rollover plans.
Sometimes I tell myself that this is the "accumulation stage" of my financial life, that after I FIRE I will have the time and resources to make a difference, but that just feels like an excuse to not make a difference today. What's worse, I firmly believe that habits are borne of practice, and that by diligently practicing a rigorous investment plan that does not figuratively reach out to that drowning child by allocating a portion of my income to charity, I am instead teaching myself not to care, to ignore the needs of the less fortunate, and setting a poor example for my children, my family, and everyone else I know (including, strangely, anonymous you).
Conclusion:
I'm still conflicted about this aspect of mustachianism. On the one hand, I fully support the idea of reducing your wasteful spending and freeing yourself from the need to work to support your family. On the other, such dedicated focus on that goal can potentially cloud your vision of the larger goals that early retirement is supposed to enable. In some cases, I think people might sacrifice their personal values while pursuing financial independence, thinking FI will allow them to enact and support those same value.
Please don't forget WHY you want to retire early. Your motivations need not be the same as mine, but whatever they are, try to keep them in mind while you're considering which pennies to pinch, and which to use.
-
I couldn't have said it better myself if I spent half a day writing, Sol.
We are creatures of habit, and daily practice instills those habits. This is the dark side and down side to material wealth and power. Let's be honest here, too... material wealth in this world does equate to power, and without material wealth, we cannot become independent. Unfortunately, as the adage goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This is partly why I'd brought up the subject of charitable acts and organizations (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/let%27s-talk-charities-(afghani-brick-kilns-and-us)/). In all life, there is balance. Deviating from that balance creates inequality... it's just how life works. When resources are finite, you can't have a rich person without creating a poor person in the process. Unfortunately, despite what I consider to be the third key tenet of Mustachianism (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adaptation-and-how-can-it-turn-you-into-a-sukka/) being a very altruistic and self-aware sentiment regarding our impact upon one another... it's quickly lost much of the overall focus and balance within our own little community here lately with a shocking lack of compassion towards one another on this little dirt ball we call home. Even the ethical investing threads (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-do-i-build-a-%27stache-without-harming-others/) ran out of steam quickly (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/morality-and-investing/) early on with a general arrived upon sentiment by most of, "you'll wind up participating in the evil you don't like anyway at least on some level, so why bother at all?"
Why bother at all, indeed.
You want a reason why? Because we can and we should. Life is shitty and disconnected without one another. I mean, look at us right here! How many people on these very forums probably have more uplifting social interaction here through these (and other) boards than they do in their day-to-day lives with their own neighbors? We are social creatures, and society just doesn't function without one another. The fact that this community exists at all just reinforces that idea. We need one another to survive, which means we need to be decent to one another. We can't be decent to one another if we're stingy with the very material wealth that others have blessed our lives with if we don't at least give back a little.
What better way to return the kindness to those who need it than through charitable acts?
If you're drawing funds off of investment portfolios that make money off the brow sweat of thousands of people, do you genuinely think just helping one poor soul in this world with some of those gains is sufficient?
Shouldn't our reactions to someone who entered our homes given our wealth and resources (even amongst the poorest of us here) without invitation be, "Peace be upon you brother! You are here for a reason, let my home be your home. What can I do to help you?" instead of an immediate bullet to the face?
I'm not calling out for some socialist utopia or some cow fodder like that, I'm just pointing out the realities of our situations. Not to beat an old saw, but with great power does come great responsibility, and we've already established that money does equate to power.
You can't be what you don't practice at being. As it has been said, don't lose sight of why you're striving for financial independence. Nor should you forget the many other people you don't even know who helped get you there along the way from rare earth mineral miners to loggers to politicians and scientists and everything in between. Yeah, some of 'em are selfish and lazy jerks, but you know what? Being a selfish jerk right back while yelling about entitlement and a free market isn't going to fix the problem.
As a closing statement to this little bleat, I'm gonna mix my New Covenant teachings with wisdom from a Hindu mahatma, here: We should do unto others as we wish them to do unto us, and be the change we want to see in the world.
</soapbox>
-
I agree with much of what both of you said, and thanks for posting and sharing your thoughts.
Unfortunately, despite what I consider to be the third key tenet of Mustachianism (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adaptation-and-how-can-it-turn-you-into-a-sukka/) being a very altruistic and self-aware sentiment regarding our impact upon one another... it's quickly lost much of the overall focus and balance within our own little community here lately with a shocking lack of compassion towards one another on this little dirt ball we call home. Even the ethical investing threads (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-do-i-build-a-%27stache-without-harming-others/) ran out of steam quickly (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/morality-and-investing/) early on with a general arrived upon sentiment by most of, "you'll wind up participating in the evil you don't like anyway at least on some level, so why bother at all?"
I do want to address this. My theory on this is that charity and such is not only a more personal thing, but also a thing more people have a handle on in their own lives. Most come on here to:
1) Get help on a question they have.
2) Debate and discuss.
I don't think most coming here have questions on their charity work or donations (be it time or money), but need help with financial matters. Ditto with the second, many of us have chosen our charities and that's not something that would be very interesting or productive to debate. "Oh, you support medicine in the third world? That's cool. I support women's literacy." "..."
It doesn't get discussed much, but I don't think one can infer much from that. I would actually guess that most Mustachians are, in general, more charitable than the average person.
All that aside, I certainly think one must be vigilant to guard against what sol is worried about: singular focus on FI at the expense of our more important values.
-
Sometimes I tell myself that this is the "accumulation stage" of my financial life, that after I FIRE I will have the time and resources to make a difference, but that just feels like an excuse to not make a difference today.
This reminded me of a comparative religion class I took years ago -- the idea that we do in fact have different duties at different life stages. Thrashing around online led me to this:
"Everyone at the householder stage of life (grihastha), between being a student and becoming a monk, has a duty to work hard and earn enough to support their family.
It is accepted for Hindus to pray for money, and at Divali (Festival of Light) many Hindu businessmen make offerings to Lakshmi asking her to make them prosperous. This does not mean that Hindus believe greed to be acceptable.
As a student a Hindu should live a simple life without luxuries so that he learns to live on the minimum. He should learn that the most important things in life cannot be bought. As a householder he will have to earn money to look after his extended family. The Hindu scriptures teach that money alone cannot bring happiness especially if it is not shared with the poor.
After the householder stage a Hindu should become less interested in money and possessions and more concerned with leading a religious life. Money is seen as necessary but it should not be seen as the most important thing."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/poverty/hinduismrev2.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/poverty/hinduismrev2.shtml)
Replace "religious life" with "meaningful life" or "charitable life" or something and this kind of works for me.
Although I wonder... is somebody really not playing fair on this site if their motives for FI don't resonate with the more commonly expressed world views here? Even somebody who reduces her consumption so that she can become a selfish prick is probably still reducing her environmental impact, at least.
-
All that aside, I certainly think one must be vigilant to guard against what sol is worried about: singular focus on FI at the expense of our more important values.
To me this feels like the central paradox of this whole shebang, more than just an aside. The blog, the forum, the philosophy, all of it is geared towards showing people how to focus on their real values and not their material possessions, but the very mechanism of that focus is the quest for material wealth.
That doesn't strike anyone else as contradictory?
-
That doesn't strike anyone else as contradictory?
Yes, but is there anything in life that doesn't have a give and take? I am looking forward to FI because I can donate something more valuable than money, my time and talents. Fortunately many of my personal values correspond with a fairly high savings rates - environmentalism, minimalism(ish), learning, etc. "Singular focus" is pretty extreme though, especially when you consider that this is a forum dedicated to achieving financial independence. Of course our conversations are going to be skewed to those topics.
I think one can get around that paradox by delaying FI for creating a more barter-based existence. Many Mustachians do this, others find money to be an easier form of exchange. That is why humans started using currency to begin with. My idea of living within my values will be different than yours. And that's okay. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other (although debating it is certainly a worthwhile exercise), just different.
-
To me this feels like the central paradox of this whole shebang, more than just an aside. The blog, the forum, the philosophy, all of it is geared towards showing people how to focus on their real values and not their material possessions, but the very mechanism of that focus is the quest for material wealth.
That doesn't strike anyone else as contradictory?
I can see what you're saying, but no, not in all cases. While you (the general you) may have to have a certain sense of mindfulness about money at intervals (one would if spending spending spending, too) there comes a point where you get on auto-pilot. Like, I'm thinking, you stop and reconsider your telecommunications needs. Do you really derive value from the amount you spend on your cell phone/home phone/internet etc.? So you research, and change to a new and inexpensive plan. Done. Then you just use your phone, and maybe in a few years you'll reassess. You're not obsessing that whole time about what you're spending on your cell phone.
So, perhaps while paying off debt, one has to have a laser focus to get it done, but then things can go on auto pilot at different periods while amassing a stash. I have been working toward FI since 2004 when I discovered Your Money or Your Life (familiar to many here, but if not, essentially the same as a lot of what MMM says but with a lot less swearing. :) ) In that time, there have had to be times where I am more aware of my money than at other times, but we still continue to get ahead. I don't think we have to be obsessed with money at all times. Mindful, yes, obsessed, no.
And, what about when we're gone? DH and I have no kids . . . likely our stash would all go to charity.
I think I get what you are saying about balance. For example, DH and I are teachers, and so we have summers off, which we treasure. We COULD work all summer, every summer, to get closer to FI. Maybe at some point it will be important enough for us to do so. But right now, travel and balance are more important to us. We keep chugging along toward our goal at varying speeds depending on the year.
-
The thread that sparked this one (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/americans-spending-2-of-their-income-on-coffee/msg19621/#msg19621) was about how ridiculous it is that some people would spend 2% of their income on coffee, and had evolved into a discussion about how others were so proud of themselves for spending 1% or less on coffee instead.
Setting aside for a moment my belief that drugs like coffee and tobacco are a crutch for the weak-willed, reading that discussion in conjunction with the more philosophical discussion of the happiness principle and utilitarianism in the Rawlsian Theory of Justice thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/stupid-movie-in-time/) just made me realize how fucked up the whole thing is. Is it ever morally acceptable to leave your garden hose running while your neighbor dies of thirst? To buy yourself a third investment property when there are homeless mentally disabled people in your city who freeze to death in the wintertime? Yet this is the model of our economy, where everyone collectively and individually seeks personal profit at the expense of those who are less fortunate. And we label it capitalism and celebrate it as a virtue.
I am a capitalist and should be free to do what I want with my money. Ignoring the fact that I have paid and continue to pay a ridiculous amount of taxes (income, wage, sales, property, among others) into a system that doesn't work to largely support people that don't work. I am all for help those in need and I do give to charity but I will take care of myself and my family first - I also work hard and earned what I have so if I want to by a coffee or a beer - I am fuckin entitled to it because it is out of my own pocket. To many people (sounds like your camp) feel they are entitled to the same rewards but on someone elses dime. Fuck that.
Tooqk here is not alone in his assessment. Many Americans willfully turn a blind eye to the fact that over a million American children are undernourished due to poverty, here on US soil, while at the same time proudly proclaiming their own entitlement to luxuries, because they feel those poor people somehow deserve their poverty. This strikes me as the coldest kind of callousness, well beyond benign indifference. This is walking by a drowning child and looking the other way. Their sense of entitlement, even when expressed less profanely, usually offends anyone who stops to think about it too carefully. Do you really think you're "entitled" to a 3000 sqft house and two SUVs?
-
I don't have a whole lot to add to these discussions right now, but I wanted to say that I appreciate the thoughtful and well-written posts many of you are making.
Some have said that a key part of mustachianism is spending resources (time, money, effort, etc.) on things that are valuable, and reducing or cutting out things that are less valuable or detrimental. And it's frequently been pointed out that values differ from person to person. My own values have been going through a dramatic upheaval in the past several years, and reading these discussions is helping me to think more critically about what's really important.
-
Even somebody who reduces her consumption so that she can become a selfish prick is probably still reducing her environmental impact, at least.
This is true, but incidental. If she reduces her environmental footprint through mustachianism so that she can retire at 30 and watch tv for the next 50 years, then environmentalism probably wasn't high on her value list. She hasn't fulfilled her values by adopting the philosophy.
This is also closely tied to a previous forum thread about how the economy would work if everyone adopted these ideas, if the average working career was only a few years long. Opinions differed, but many of us felt that the system would collapse. Personally, I've come to believe that capitalist economies only work because they are inherently unequal. Our first world prosperity is predicated on third world poverty. We can't provide an American standard of living to 7 billion people under the current economic model. So instead, we blithely enjoy the luxuries afforded to us by the luck of our birth geography, filling our landfills with plastic crap while the rest of the world dies of diarrhea.
"Singular focus" is pretty extreme though, especially when you consider that this is a forum dedicated to achieving financial independence. Of course our conversations are going to be skewed to those topics.
I have no problem with the discussions here focusing on financial topics. What irks me is that our discussion of personal finance are so extremely personal, devoid of all connection to the rest of society that makes these choices possible.
We've devoted entire threads to asset allocation strategies, to technical analysis of the markets, to early withdrawal strategies that avoid tax penalties. But we never seem to talk much about WHY people are so keen to retire, about what values have motivated such high savings rates, about how our financial plans are formed by and alternately help realize our life plans. Isn't that more important?
-
Life is shitty and disconnected without one another. I mean, look at us right here! How many people on these very forums probably have more uplifting social interaction here through these (and other) boards than they do in their day-to-day lives with their own neighbors? We are social creatures, and society just doesn't function without one another.
I think you are wrong in a lot of ways, but in one particularly practical one: participation in discussion boards (of any sort, not just this one). It is just not practical to have any sort of reasonable discussion of ideas in "real space". First, I just don't think that fast. I like to reflect on what others have said, and consider what I have to say before responding. That may take anywhere from several seconds to several days, which makes a real-time conversation difficult enough.
Then in any real life discussion involving more than a few people, I find there is always at least one jackass who will not let me finish a sentence without interrupting, if I can even manage to get a word in edgewise. That means most of my attention goes into restraining myself from actually performing what the British call Grevious Bodily Harm on said jackass, rather than whatever the discussion was supposed to be about. Not really a productive use of my time.
It's always been this way, at least since the invention of writing. Serious ideas are almost always discussed in writing.
-
Thank you, Sol, for starting this thread. There are many important points raised. I, for one, see a huge difference between frugality and miserliness which I think encapsulates the essence of this discussion. Frugality=not spending money on stupid crap so you can spend it on things which matter and not be a slave to generating income. This can be done with a generous spirit and is generally based on structural, big ticket, set and forget adjustments (e.g. getting rid of a car, moving interstate, getting rid of cable whatever) which yield large savings with little ongoing effort and no obsessing. You can pick up the bill when you are having lunch with someone, put $10 in the homeless guy's tin, etc etc and still be frugal (in my opinion). You can live a frugal life which is full, happy and beneficial to others. In fact, you can often live a full, happy and useful life because you don't waste effort on meaningless "stuff".
Miserliness, on the other hand, is when you hope the other guy will pick up the bill, get uncomfortable if you are in a restaurant and start adding up the cost, ignore the homeless guy in the street, eat crap food because it's cheap etc etc. Misers may die rich but they never die happy.
-
Stepping in gingerly as I was the one who was spanked in the other thread for her coffee consumption.
Perhaps I have ventured into the wrong playground. It seems that the average participant in this forum is in his 20s or 30s which I am not. My husband remains gainfully employed beyond the age that many here aspire to retire. We made the choice years ago that I would not work for pay because my husband's salary is more than enough. Quality of life has always been more important than stuff. Instead of working for a pay check, I spend time on an almost daily basis volunteering with some community non-profit or just doing things for neighbors or family. Of course we contribute financially to a number of charities and eductional institutions. We are joyfully funding my son's college education so that his start in life is debt free. And retirement for my spouse is just years away should he choose. He really enjoys what he does though so I suspect that he'll do some consulting or temporary gigs--particularly if travel opportunities are a fringe benefit.
I began my financial self education before Roths existed. My first IRA was opened with the Pax World Fund. Sol, I do get it, despite my coffee consumption and the fact that I had a glass of wine with dinner last night. I am not Mother Teresa but I do believe that I live an ethical life, even if you choose to judge me otherwise.
By the way, I am all for an increase in the capital gains tax. We can afford it.
-
Even somebody who reduces her consumption so that she can become a selfish prick is probably still reducing her environmental impact, at least.
This is true, but incidental. If she reduces her environmental footprint through mustachianism so that she can retire at 30 and watch tv for the next 50 years, then environmentalism probably wasn't high on her value list. She hasn't fulfilled her values by adopting the philosophy.
.... We can't provide an American standard of living to 7 billion people under the current economic model. So instead, we blithely enjoy the luxuries afforded to us by the luck of our birth geography, filling our landfills with plastic crap while the rest of the world dies of diarrhea.
I think you are grossly underestimating the environmental impact. The whole reason Americans have 20 times the footprint of the average human is our cars and our consumption. A person who lives a deliberately frugal lifestyle - regardless of the motivation - doesn't have an "American standard of living". They aren't buying and throwing out endless plastic crap. They aren't driving 50 miles a day - both from their home in the 'burbs to a job in the city, and to the corner store 2 blocks away.
According to various online footprint calculators, if everyone in the world lived like a typical American, we would need 5x the resources than exist on the planet. If everyone lived like - oh, I don't know, say, like me - it would be sustainable for the entire (current) human population indefinitely.
It is precisely because so many American's feel the same self-righteousness as tooqk that I find the growing mustachian movement so exciting - it doesn't matter if people are doing it for the wrong reasons, if the results are positive.
-
If what you really value is the lifestyle you envision for yourself after early retirement, why would you sacrifice that lifestyle in the runup to retirement?
Conclusion:
This is a very insightful post. I have thought about this a lot lately. I know I could suck it up and work longer hours, make more money, and reach FI sooner.....but I don't. I'm glad to know that other mustachians are thinking this way. I can't go balls-to-the-wall for years on end without sacrificing quality of life. Nurturing relationships, peace if mind and continued charity contributions are things that I have to do to be happy. These things take time and sometimes money (for the charities). FI will come a little later for me, but that's ok.
-
Sometimes I tell myself that this is the "accumulation stage" of my financial life, that after I FIRE I will have the time and resources to make a difference, but that just feels like an excuse to not make a difference today.
There has to be some pragmatic trade-off here. As you (I think it was you) have noted in previous posts, there comes a point at which many people on this path to ERE can expect compounding returns to go exponential, and far surpass what they need to be FI.
Lets say you make 50k, and spend 10k. You could be very generous, and give away that 40k difference every year. And you will always be at the same level of savings, have to work forever. Or you could invest it all, and in 5 years when your investment returns pay your living expenses, you could start putting that full 50k of income to giving - while your net worth continues to rise, allowing you to add in even more to that amount. In 10 years you could be donating 40k worth of investment returns AND be able to retire giving you time to volunteer full time.
The way to not let the accumulation phase not be an excuse is to know (in advance) how much is enough. That is what sets this way of FI apart from the "make as much money as possible" methods. The lack of lifestyle inflation. When you reach your goal, don't move the goal post.
If a non-profit tried to start helping people on day 1 - without having taken the time to do some grant writing and fundraising - its going to close down on day 2, and will not have done anyone any good.
-
The thread that sparked this one (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/americans-spending-2-of-their-income-on-coffee/msg19621/#msg19621) was about how ridiculous it is that some people would spend 2% of their income on coffee, and had evolved into a discussion about how others were so proud of themselves for spending 1% or less on coffee instead.
Setting aside for a moment my belief that drugs like coffee and tobacco are a crutch for the weak-willed, reading that discussion in conjunction with the more philosophical discussion of the happiness principle and utilitarianism in the Rawlsian Theory of Justice thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/stupid-movie-in-time/) just made me realize how fucked up the whole thing is. Is it ever morally acceptable to leave your garden hose running while your neighbor dies of thirst? To buy yourself a third investment property when there are homeless mentally disabled people in your city who freeze to death in the wintertime? Yet this is the model of our economy, where everyone collectively and individually seeks personal profit at the expense of those who are less fortunate. And we label it capitalism and celebrate it as a virtue.
I am a capitalist and should be free to do what I want with my money. Ignoring the fact that I have paid and continue to pay a ridiculous amount of taxes (income, wage, sales, property, among others) into a system that doesn't work to largely support people that don't work. I am all for help those in need and I do give to charity but I will take care of myself and my family first - I also work hard and earned what I have so if I want to by a coffee or a beer - I am fuckin entitled to it because it is out of my own pocket. To many people (sounds like your camp) feel they are entitled to the same rewards but on someone elses dime. Fuck that.
Tooqk here is not alone in his assessment. Many Americans willfully turn a blind eye to the fact that over a million American children are undernourished due to poverty, here on US soil, while at the same time proudly proclaiming their own entitlement to luxuries, because they feel those poor people somehow deserve their poverty. This strikes me as the coldest kind of callousness, well beyond benign indifference. This is walking by a drowning child and looking the other way. Their sense of entitlement, even when expressed less profanely, usually offends anyone who stops to think about it too carefully. Do you really think you're "entitled" to a 3000 sqft house and two SUVs?
Sol - your original post is thoughtful and does make you think. I do take exception to your interpretation of my comment. I don't feel I am entitled to a 3000 sf house or a coffee or material possessions....but I do feel I am entitled to spend my money the way I see fit whether it be on those material things, my kids education, charitable activities, investing in business that give those less fortunate an opportunity to get ahead and not need me to support them, or even apparently early retirement (which in itself by your view is a form of egregious wasteful spending akin to consumerism/materialism - afterall why retire early when you can work forever and funnel every penny to someone in need). Clearly you must be living your values, right? So that means you will withdraw all your funds and donate them immediately along with every paycheck you earn right? Not to mention people spending money, whether it be in like the general population or MMM style, provides opportunity and jobs.
Clearly being sarcastic, but you are losing sight of the fact that an individuals ability to earn more and possibly retire does allow for more resources and time to help people. Hate to admit it but it is very complex world and is not always just, and that is unfortunate but we all do better but it doesn't mean we will be perfect.
-
Quality of life has always been more important than stuff. Instead of working for a pay check, I spend time on an almost daily basis volunteering with some community non-profit or just doing stuff for neighbors or family.
I agree! I also admitted to (gasp) spending around $20 a month on coffee in the other thread. I work as an ESL teacher, and I love my work partially because it gives me the opportunity for additional nonprofit work during the summer. I'm not even sure my goal at this point is early retirement--I chose a career that is in line with my value system, and I will continue to work as long as I'm of value to my community.
-
Please don't forget WHY you want to retire early. Your motivations need not be the same as mine, but whatever they are, try to keep them in mind while you're considering which pennies to pinch, and which to use.
I completely agree with this statement and with this argument, however I don't think that you really do. You say that our motivations need not be the same as yours, yet for the rest of the thread you seem to be arguing otherwise. If your going to start talking about morality then on some level you are going to be judging other people for their motivations and actions.
As far as the morality thing goes, it's just human nature really. We're pretty tribal creatures, so yeah we'll be all kinds of helpful to the people around us, but we're not going to care as much about the people far away from us that we don't know. You can argue all you want about whether that's morally acceptable, but it's how we are wired and probably won't be changing anytime soon.
-
Quality of life has always been more important than stuff. Instead of working for a pay check, I spend time on an almost daily basis volunteering with some community non-profit or just doing stuff for neighbors or family.
I agree! I also admitted to (gasp) spending around $20 a month on coffee in the other thread. I work as an ESL teacher, and I love my work partially because it gives me the opportunity for additional nonprofit work during the summer. I'm not even sure my goal at this point is early retirement--I chose a career that is in line with my value system, and I will continue to work as long as I'm of value to my community.
amy, I was thinking about this yesterday, too. I really find the flexibility of being able to work part-time appealing, but I don't know that I would ever quit working, because just how much can I putter around the house and read books, anyway? Especially when all the causes mentioned in this thread, and 100 more, make me feel like I need to DO something. I think that's why I first liked the MMM blog so much. He works often, creatively, etc. And then when he doesn't want to/can't for health or sanity reasons/wants to go to Canada for six weeks, he can! Now MMM's work is in carpentry, but the whole concept could easily be extended to any kind of task.
-
Life is shitty and disconnected without one another. I mean, look at us right here! How many people on these very forums probably have more uplifting social interaction here through these (and other) boards than they do in their day-to-day lives with their own neighbors? We are social creatures, and society just doesn't function without one another.
I think you are wrong in a lot of ways, but in one particularly practical one: participation in discussion boards (of any sort, not just this one). It is just not practical to have any sort of reasonable discussion of ideas in "real space". First, I just don't think that fast. I like to reflect on what others have said, and consider what I have to say before responding. That may take anywhere from several seconds to several days, which makes a real-time conversation difficult enough.
Then in any real life discussion involving more than a few people, I find there is always at least one jackass who will not let me finish a sentence without interrupting, if I can even manage to get a word in edgewise. That means most of my attention goes into restraining myself from actually performing what the British call Grevious Bodily Harm on said jackass, rather than whatever the discussion was supposed to be about. Not really a productive use of my time.
It's always been this way, at least since the invention of writing. Serious ideas are almost always discussed in writing.
I agree 100%
In fact, when I have something really important and personal to talk about with a close friend or partner, I almost always do it by email or text document - even if we live together and see each other every day.
But also, the internet allows us to find people with whom we share interests. I interact with my neighbors, but we have very little in common, so it consists mostly of meaningless chit-chat. I come here precisely because I CAN have more uplifting social interaction here through these (and other) boards than I do in my day-to-day life
-
Personally, I've come to believe that capitalist economies only work because they are inherently unequal. Our first world prosperity is predicated on third world poverty. We can't provide an American standard of living to 7 billion people under the current economic model. So instead, we blithely enjoy the luxuries afforded to us by the luck of our birth geography, filling our landfills with plastic crap while the rest of the world dies of diarrhea.
Motivations for FI can and will most certainly differ. For those of us who seek to attain and to maintain FI through a peculiar capitalist mechanism so that we might be able to contribute to the improvement of humanity, there is a real tension, however.
The very capitalist mechanism that fuels FI may be one impediment to improving humanity, precisely because it promotes a social arrangement that necessarily denies some portion of the population the necessary conditions for cultivating habits of self-improvement. There was a brief post on the ERE site that raised this issue ( On Elevating Humanity (http://earlyretirementextreme.com/on-elevating-humanity.html)), couched in terms of job-owning and job-working. FI essentially involves freeing ones time from job-working to pursue activities of "self expression," to use Jacob's works, via becoming a job-owner. Of course, you can't be a job-owner if there aren't any jobs to own, which means that you are an agent in denying others the very leisure you seek for yourself and for humanity in general. In later posts, Jacob seemed to rationalize this state of affairs by ascribing to the notion that the Aristotelian conception of "natural slavery" - i.e. some people are just mentally incapable of leading a self-directed life, and so their best hope for leading a meaningful life is through the guidance of others - applies to the mass populous, and thus they need to be job-workers.
Though I think that the notion of natural slavery can be applicable in some cases (e.g. the mentally impaired are dependent on others for for development and improvement throughout their lives), this use of it really boils down to a sophisticated way of expressing what some others in this thread have said in so many words: "the inequality of our system is predicated on certain features of reality that there's no way to get around; so suck it up and stop being complany-pantes." I question many of these "features of reality that there's no way to get around." For instance, there's no real or major difference in potential ability between the students I teach at a top-rate university and the people in the economically depressed neighborhood I grew up with. But there is a major difference between their actually developed abilities, and it's largely been due to one group having more opportunities than they can do anything with and the other group having little or no opportunities at all. Among one group, their social environment promoted (and in many cases) required acting on those opportunities. The other? Well, not so much. If you were to take an arbitrary but particular individual from one group and swap them with another arbitrary but particular individual from the other group, the social environment and opportunities (or lack thereof) will make a massive difference in the development of their respective potential; all other things being equal, the one with greater opportunities and a supportive social environment will almost certainly see greater development.
More generally, to rationalize the inequality that stands in the way of improving humanity by way of some theory of genetic determinism, scarcity of resources, etc., almost always a) begs the question or b) commits the is/ought fallacy (or both). Quite simply, our current state of unjust inequality might be the way things are, but it's probably not the way things have to be and it almost certainly isn't the way things ought to be.
We've devoted entire threads to asset allocation strategies, to technical analysis of the markets, to early withdrawal strategies that avoid tax penalties. But we never seem to talk much about WHY people are so keen to retire, about what values have motivated such high savings rates, about how our financial plans are formed by and alternately help realize our life plans. Isn't that more important?
I have to say that I largely ignore the financial discussions on the forums. In fact, I was somewhat taken aback by how disproportionately represented the financial the discussions were when I first dipped into the forums, in comparison to MMM's concern with emphasizing meaning, value, and quality, which gives the "F" in FI its raison d'etre. Once the FI concepts and general strategies are understood, there's not much to talk about and it's honestly kinda boring. FI is a means to an end, and that end is to create meaning in and for the world. The questions that surround the latter are difficult, but infinitely more interesting.
-
Any use of you is general you. I'm participating in the discussion and not really intending to single anyone out.
If what you really value is the lifestyle you envision for yourself after early retirement, why would you sacrifice that lifestyle in the runup to retirement?
To me, the answer to that question is the answer to the contradiction sol is seeing.
There doesn't have to be a single minded focus to cut out anything that's not bare necessities. It's all personal choice. I may choose to forgo most things but the bare necessities to reach FI goal sooner. Or I may choose to keep things I consider important that will push my FI goal back. IMO, charitable spending is one of those choices people make.
So instead, we blithely enjoy the luxuries afforded to us by the luck of our birth geography, filling our landfills with plastic crap while the rest of the world dies of diarrhea.
What I dislike in this discussion is the underlying implication that to be on the upside of unequal is evil. Yes, I, and I suspect most of us here, won the birth lottery to varying degrees. And people have varying levels of charitable tendencies, often correlated with their varying levels of 'good' and 'bad'.
apparently early retirement (which in itself by your view is a form of egregious wasteful spending akin to consumerism/materialism - afterall why retire early when you can work forever and funnel every penny to someone in need). Clearly you must be living your values, right? So that means you will withdraw all your funds and donate them immediately along with every paycheck you earn right?
tookq took the idea to its ridiculous extreme, and I think it illustrates the grey-ness of all this. It's not as clear cut as either walking by, or saving a drowning girl. There is no clear dividing line. To realize that we are fortunate, and to give back is good. But does that mean you're not allowed to spend some of your money for your own simple pleasures? Maybe some you think so, and you're surely entitled to your opinion. You are a much better person than the rest of us if you actually live by that principle.
-
Very insightful post, Sol.
The root of the intellectual contradiction here is the concept of purpose and how that relates to money. IMHO, let's not get too far down the rabbit hole of the what the correct purpose of every individual should be (whether that is humanitarianism, environmentalism, or painting the next Mona Lisa) and instead focus on that first contradiction and how it hinders us from doing something truly meaningful with our lives.
I first noticed that contradiction in myself when thinking about what I want to do when I retire. Here's the brief conversation in my head:
"I've always had a passion for art, and would love to paint again."
"Great! Why don't you do that in the evenings now since you enjoy that so much?"
"Well, paint is expensive, and it'll slow my advancement towards my goal."
"Hold on -- what's your goal again? To paint, or to be wealthy?"
I actually see this same inner conflict in MrsMM's most recent post about the evils of sharing ice cream at Dairy Queen with family because it's wasting money. That may be completely true, but isn't spending quality time with family a big motivator for FI, and why should a few dollars distract from that experience? (BTW, I'm not criticizing MrsMM at all -- just noticing that sometimes even the most admirable among us may struggle with similar issues).
IMHO, it's important to remind ourselves occasionally that saving is not our purpose in life, it is our method for allowing us to get by while pursuing our true calling (whatever that may be for us individually).
For the religious among us, this reminds me of the Parable of the Rich Fool.
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/12_13-21.htm
-
The very capitalist mechanism that fuels FI may be one impediment to improving humanity, precisely because it promotes a social arrangement that necessarily denies some portion of the population the necessary conditions for cultivating habits of self-improvement. There was a brief post on the ERE site that raised this issue ( On Elevating Humanity (http://earlyretirementextreme.com/on-elevating-humanity.html)), couched in terms of job-owning and job-working. FI essentially involves freeing ones time from job-working to pursue activities of "self expression," to use Jacob's works, via becoming a job-owner. Of course, you can't be a job-owner if there aren't any jobs to own, which means that you are an agent in denying others the very leisure you seek for yourself and for humanity in general.
I don't think this is true.
It ignores the truly massive increase in productivity due to increases in technology that have occurred over the past couple centuries.
It would be possible for everyone in society to have basic necessities covered by a tiny fraction of the labor that it would have required any time previously in human history. Productivity has increased something like 10-fold since the 1950s alone, which means that we could all live lives of material wealth equivalent to those times with 10 times less labor per person. That could translate to either 4 hour work weeks for a 40-year working life, or 40 hours a week for 10 years, or any combination in between.
What we as a society have chosen to do instead is have meaningless lifestyle inflation at every level of income, and make the wealthy unimaginably wealthy. Nearly all of the gains in productivity have been distributed to the top 0.01% (where they have the least marginal utility).
The only reason everyone needs to work 40 hours a week for a lifetime is to keep producing all the crap that we ourselves are consuming.
If everyone here was trying to retire as millionaires living a lavish life, then yes, it would inherently require exploitation. But retiring by consuming less means there is less work that needs to get done (no one has to produce all the crap you aren't buying)
I don't believe there is any inherent reason that society couldn't chose to institute (for example) a 10 hour work week, and/or a sharply progressive redistribution system with no ceiling bracket, which would mean everyone would contribute less, and everyone would be able to pursue non-work goals in life
-
The very capitalist mechanism that fuels FI may be one impediment to improving humanity, precisely because it promotes a social arrangement that necessarily denies some portion of the population the necessary conditions for cultivating habits of self-improvement. There was a brief post on the ERE site that raised this issue ( On Elevating Humanity (http://earlyretirementextreme.com/on-elevating-humanity.html)), couched in terms of job-owning and job-working. FI essentially involves freeing ones time from job-working to pursue activities of "self expression," to use Jacob's works, via becoming a job-owner. Of course, you can't be a job-owner if there aren't any jobs to own, which means that you are an agent in denying others the very leisure you seek for yourself and for humanity in general.
I don't think this is true.
And yet it's true under our current social arrangement despite the potential that increases in productivity have brought about.
What we as a society have chosen to do instead is have meaningless lifestyle inflation at every level of income, and make the wealthy unimaginably wealthy.
What's the standard basis for FI? Investing, typically in the stock market. In other words, owning jobs. And what are those job-workers largely doing? Producing things that fuel meaningless lifestyle inflation.
Obviously, it doesn't have to be like that, as your other comments indicate. But it is like that. And this is something of a conundrum for those who seek FI as a means of helping realize a better world.
-
But we never seem to talk much about WHY people are so keen to retire, about what values have motivated such high savings rates, about how our financial plans are formed by and alternately help realize our life plans. Isn't that more important?
Yes, it's a lot more important. It's also hard, so I'm not that surprised that we talk about it less. It's also not a big topic on the blog. Glance through the post list (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/) and see what percentage of posts are about the big picture rather than finances. It is, after all, a personal finance blog. The forum reflects that.
Frankly, the WHY is a scary topic. On a personal level, it's about figuring out your life purpose, and deep down inside, we all have a lot of nihilism and selfishness. On the communal level, it's terribly overwhelming. Donations just don't seem to do much.
Still, I would like to see more of this on the forum. If someone wants to be financially free in order to be more involved with their local government (or whatever), they should talk about their development toward that goal before they achieve FI. It will help them keep their eyes on the prize, and it will help others develop an understanding about how our values should drive our finances. It would be a valuable thing for this community.
-
If everyone lived like - oh, I don't know, say, like me - it would be sustainable for the entire (current) human population indefinitely.
Hate to burst your balloon, but there is no possible way to sustain the current human population indefinitely. You might manage several generations, but eventually environmental degradation would catch up. I don't know what a sustainable population would be, but I'm willing to bet somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion.
-
But we never seem to talk much about WHY people are so keen to retire, about what values have motivated such high savings rates, about how our financial plans are formed by and alternately help realize our life plans. Isn't that more important?
Yes, it's a lot more important. It's also hard, so I'm not that surprised that we talk about it less. It's also not a big topic on the blog.
Maybe I'm the odd man out, but I have raised the question a time or two, because I have no desire to retire at all. I'm interested in financial independence for a lot of other reasons: because it lets me choose to do work that's more interesting but less remunerative, because I like the security of knowing I'm not one paycheck - or one decade of paychecks - from being out on the street (been there, it ain't fun). because it just gives me a lot more options in life.
The frugality is in part a natural consequence of wanting FI, but it's also just in my nature to dislike waste. I like to get value for money (thus generic coffee at home vs expensive storebought stuff, 'cause I can't tell the difference). I can (and have) spent what some people would consider excessive amounts on things that I value, but most of the time a little thought shows me that the things I really like most don't cost much at all.
-
If everyone lived like - oh, I don't know, say, like me - it would be sustainable for the entire (current) human population indefinitely.
Hate to burst your balloon, but there is no possible way to sustain the current human population indefinitely. You might manage several generations, but eventually environmental degradation would catch up. I don't know what a sustainable population would be, but I'm willing to bet somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion.
What are you basing that on? According to people who research the details of such things it can. If the population continues to increase exponentially (as it will, unless something very dramatic changes) it will become unsustainable. If everyone alive today were to suddenly live average American lifestyles, that would be unsustainable. If everyone alive today lived like the average person in the third world, we would use a fraction of the resources we use today.
What do you think would be the limiting factor?
-
If I retire after 10 years of employment out of an expected 40 years of employment, I have effectively donated enough to support 3 lives of modest luxury by forgoing 30 years of wages.
This is without making any moral choice about supporting specific charities.
-
I was just reading the updates and saw that my post from yesterday included my response as if it were part of the quote from Sol's original post. I'm sorry about that Sol, I obviously didn't do it the right way.
Karen
-
That's a beautiful and accurate original post, thank you, Sol. I have been wondering the same things lately so I'm glad to see this discussion.
I'll see if I can contribute once I've read the rest of the thread.
-
Life is shitty and disconnected without one another. I mean, look at us right here! How many people on these very forums probably have more uplifting social interaction here through these (and other) boards than they do in their day-to-day lives with their own neighbors? We are social creatures, and society just doesn't function without one another.
I think you are wrong in a lot of ways, but in one particularly practical one: participation in discussion boards (of any sort, not just this one). It is just not practical to have any sort of reasonable discussion of ideas in "real space". First, I just don't think that fast. I like to reflect on what others have said, and consider what I have to say before responding. That may take anywhere from several seconds to several days, which makes a real-time conversation difficult enough.
Then in any real life discussion involving more than a few people, I find there is always at least one jackass who will not let me finish a sentence without interrupting, if I can even manage to get a word in edgewise. That means most of my attention goes into restraining myself from actually performing what the British call Grevious Bodily Harm on said jackass, rather than whatever the discussion was supposed to be about. Not really a productive use of my time.
It's always been this way, at least since the invention of writing. Serious ideas are almost always discussed in writing.
Seriously? All you have to say is that I'm wrong on a whole bunch of stuff, and then you focus the crux of your argument about why I'm wrong on a paragraph of my post where you completely miss the point of what I was trying to illustrate. Then you go on a tear defending why the quality of your interactions with people over the internet is superior to those with your neighbors, because the people around you are jerks who inspire you to violence. I'm actually at a bit of a loss, here.
That paragraph was there with a purpose, and I'm sorry that you missed that and it makes me wonder exactly how little of what I wrote out that you actually comprehended given your stark and complete condemnation of it. Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my points, I don't know. Let me try rephrasing the quote for you:
We are social creatures. Look at how much we thrive around one another and we're not even in the same geographic location. This forum wouldn't exist the way it does if we didn't need friendly and supportive interaction in our lives. Society on a whole requires us to be social, and being social requires a certain level of civility and kindness.
Followed with the subtext of:
Maybe if we extended that spirit of kindness and support we get here out to others around us, it might improve our lives further.
Does that help?
However, since you brought the subject up, I'm going to respond to what you did write. Your assertion that nothing of substance and value can be discussed in real time is an incredibly narrow-minded and thoughtless statement.
Some of the greatest, most incredibly deep discussions I have ever had in my life have occurred at times where I have been able to speak my mind and look the people I'm speaking with in the eye. It's a real shame you have never gotten to experience that in your life, it's incredible when it happens... but it requires an effort of patience and kindness in your interactions with others to truly make it work. Character traits, in my humble opinion, that are fostered through deliberate acts of selfless generosity.
I could cite entire civilizations and schools of religious thought throughout history that valued open and immediate group discussion. Heck, most of our modern legislative governments are built at least partially around open live debate! Just for starters, there's the Romans, the Greeks, the Jews, the Muslims... even Benjamin Franklin and his entire Junto would argue your assertion that no meaningful topics can be discussed by any means other than the written form with you to your face.
Yes, serious topics are written about and it's valuable to do so, but physically talking on those subjects is just as equally important. If you have trouble doing so, perhaps it should be a moment of self-reflection upon why.
(Yes, I see the irony of the written form and time as a function allowing me to better respond to what you have to say, but it doesn't disprove my own points.)
-
If I retire after 10 years of employment out of an expected 40 years of employment, I have effectively donated enough to support 3 lives of modest luxury by forgoing 30 years of wages.
This is without making any moral choice about supporting specific charities.
There's a fallacy to that logic, Gooki. You're building your entire philosophy of giving upon not taking, which although isn't necessarily a bad thing and is part of the spirit of generosity, is only a fraction of the whole. You can't decide what others do with the resources you don't take. What's stopping a selfish person from taking the share you left behind and hoarding it all for himself?
Granted, you also volunteer time, but again... only a portion of the whole.
In addition to taking less for yourself and giving time, you also need to proactively give some of what you take back to those who don't get a chance at the table to begin with. Between what you said here and in the charity thread, it appears your entire philosophy of charity is built upon the idea that everyone gets an equal crack at what you don't take for yourself.
Let's revisit Sol's example of the drowning girl. Your approach to giving could almost be described as, "Well, the girl is drowning. I left part of my share of water in the pond for her to have so it's deep enough for her to swim out on her own, and I'm standing here on the shore yelling instructions to her about how she needs to hold her breath and rhythmically move her limbs, so I don't need to do anything else."
-
I don't think working to achieve FI is in conflict with helping others. Achieving FI is about achieving an abundance of resources--you have more than you need. Almost by definition, that means you therefore have the *ability* to help others.
The bible advises you to provide for your own household first. Airplane attendants tell you in the event of loss of cabin pressure, put your own mask on first, then help others. There is a reason for this kind of advice--if you can't even support yourself and your own needs, you have nothing to give to others.
You can argue about the evils of capitalism all you want, but in my opinion it is superior to most other attempted economic systems at rewarding people for doing their best, and at providing value to others around them. It promotes those opportunities to surpass your own needs and create surplus to help others much more than more communist sorts of economic systems. It also encourages people to improve the world around them, because they directly benefit themselves by doing so. Yes it means that people could choose to turn a blind eye to those in need--but the reality is that the wealthy give more to charitable causes than the non-wealthy. Not exactly rocket science to see why.
That said, that doesn't mean that people should give nothing to those in need while in the accumulation phase. Research also interestingly shows that being generous throughout your career *causes* you to become wealthy. Makes perfect sense--if you're a greedy bastard, looking to only take and not give, cheat when you can, etc.--nobody will want to do business with you. Even as an employee, if you are just doing the bare minimum, you're not going to get as far as someone busting his ass to provide the most value to his employer, and by extension to the customers who benefit from that employer's products/services. Being involved in charitable work (with both time and monetary contributions) also creates natural opportunities to network and develop relationships with people that can multiply your opportunities for your own success.
The list could go on and on--giving helps others, and it helps you. I think the key is having balance. The bible recommends the tithe--giving 10% of what comes in. They say to give it to the church, but that's from a time when the church was the provider of just about all charitable services--nowadays other charities provide a lot of what the church used to do (and I'm surprised at some churches at how little focus there seems to be on charity). I don't know that 10% is any sort of magic number, I would argue what's most important is that you are able to support your own family, move towards FI, and still give something. If you want to give nothing and plan to give a lot after FI, hey you're free to do so--I'd argue that you're going to have a tougher road getting to FI with that kind of attitude. Generosity breeds financial success.
My overall point is that in my opinion, there is no fundamental conflict here. Yes we should save the drowning children, in our own communities and around the world. But just as we talk sustainability from a global perspective, we should also seek sustainability in our own finances--if we drown trying to save the child, we've saved no one, lost ourselves, and lost the ability to save more in the future.
Luxury purchases on lattes or whatever is another deal--but I don't think anyone is arguing that Mustachian attitudes are encouraging wasteful or luxury purchases. However, I would say that there is an element of bettering your own life, whether it's through luxury purchases or achieving FI or whatever a particular person values, that underpins the argument above that capitalist economies encourage people to help others through business--when you provide a valuable product or service to others, the profit (or salary) you receive is a natural reward, and encourages you to try to produce even more value.
In my opinion this is a virtuous cycle, at least relative to a more communist philosophy of give what you're able, take what you need. If you are expected to be 100% altruistic and don't see any personal benefit from your work, then the system lacks that natural incentive to cause people to work more or better, to improve their own lives and communities. I don't think being prosperous is evil--on the contrary, if you don't prosper, and don't have any surplus to give (time, money, etc.), then the whole world suffers more.
-
Seriously? All you have to say is that I'm wrong on a whole bunch of stuff, and then you focus the crux of your argument about why I'm wrong on a paragraph of my post where you completely miss the point of what I was trying to illustrate.
It's called thread drift. Better get used to it :-)
Then you go on a tear defending why the quality of your interactions with people over the internet is superior to those with your neighbors, because the people around you are jerks who inspire you to violence. I'm actually at a bit of a loss, here.
(Exercises admirable restraint in not taking cheap shot) I think you misunderstood: superior? I don't believe I said that. What I said is that writing, and now internet, is much better for the thoughtful discussion of ideas. I might help various of my neighbors cut firewood, fix their kid's bike, feed their dogs when they're away, swap plants & garden produce with them, even drink their homebrewed beer on occasion. Such things are neither superior nor inferior, they're just of a different nature.
That paragraph was there with a purpose, and I'm sorry that you missed that and it makes me wonder exactly how little of what I wrote out that you actually comprehended given your stark and complete condemnation of it. Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my points, I don't know. Let me try rephrasing the quote for you:
We are social creatures. Look at how much we thrive around one another and we're not even in the same geographic location. This forum wouldn't exist the way it does if we didn't need friendly and supportive interaction in our lives. Society on a whole requires us to be social, and being social requires a certain level of civility and kindness.
Speak for yourself. I'm not all that social, myself. But indeed, you're perfectly illustrating my point: this discussion and many others can thrive specifically because we are NOT in the same physical location. The nature of the medium itself enforces much of that certain level of civility that is needed for reasoned discourse: you simply CAN'T "talk" over me, interrupt my train of thought, shout me down, or keep me from taking time to think out my responses.
Some of the greatest, most incredibly deep discussions I have ever had in my life have occurred at times where I have been able to speak my mind and look the people I'm speaking with in the eye.
Well, that's you. You may be fortunate, but it's always wise to remember that we are not all constituted alike. Take that "looking in the eye" thing: where I come from, it's either deliberate rudeness or a challege.
-
I believe there's something to be said about the means of which one obtains their Mustache.
I chose the health care field because I like taking care of people. I could have utilized my skills in another way, but chose dentistry because I knew I was doing something meaningful for myself and for others. I could have made more money (and assumed a whole lot less debt) in another profession, but delaying FI is OK if it means that I can do it in an ethical way.
There's also the ethic of your work as well. In my case, doing good dentistry for a smaller number of patients and achieving FI at a later point is more important than doing crappy dentistry for a larger number of patients and achieving FI more quickly. I don't believe that accumulating my money in a way that involves screwing over others would allow me to sleep at night.
If you obtain your Mustache in a way that deliberately and overtly exploits others in a way that is substantially destructive, what's the point? Throw a couple dollars at a charity later to make yourself feel better?
Obviously there is a wide spectrum here as well. What is ethical to me isn't to the next person, and what some may see as destructive others may find negligible.
-
I think the idea is that you'd be surprised at how much money you save when you cut unnecessary spending from your budget. Just the sheer idea of budgeting is a concept foreign to a LOT of people. And I also think that a lot of people are truly unaware just how much money they waste on things that have nothing to do with what brings them enjoyment anyway.
In that sense, then, I think that the idea is to focus on the things you can cut from your budget without losing the focus you talk about on things that really DO matter to you.
For example, buying a jar of JIF peanut butter when the cheap peanut butter tastes exactly the same for half the price. Stuff like that. Things you can cut out or reduce that do not change the quality of your life one bit, but do change the amount of power your wallet has.
The big one is buying huge lavish houses and throwing your money towards maintaining a living space, a large portion of which you do not NEED. Living in the 1000 square foot home as opposed to the 4000 square foot home until such a time as you can rightly afford said home.
-
I, for one, see a huge difference between frugality and miserliness which I think encapsulates the essence of this discussion.
That's certainly part of it, I think. It's easy for all this talk about frugal living to cross a line into supporting habits that detract from quality of life instead of enhance it, but that's a delicate point to make when talking about reducing wasteful spending. One man's necessity is another man's luxury, all the way to the bottom of the scale. If your family can't afford food, then keeping the heat on is suddenly a luxury.
But my concerns aren't just about people who pinch too many pennies. I'm still struggling with the notion of a website that proposes seeking a meaningful life without excessive material wealth, yet claims that amassing material wealth is the way to find it. How is this conceptually different from someone who wants you to buy their book to learn how to save money? Wouldn't it be more consistent to either give up on the whole notion, or swallow it hook line and sinker?
-
Sol - your original post is thoughtful and does make you think.
Mission accomplished, then. I can die happy.
but I do feel I am entitled to spend my money the way I see fit
I'm not suggesting that anyone should deprive of you control over your own finances.
I'm suggesting that the money you earn is made possible by an economic infrastructure that extends beyond your own labors, and that part of that money (aka taxes) thus rightfully belongs to the society that provided that infrastructure. You can't start a successful business in a country overrun with barbarians, so you pay a little for national defense. You can't find competent employees for your business if your neighbors are uneducated twits, so you pay a little for public education. You can't transport your goods to market without roads or rails, so you pay a little for those too.
Whenever I hear someone say, as you did, that our taxes are an unfair burden and rob you of the sweat of your brow, I feel compelled to suggest that said sweat is first due back to the society that made your work possible in the first place. Your taxes aren't a burden, they are repayment for services you have already received, and you should offer them up thankfully and with a smile.
Which is not to say I support everything my government does with my tax dollars. But I pay them all the same, because I wouldn't have had the opportunity to make any money at all had I been born in Rwanda or Haiti.
Clearly you must be living your values, right? So that means you will withdraw all your funds and donate them
It's a fair point, even when made sarcastically. I stated up front that I struggle with these ideas myself. I give both of my time and of my paycheck to support causes I believe in, but I also toss the majority of my income into the stock market, where oil companies use it to pay mercenaries to assassinate local community leaders, or Walmart keeps 90% of their workforce at 36 hours per week so they don't have to provide health insurance. These are not practices I morally support, yet they get more of my money via the market than my chosen charities get by direct contribution. It sucks.
but it doesn't mean we will be perfect.
I don't expect perfection from anyone. What I would like to see, though, is that people who can comfortably allocate some of their income to their future financial security also allocate some non-zero amount to charity. Just anything more than zero. Any charity, whatever you happen to believe in.
For the past few years we've been awash in studies document that the key to long term happiness isn't buying things, or having things, but rather giving things away. Here are the first few google found for me, but they all say basically the same thing different ways.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/money-can-buy-happiness_n_1467789.html
http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.html
http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/10/why-spending-money-on-others-promotes-your-happiness.php
Do you want to retire rich, or happy? Maybe a little bit of both? If you come up with more of one than the other, here's the best way to convert money into happiness: give it away.
Is that anti-mustachian?
-
I completely agree with this statement and with this argument, however I don't think that you really do. You say that our motivations need not be the same as yours, yet for the rest of the thread you seem to be arguing otherwise. If your going to start talking about morality then on some level you are going to be judging other people for their motivations and actions.
Yes, you've caught me mixing my messages.
Message 1: devotion to saving for early retirement so that you can live your dreams might cause you to abandon your dreams, depending on what they are.
Message 2: My retirement dreams involve trying to make the world a better place, and I've realized I don't need to be financially independent to do that. I can give back to my community right now, while still working.
They're not totally independent, obviously, but I accept your distinction.
We're pretty tribal creatures, so yeah we'll be all kinds of helpful to the people around us, but we're not going to care as much about the people far away from us that we don't know.
How do you feel about this apparent disconnect?
I think this perceived separation is always artificial. I don't think it should matter who or where the drowning child is. If you have the power and opportunity to save a life, and you choose not to, how do you sleep at night?
For most people, I think the answer is just ignorance. They don't want to think about it. Children dying of thirst in Sudan are carefully compartmentalized away in a different part of the brain than the one that sets your lawn sprinklers to water every morning, so that we don't have to face up to the moral implications of our own decisions. We try not to think about it.
And that (grant) is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the dark undercurrents of our forum discussions. We've talked about charities, and about how most of our lives are unnecessary luxuries, and how we can save money for our future selves so that we can stop working and relax, and yet we've collectively failed to connect the dots.
From where I'm standing, the dots say that if you hit your retirement goal dollar amount and then quit working rather than put in one more day for another $100, you've effectively forsaken control of that $100 that you could have allocated to a cause you support. The hidden icebergs of our ongoing conversations here are all related to making value judgments about the best use of those dollars. Once we accept that upgrading to the new iphone is a stupid waste of my working career hours, why do we instead opt for retirement instead of malaria medication, or pertussis vaccinations, or HIV research, or counseling for women from abusive relationships, or even anything on Kiva or Kickstarter.
I realize this is going to ruffle some feathers here, so I'll just come right out and give you all an easily quotable target to aim at: shooting for early retirement is evil. By walking away from income that could be used to save a child's life, knowing you have the power and the opportunity to save her, you have actively participated in her suffering and demise.
Now I expect everyone to throw e-tomatoes at me.
-
Whenever I hear someone say, as you did, that our taxes are an unfair burden and rob you of the sweat of your brow, I feel compelled to suggest that said sweat is first due back to the society that made your work possible in the first place. Your taxes aren't a burden, they are repayment for services you have already received, and you should offer them up thankfully and with a smile.
I think you are interpreting the term "tax burden" incorrectly. It's not all taxes which are burdensome. But the part of my tax that goes to cover things such as that is what, maybe 10% of the total? Let's be generous, and say it's 25%. That leaves the rest going to things which are wasteful at best, and at worst are things which I've from time to time given fairly significant amounts of money (and personal time/effort) to try to abolish.
-
More generally, to rationalize the inequality that stands in the way of improving humanity by way of some theory of genetic determinism, scarcity of resources, etc., almost always a) begs the question or b) commits the is/ought fallacy (or both). Quite simply, our current state of unjust inequality might be the way things are, but it's probably not the way things have to be and it almost certainly isn't the way things ought to be.
Mmmmm, meat. This is a chewy paragraph. I'm not sure where to begin.
The economic inequality that makes capitalism possible isn't (IMO) a product of genetics or resource scarcity, but positive feedbacks based on luck. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" makes a pretty solid case that Europe rose to global prominence by virtue of circumstance, not genetic superiority, and I think the argument extends neatly to economic dominance. In a capitalist system, the rich (be definition) get richer and then use their power to solidify their positions, enhancing the stability of capitalism as a system that can then further enhance the inequality.
Bakari's suggestions about cutting to a 10 hour workweek have come up a few times, but I've yet to hear him suggest how to prevent some enterprising young soul from working a full 60 hours instead to amass more than his fair share of the wealth, then using his surplus capital to be a "job owner" and thus make even more money, cementing the cycle. Yes, technology has made it possible to work less. Human greed still requires us to all work as hard as possible to avoid falling relatively behind the Joneses, though, lest Mr. Jones create a monopoly.
And in relation to dark's previous posts about utilitarianism, capitalism is perhaps a defensible evil. For the reasons above, I think that appealing to individual greed and fear as motivations for productivity works really well, and the neocons would argue that such inequality is in fact a prerequisite of greater prosperity. Their theory has been previously discussed here, but basically boils down to trickle-down economics; the rich get way rich and the poor might end up slightly better off, so isn't that moving towards maximum utility?
I won't rehash previous discussions of relative wealth, other than to say that this system of an ever-widening wealth gap seems to me to be the single greatest threat to democracy that I can imagine. The elite cannot maintain control indefinitely in a majority-rule system, and I have more faith in the self-preservation instinct of the elite class than I have in the democratic instinct of the working masses.
It's precisely because I agree with dark's assessment that the current system isn't the way things ought to be that I started this thread in the first place. Our financial decisions do support this system, and I don't exempt myself from that judgment.
I have to say that I largely ignore the financial discussions on the forums. In fact, I was somewhat taken aback by how disproportionately represented the financial the discussions were when I first dipped into the forums, in comparison to MMM's concern with emphasizing meaning, value, and quality, which gives the "F" in FI its raison d'etre. Once the FI concepts and general strategies are understood, there's not much to talk about and it's honestly kinda boring. FI is a means to an end, and that end is to create meaning in and for the world. The questions that surround the latter are difficult, but infinitely more interesting.
I have also found the forum less entertaining since getting a better handle on the numbers and legal sides of the question. So if you're interested in other questions, I would be happy to contribute to any new threads. I think a site about early retirement should be at least as much about the whats and whys as it is about the hows.
-
From where I'm standing, the dots say that if you hit your retirement goal dollar amount and then quit working rather than put in one more day for another $100, you've effectively forsaken control of that $100 that you could have allocated to a cause you support. The hidden icebergs of our ongoing conversations here are all related to making value judgments about the best use of those dollars. Once we accept that upgrading to the new iphone is a stupid waste of my working career hours, why do we instead opt for retirement instead of malaria medication, or pertussis vaccinations, or HIV research, or counseling for women from abusive relationships, or even anything on Kiva or Kickstarter.
Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen.
Most of us in this discussion seem to agree that those with the means may be in some way morally obligated to help those in need, but this does not make each individual personally responsible for saving the world.
Suggesting that one shouldn't retire because they could hypothetically earn money to give to charity is the exact same extreme that Tooqk sarcastically suggested earlier. It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
Each of us is ourselves also a living being with the capacity to feel pleasure and suffering. If we ignore our own lives for the sake of service, we are likely to end up doing more harm than good, as the marginal utility of our time and resources we spend on others drops relative to the utility it would have if it were used "selfishly".
The difference between the latest smart phone and retiring early is that the phone brings extremely little real, meaningful, or lasting joy into the life of the consumer, while (depending on your job on your personality) early retirement actually can.
-
Bakari's suggestions about cutting to a 10 hour workweek have come up a few times, but I've yet to hear him suggest how to prevent some enterprising young soul from working a full 60 hours instead to amass more than his fair share of the wealth, then using his surplus capital to be a "job owner" and thus make even more money, cementing the cycle. Yes, technology has made it possible to work less. Human greed still requires us to all work as hard as possible to avoid falling relatively behind the Joneses, though, lest Mr. Jones create a monopoly.
When there was no such thing as overtime, it was normal for workers to work between 80 and 100 hours per week.
What would prevent people from working more to make more wealth? Well, for traditional employment, if employers had to pay double time, they won't want to let you. What stops someone from having two or three jobs? Nothing. Just like nothing stops a 9-5 worker from taking a 2nd job and working 100 hours a week. It can be done. Some people even do. Most wouldn't want to.
There may be the odd exception, but in general people who end up with dynastic levels of wealth didn't do it just by having 2 or 3 regular full time jobs, and there is no reason to assume that would change just because we adjusted the labor laws to match the present reality.
If some people want to work harder than others and make more money, they should have every right to do so. But it should be our choice. The situation we have now, where most work 40 hour weeks, some have mandatory overtime (unpaid if your on salary) and 8% of workers are unemployed, that's kind of ridiculous given the surplus productivity we have available.
If we divided the available labor (and the wealth it produces) more equitably, society would be in less need of charity in the first place.
-
Fascinating discussion.
By walking away from income that could be used to save a child's life, knowing you have the power and the opportunity to save her, you have actively participated in her suffering and demise.
Doesn't this presume that the only way to help people and alleviate suffering is by donating money? I think there are other options as well. If you retire early with your own modest needs covered, then you can donate your time and skills toward empowering others. Money is important in many situations, particularly in overseas relief efforts* but there's much suffering in our own communities that would benefit from other assets - freed up now that 9 to 5 is no longer necessary - that early retirees have to offer.
*I recall reports of some half-assed shoe company donating hundreds of pairs of women's stiletto heeled shoes to the Thailand tsunami relief effort a few years back.
-
I'm suggesting that the money you earn is made possible by an economic infrastructure that extends beyond your own labors, and that part of that money (aka taxes) thus rightfully belongs to the society that provided that infrastructure. You can't start a successful business in a country overrun with barbarians, so you pay a little for national defense. You can't find competent employees for your business if your neighbors are uneducated twits, so you pay a little for public education. You can't transport your goods to market without roads or rails, so you pay a little for those too.
Where have I heard this nonsense before.....oh and weren't taxes collecected when these things were created and on the ensuing commerce that resulted from it.
Whenever I hear someone say, as you did, that our taxes are an unfair burden and rob you of the sweat of your brow, I feel compelled to suggest that said sweat is first due back to the society that made your work possible in the first place. Your taxes aren't a burden, they are repayment for services you have already received, and you should offer them up thankfully and with a smile.
Actually I don't think I said taxes are an unfair burden but:
(1) the tax system, as you want it, is already geared to have those who have/make more pay more and those who don't pay less - sure there are some instances where A billionaire pays a low effective tax rate but the amount paid in absolute dollars is still sizeable and lets not forget that about half of the population pays no federal income tax and some even get money back - so if that doesn't balance it out I don't know what does.
(2) the government is horribly inefficient with its resources and as I said I believe that in my hands the dollars spent would be far more impactful and to more people. Ok, so maybe you think that if they cut my tax rate by 10% I would just pocket it/invest it and the system would just be out 10%, fine then give me the option to pay the 10% tax or do something charitable with it. Oh wait a minute we already have this and it drives wealthy people to donate, which BTW results in a lower effective tax rate.
It's a fair point, even when made sarcastically. I stated up front that I struggle with these ideas myself. I give both of my time and of my paycheck to support causes I believe in, but I also toss the majority of my income into the stock market, where oil companies use it to pay mercenaries to assassinate local community leaders, or Walmart keeps 90% of their workforce at 36 hours per week so they don't have to provide health insurance. These are not practices I morally support, yet they get more of my money via the market than my chosen charities get by direct contribution. It sucks.
It is no doubt a dilema. I don't want peolpe to suffer solely for the sake of progress but our history (and I mean the global history) has nothing but this - please illustrate for me any time in history of human existence when this was not the case (like from the Matrix and somewhat to your point humans are like a virus/cancer) - sometimes bad things happen to good people and vice versa. As for your Wal-mart example, it is their business and they should be able to do what they want and if it is unfair/undesirable then people can choose to not work/shop there and it would all end. My view is that they have been trading near term profits at the sake of long term value - I don't shop there as stores are not that nice, the people are not helpful and seem miserable, and I really don't like their business practices (as I said I am a capitalist and they can do what they want but that doesn't mean I have to support them). Of course this is assuming that the people working in WalMart are miserable because of their job but conversely it could be that they are miserable and couldn't get jobs at other more friendly/better paying/better benefit places (starbucks comes to mind - they give benefits to part timers). Besides the idea that Wal-Mart has lower prices is absolutely marketing magic because it just ain't so, but thye say it on the idiot box so the idiots believe it (also supports my point that no TV/Radio or mass media ads of anykind should be allowed for political campaigns).
-
Maybe I missed the boat on replying to the OP, but the reasons I don't get into discussions about charitable giving are twofold:
1) like arebelspy mentioned, I'm among the people who are here mostly for pragmatic reasons. It's motivating to find people who are interested in frugality and FI. It's also helpful not to have to make all the mistakes I could make all along the way.
2) also like arebelspy mentioned, charitable giving is a personal issue that I don't need to discuss here. It's not something I discuss in particulars with friends, and it's not something I'm going to discuss here.
However, I do agree with sol's hypothesis that it's easy to lose sight of the WHY of FI. The process of becoming FI is downright interesting.. and fun!
As for whether you put things off, it simply depends on the context. Some things are fine to put off, others aren't, and it's going to depend a lot on the values and circumstances of the individual. One should never put off operating according to one's conscience, for instance, so if you find investing in big companies immoral, then you shouldn't buy index funds, nor justify it by being in the "accumulation phase." On the other hand, if I want to perform small-time concerts doing solo fingerstyle guitar, which I do, the realities of my life at the moment make that something I'm going to put off. I'll keep practicing, but it's a romantic and often foolish notion that one should follow one's dreams. At least when one's responsibilities suffer as a result.
-
i don't see striving toward early retirement as evil. i think that there is as much value in a person with lots of opportunities making use of those opportunities as there is in giving to charity. like, should einstein have gone to work as an engineer and made a whole lot of money and donated it all to charity instead of pushing forward into a new conception of what the universe is like?
we in the western world have enormous freedoms -- more than anyone has ever had in all of history -- and i don't think that leaving those freedoms on the shelf is helpful to folks who don't have them. far better for us to take the advantages we have and use them to push forward to a new level of development -- mentally, technologically, philosophically -- that opens up possibilities to others.
no, the part of early retirement that i struggle with morally is participation in the stock market, and all the horrible things that are being done in the name of increasing quarterly profits. the stock market fucking sucks in terms of morality. investing in the stock market via a broad index fund is troubling to me, because i have no desire to participate in most of the things that most of the big companies are doing.
i don't have much of a stash at present, so it's not a big concern. what i'm working on is the idea of self-employed partial retirement -- build up income streams, maybe have a part time job, and exercise my freedoms in a way that expands freedom for others, too, like writing, giving talks, helping people think about things more rationally, being an awesome grownup and thereby inspiring others to do the same. i would like to rely less on the market and more on my own hustle.
but it's a complex issue and i'm not sure there's any one answer that ticks off all the boxes on what i consider moral ...
-
Sorry to be a late comer to this discussion, but this is an awful lot to digest and it's taken me some time (and also I spent 25 hours last weekend carrying heavy shit).
Message 1: devotion to saving for early retirement so that you can live your dreams might cause you to abandon your dreams, depending on what they are.
I don't think you can categorically state that every retirement dream is compatible with a full-time career. Doctors without Borders is, and so is donating money to the WWF or your favorite Cleft Palate nonprofit.
But many do not follow this pattern. My roommate, like many here, dreams of living as an expat. I've chosen a relatively urban profession and want to canoe, hunt and homestead. I want to be a full-time parent, but don't want to have kids at 20; I want to spend time with my parents when they've retired but after I've been out of their home and I've made my own life. There are elements of many of my FI goals that I can work on now, and there are other ways I can live my values now, but it's not as if I could halfway retire twice as soon, or pick up many of the elements now. In some ways, it's only possible to get the dreams by putting them on hold for a while -- such as how my roommate doesn't travel internationally while he's still in college. If you think that's indefensible, or my reasoning is somewhere flawed, I'd love to hear why, but it's not fair for you to say that dreams shouldn't ever be put on hold until you're good and ready to chase them unless you've got better support than a handful of anecdotes.
Message 2: My retirement dreams involve trying to make the world a better place, and I've realized I don't need to be financially independent to do that. I can give back to my community right now, while still working.
For most people, I think the answer is just ignorance. They don't want to think about it. Children dying of thirst in Sudan are carefully compartmentalized away in a different part of the brain than the one that sets your lawn sprinklers to water every morning, so that we don't have to face up to the moral implications of our own decisions. We try not to think about it.
And that (grant) is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the dark undercurrents of our forum discussions. We've talked about charities, and about how most of our lives are unnecessary luxuries, and how we can save money for our future selves so that we can stop working and relax, and yet we've collectively failed to connect the dots.
Casting charity aside, we owe the third world as much in aid as we've taken from it--it's the just payback for the externalities of our dirt-cheap oil and cotton. I think if these externalities could be minimized, and the true cost of production were more nearly accounted for, you'd have a much weaker argument that things were exploitative. That said, they're not, and I think that we owe what we can afford to send in order to counteract these externalities. To me, this is an entirely separate discussion from charity.
But I believe that human populations, like those of any other animal, expand to meet their food supply, so it's short-sighted and ultimately wrong for us to continue subsidizing millions of lives at near-starvation levels that wouldn't otherwise exist. I believe that more stuff does not make people more happy, and base much of my value system on pleasure and pain, so sending more stuff overseas doesn't seem to do good. I believe that exporting our values via mission trips and their ilk does more harm than good. That's three of your third world 'drowning girls' that I argue are anything but. These are hard questions to answer, and it's not as simple as making sure your money goes to a group with a 501(c)(3) stamp on its annual report.
I think what you're really getting agitated over is that not everyone shares your values of charitable giving. Some of the forum's members are paralyzed by poverty, others by apathy. I'm sure you'd argue that MMM's problem is myopia, because he has the temerity to try and improve his community instead of Bangalore.
Sorry if that didn't address your point more than obliquely.
early retirement is evil.
Soundbite worthy.
1. On my tech forum, when somebody asks if a 17" desktop replacement laptop is a good fit for their college-kid daughter, I don't tell them that the highest purpose for their money is donating it to Grant's Favorite Charity. I tell them no, they want something in the range of 13-14" that weighs less than five pounds. When July Newcomer asks me whether he should keep 40% company stock in his 401(k), I'll tell him that he's a dumbass who's betting years of his life against losing odds. Both of those discussions are almost totally orthogonal to the (fascinating and very important) question of what the best way individuals should give to others is. The laptop is made just as exploitatively as the index fund's returns.
2. If the capitalist economy is exploitative, isn't it a whole hell of a lot better to participate in it to the tune of $30,000 a year than $80,000 a year? To ensure that each car you drive will last just a couple years longer before a replacement needs made, and that one more iPhone never gets made in a Foxconn sweatshop? If Joe's never gonna give a dime to others anyways, isn't it better for him to at least do a little less harm? If Joe's gonna give $1200 a year to others, isn't it still just as much of a difference for him to do less harm, and cause the world to mine just a little less arsenic?
-
You can't start a successful business in a country overrun with barbarians, so you pay a little for national defense. You can't find competent employees for your business if your neighbors are uneducated twits, so you pay a little for public education. You can't transport your goods to market without roads or rails, so you pay a little for those too.
Where have I heard this nonsense before.....oh and weren't taxes collecected when these things were created and on the ensuing commerce that resulted from it.
What do you mean "when these things were created"? Those are not one time expenses, they are ongoing.
And the "commerce" is taxed via the income tax. There is no national sales tax.
Actually I don't think I said taxes are an unfair burden but:
(1) the tax system, as you want it, is already geared to have those who have/make more pay more and those who don't pay less - sure there are some instances where A billionaire pays a low effective tax rate but the amount paid in absolute dollars is still sizeable and lets not forget that about half of the population pays no federal income tax and some even get money back - so if that doesn't balance it out I don't know what does.
It is very progressive - all the way to $300k annual income.
Only problem is, someone at the lowest end of the top bracket has an amount of income closer to a homeless guy than to the truly filthy rich billionaires. We currently have about the least progressive tax rates (in terms of how high the top bracket is, and what percentage of society pays that top rate) than we have ever had - with the predictable result of increasing inequality.
(2) the government is horribly inefficient with its resources
Oh yeah it is! But... If left to donations, how many people are going to willingly give their money to sexy projects like mosquito abatement or sewage treatment? Also, why wouldn't the private charities doing the work of government become just as inefficient if they were tasked with nation level projects? I suspect the main reason for government inefficiency is the sheer size of the country, in which case breaking each state into its own country would do more to reduce waste than privatizing government and replacing taxes with mandatory charity.
Ok, so maybe you think that if they cut my tax rate by 10% I would just pocket it/invest it and the system would just be out 10%, fine then give me the option to pay the 10% tax or do something charitable with it. Oh wait a minute we already have this and it drives wealthy people to donate, which BTW results in a lower effective tax rate.
Exactly. The system already allows this. So what are you complaining about exactly? No one here suggested removing the tax credit for charitable donations. Doesn't that address your issue completely? You don't want to pay taxes? Give enough to your personal favorite charity to bring you AGI down to the zero effective tax bracket.
As for your Wal-mart example, it is their business and they should be able to do what they want and if it is unfair/undesirable then people can choose to not work/shop there and it would all end.
A single individual can't stop the local independent businesses from being displaced by a new WalMart coming to town with their own personal buying choices. If they used to work in one of those shops that goes out of business, maybe now the only reasonable option left open to them is taking the WalMart job. Business should not be allowed to just do whatever it wants, anymore than private citizens are able to do whatever they want. If anything, less so. We, as a society, get to decide what a business can and can't do.
(also supports my point that no TV/Radio or mass media ads of anykind should be allowed for political campaigns).
Glad we agree about at least one thing!
-
I'm still struggling with the notion of a website that proposes seeking a meaningful life without excessive material wealth, yet claims that amassing material wealth is the way to find it.
That's a fair question to raise, but is not how I see 'MMM's 'teachings'. The accumulation of wealth (the stash) is not the means to find a meaningful life. It's the means to finance it. In today's world, the alternative to salary income is investment income. In order to get enough investment income for years and years, you have to build a large enough capital. Building a stash is a large part of MMM talk because early retirement is a big focus of this website. If your meaningful life doesn't call for early retirement, and you're perfectly happy doing your paying work til the day you die, I don't view that as un-Mustachian.
shooting for early retirement is evil. By walking away from income that could be used to save a child's life, knowing you have the power and the opportunity to save her, you have actively participated in her suffering and demise.
That's certainly a fair assessment. But I'm with Bakari on this one.
Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
...
Suggesting that one shouldn't retire because they could hypothetically earn money to give to charity is the exact same extreme that Tooqk sarcastically suggested earlier. It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
This I think is in the same line as I.P. Daley's argument earlier:
You're building your entire philosophy of giving upon not taking, which although isn't necessarily a bad thing and is part of the spirit of generosity, is only a fraction of the whole. You can't decide what others do with the resources you don't take. What's stopping a selfish person from taking the share you left behind and hoarding it all for himself?
I personally don't feel I should be responsible for what others choose to do, unless it is a direct, inevitable result of what I do. In the example where my spot in the work force is taken by someone who's selfish, while it's a result of what I do (leaving the work force), it's not really a direct and inevitable result. My spot could be taken by someone who would use the salary in much better way than I could, or it could be taken by someone who's perpetually trying to keep up with the Joneses. First, I shouldn't be responsible for who ends up in spot. Two, I shouldn't be responsible for the choices made by those individuals. For my own sake, I will not take on the weight of the whole world on my shoulders. Can that be considered a selfish act? Sure can, but I'm willing and able to live with it. I'm not saying we shouldn't help those in need of help. I'm just saying there's a limit to the weight I should carry. Whether I actually do anything with those weights is another question, and IMO, a personal one.
-
We're pretty tribal creatures, so yeah we'll be all kinds of helpful to the people around us, but we're not going to care as much about the people far away from us that we don't know.
How do you feel about this apparent disconnect?
I think this perceived separation is always artificial. I don't think it should matter who or where the drowning child is. If you have the power and opportunity to save a life, and you choose not to, how do you sleep at night?
For most people, I think the answer is just ignorance. They don't want to think about it. Children dying of thirst in Sudan are carefully compartmentalized away in a different part of the brain than the one that sets your lawn sprinklers to water every morning, so that we don't have to face up to the moral implications of our own decisions. We try not to think about it.
I think I need some additional explaining, I actually have a hard time discussing morality because I believe in Determinism. So usually I just end up focusing on trying to explain why people do X rather than whether or not people ought to do X.
I've thought about it and know perfectly well that people die all over the world every day for all kinds of reasons and that I could potentially save some of them. I'm perfectly okay with this and it doesn't bother me at all even when I think about it, it's not as if I have to put it away and try not to think about it. However, I'm also fairly certain that if I ever saw someone drowning I would have to help and have tons of guilt if I didn't.
There are tons of people on this earth that for them these two facts hold true. I don't think it's worth it to try and justify this in terms of what may or not be better for society because it wouldn't change the result, for many people these facts will still hold true. This is where I offer the tribalism theory as an explanation for how these two facts can hold true for the same person.
-
Humans are incredibly diverse creatures that have an incredible social and biological range and have lived in many different types of societies over the long history of the species. If you want to say that people care more about what's near to them, fine, but don't act like there's any anthropological truth behind what you're saying if all you've got supporting it is "gee, people in tribes are close to other people in tribes" and "people used to live in tribes". At least recognize that the only thing substantiating it is the fact that it's what you choose to believe about the world.
-
Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
...
Suggesting that one shouldn't retire because they could hypothetically earn money to give to charity is the exact same extreme that Tooqk sarcastically suggested earlier. It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
This I think is in the same line as I.P. Daley's argument earlier:
You're building your entire philosophy of giving upon not taking, which although isn't necessarily a bad thing and is part of the spirit of generosity, is only a fraction of the whole. You can't decide what others do with the resources you don't take. What's stopping a selfish person from taking the share you left behind and hoarding it all for himself?
I personally don't feel I should be responsible for what others choose to do, unless it is a direct, inevitable result of what I do. In the example where my spot in the work force is taken by someone who's selfish, while it's a result of what I do (leaving the work force), it's not really a direct and inevitable result. My spot could be taken by someone who would use the salary in much better way than I could, or it could be taken by someone who's perpetually trying to keep up with the Joneses. First, I shouldn't be responsible for who ends up in spot. Two, I shouldn't be responsible for the choices made by those individuals. For my own sake, I will not take on the weight of the whole world on my shoulders. Can that be considered a selfish act? Sure can, but I'm willing and able to live with it. I'm not saying we shouldn't help those in need of help. I'm just saying there's a limit to the weight I should carry. Whether I actually do anything with those weights is another question, and IMO, a personal one.
Sure, when you take my quote out of context, you could make an argument that I'm saying exactly the same thing. However, that was not what I was trying to specifically say. I was trying to illustrate the point that the function of charity is more than the parts or the sums of those parts. Simply claiming that taking less is all the charity that one needs to perform is missing the point of charity entirely. Let me quote myself from the other thread:
Anyone who thinks that just a portion of time, or money/resources, or just taking less is sufficient as a defense for claiming they're generous is buying into a fallacy. Generosity is so much more than just those parts or even their sum. It's a frame of mind, an ethos that defines how you conduct yourself in life. We all have shortcomings in this, some more than others... but it's pretty obvious that selfishness is far more on the table philosophically speaking in these forums than otherwise. It's something that has to be practiced and discussed if any of us are to ever improve upon that, and unlike Bakari, I don't believe that doing the right thing for the wrong reason genuinely benefits a greater good.
Perhaps we can reframe this conversation from "where" - that is, where should we put our money, to "how much" - that is, what percentage is a good amount to be giving to charitable, productive causes?
I grew up in a middle-income househould, we often gave 10% in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Of course, I suppose those at higher net worth values can afford to give more....but that is another debate altogether.
Do you use a percentage? And if so, how much?
I think a lot of Judaeo-Christians completely miss the concept and purpose of the mitzvot of tithing and charity. The 10% is there to be enough to challenge the giver to recognize that giving can be challenging, but not necessarily disruptive to the care of one's own responsibilities or difficult to perform. It's a teaching mechanism in a way to help instill the value of charity and the value of community. Further, the purpose and encompassing nature of giving of these first-fruits and mitzvot has been lost upon us in the post-industrial world. When a farmer gives 10% of his crop to the needy, he's giving far more than just that.
He is leaving 10% for the needy to take.
He is donating 10% of his work time expressed in the crops tended to charity.
He is sacrificing 10% of his financial gains to the benefit of others.
That 10% is more than just resources, it's an all-encompassing portion of their life. And in this day and age, especially within the context of what we've learned through frugal living, 10% of our lives can have an immensely positive and powerful impact on the welfare of others around us. If we have the capacity, however, there's no reason why we should feel constrained to just that amount if we have the resources to do more.
Altruism and charity is not something I'm inclined to do to for the sake of selfish reasons. Do I sometimes benefit and wallow in some of the selfish aspects of giving at times whether they're productive or not and sometimes don't give as much as I could? Yes, but I can't help that... I'm a sinner and only human. However, I struggle to do my best not to fall down those traps of selfish reasons. For their existence though, they are not ultimately why I am charitable. On my heart is indelibly written what's truly right and wrong. When I listen to it, I know that despite my urge to claim my life as mine alone, I know it isn't. As such, I need to be giving of a portion of my life and the talents it houses to those around me with no strings attached. It's about uplifting my fellow man with some of what I've been blessed with because I have the capacity to, and that capacity helps to make the world a better place.
When I speak of charity and giving, I speak of a balanced, noble, selfless pursuit. I don't disagree about what many of our fellow mustachians are describing as generous acts. They are generous acts, but by limiting the scope so myopically to just those acts, we all miss the bigger picture of their true function and purpose.
-
What do you mean "when these things were created"? Those are not one time expenses, they are ongoing.
And the "commerce" is taxed via the income tax. There is no national sales tax.
The infrastructure investment was funded with tax receipts and debt, which lead to commerce, which lead to income, which resulted in income tax receipts. Sure there is no national sales tax but there are local sales taxes almost in every state, as well as property taxes, gas taxes, etc., all of which support infrastructure at some level. Sure we all have to contribute, and point is that we are.
It is very progressive - all the way to $300k annual income.
Only problem is, someone at the lowest end of the top bracket has an amount of income closer to a homeless guy than to the truly filthy rich billionaires. We currently have about the least progressive tax rates (in terms of how high the top bracket is, and what percentage of society pays that top rate) than we have ever had - with the predictable result of increasing inequality.
I am not sure I agree with it being the least progressive especially when other countries have higher individual income taxes many have lower corporate tax. Setting that aside, the top 1% paid 37% of taxes, top 5% paid 59%, and top 10% of earners pay 70% of the total tax pie clearly they are paying a lot.
Incidentally, MMM has demonstrated how it is possible to live quite well, almost luxurious, on an income below the poverty line.
Oh yeah it is! But... If left to donations, how many people are going to willingly give their money to sexy projects like mosquito abatement or sewage treatment? Also, why wouldn't the private charities doing the work of government become just as inefficient if they were tasked with nation level projects? I suspect the main reason for government inefficiency is the sheer size of the country, in which case breaking each state into its own country would do more to reduce waste than privatizing government and replacing taxes with mandatory charity.
I think it is possible for charities to become inefficient as they get larger but if I see that happening I can realocate my donation to somewhere else, I don't have that option with the government. Mosquito abatement and sewage are more what taxes should be paying for, I don't consider those charitable acts. And breaking states into individual countries would only create more inequality and in case you have noticed state spending is probably more inefficient than federal spending, and is far more corrupt (hard to believe that is possible).
Exactly. The system already allows this. So what are you complaining about exactly? No one here suggested removing the tax credit for charitable donations. Doesn't that address your issue completely? You don't want to pay taxes? Give enough to your personal favorite charity to bring you AGI down to the zero effective tax bracket.
Yeah but then if I was a billionaire you would claiming I am not paying my fair share and using loopholes to circumvent paying taxes.
A single individual can't stop the local independent businesses from being displaced by a new WalMart coming to town with their own personal buying choices. If they used to work in one of those shops that goes out of business, maybe now the only reasonable option left open to them is taking the WalMart job. Business should not be allowed to just do whatever it wants, anymore than private citizens are able to do whatever they want. If anything, less so. We, as a society, get to decide what a business can and can't do.
First of all why can't an individual make a difference - he/she can stop going there and convincer thier friends to stop going there and so on and so on. Besides we are not here to serve the individual and many times the individual's/communities government representation changes zoning, makes tax accomodations, subsidizes infrastructure to get walmart and other retailers in. Tell your politicians to stop caving.
I hate the walmart effect, but it is business. Individuals/Communities can choose to shop at the smaller retailers but they don't because it is not as convenient, the stuff costs more because walmart has greater buying power, etc. Small mom and pop stores don't offer benefits either so that is not the cost difference. Tell your friends to go and pay $4 more for a t-shirt at the local store or just don't buy one period. I am sorry but no business, no matter how big and powerful, can't survive unless they meet the needs and expecations of its customers.
Business like its citizens should be able to do what they want provided it is not causing harm to others. (This is where I expect a response saying how they are harming people because they have to work with x and make only x and walmart supports mass pollution because of the goods made in china and then because it is cheap crap it ends up in landfills. All true but only because of the customers buying it.
-
Humans are incredibly diverse creatures that have an incredible social and biological range and have lived in many different types of societies over the long history of the species. If you want to say that people care more about what's near to them, fine, but don't act like there's any anthropological truth behind what you're saying if all you've got supporting it is "gee, people in tribes are close to other people in tribes" and "people used to live in tribes". At least recognize that the only thing substantiating it is the fact that it's what you choose to believe about the world.
Ya, I'm ok with that, I've definitely read about the theory from sort of anthropological researcher, but certainly didn't do any due diligence into determining where they got this theory from or what if any research went into it. I'm sure that if it was true it would only be a small part of the whole picture that perhaps only explains some individuals or only the partial behaviors of some individuals.
-
Wow Sol, Very well written. It's nice to see your heart and passions with your ideas and opinions.
I think something not mentioned yet is that you seem to be critiquing a very little piece to a very nice network of help for people seeking FI. The fact is that we need to take this step of focusing on money to "get it". At least, *I* need it. :)
I've done a lot of self help in different perts of my life starting with my weight. I was 210lbs in 1999. During my journey educating myself about food, it was impossible for me to have a conversation without talking about food or my weight for a good 2 years! It must have been insufferable for that time, especially if you disagreed. That's the step a lot of us here are at. We're blinded by the light sometimes and can't see past our inspiration. Never mind, that we're all in different places financially.
It also maybe helpful to note, this online community is exceptional with being nice. Generally speaking, people aren't here to bully one another. I imagine that the poeple who are looking to use their powers for evil can get some info here and "level up" to something else when this isn't enough.
Lesson from anthropology: If there is a resource available, something WILL evolve to consume it. Please think of this when considering the following...
There's useful info here. The whole knowledge is power thing: People will come here just to learn things to "win by the most possible". The critical thing for FI is :"enough". The kids who get it are looking to have enough.
I won't get into my charitable action. Let's assume if you get it, you'll pay it forward. If you don't get it; that's not my problem (or IMHO yours either Sol).
Another note from self help...In the PUA scene, there's a lot of jerks using their powers for evil. There's also a lot of really awkward dudes learning how to talk to girls. Much like money management, flirting and relationship building are not taught in school, but we still really improve our quality of life with the skills. People flock to these sources of high demand and low access data dispersal points. Part of being human is that some people will use this to "win the game", or get ahead.
I simply say don't be a jerk and do your best. That's what i'm doing and i do my best to accept that someone's best doesn't have to meet my rigorous standards. We are all on different parts of the same path in my mind.
Thank you so much for instigating a great conversation.
-
So I just went for a little walk and passed some people that are either homeless or gypsies (transient).
- the first was a group of three people that seemed to be in their mid 20s, and a dog. I have seen them before over the past several months. Each had an instrument, but weren't playing, and smelled awful from 10 feet away. They were all slim but none were anywhere near malnurished, and the pack of cigarettes kind of was off putting too. They were panhandling, asking for money to help. You mean to tell me that out of the three people not one could find some legitimate way to earn money.
- the second a bit further down the road claimed he was 22 and recently lost his father, and is now homeless and hungary. Also is a diabetic and claimed he was struggling to come up with money for prescription. All in all a believable story so I bit and offered to buy the kid a sandwich. Given that his sign said he was hungary I was surprised when he said no.
This is another issue I have with your position, I don't feel I or anyone else should have to be taxed to support people who don't want support themselves. I don't want to be accountable for adults who don't want to be accountable. Is that wrong, does that make me a bad person, or even an EVIL one? I think not.
Difficult things happen and there so many ways and circumstances that cause people to become homeless and this is not a judgement on that. There should be temporary services/safety nets available to help these people when times get bad, and there are such services and resources but many seem to become permanent in nature and are available without question in perpetuity. Why is that ok? Why do people have to have unemployment for five years? Do you think its coincidence that SSI Disability claims are skyrocketing - how could that many more people be getting hurt?
Throwing money at a problem does not solve the problem, using resources to develop and implement solutions does.
-
I was trying to illustrate the point that the function of charity is more than the parts or the sums of those parts. Simply claiming that taking less is all the charity that one needs to perform is missing the point of charity entirely. Let me quote myself from the other thread:
Anyone who thinks that just a portion of time, or money/resources, or just taking less is sufficient as a defense for claiming they're generous is buying into a fallacy. Generosity is so much more than just those parts or even their sum. It's a frame of mind, an ethos that defines how you conduct yourself in life.
When I speak of charity and giving, I speak of a balanced, noble, selfless pursuit. I don't disagree about what many of our fellow mustachians are describing as generous acts. They are generous acts, but by limiting the scope so myopically to just those acts, we all miss the bigger picture of their true function and purpose.
It wasn't my intent to take your comments out of context. I wanted to address a line of thinking that I disagreed with, that we are somehow should still be accountable to the choices others make. True, what I was responding to wasn't your whole argument, but I disagreed with something that you used as part of your argument.
I'm just saying there's a limit to the weight I should carry. Whether I actually do anything with those weights is another question, and IMO, a personal one.
My response to that specific part of your argument is in my earlier post, summarized in the first sentence quoted above. The second sentence is an overview of what I think on the entirety of your argument.
Now I'll elaborate. That there's multiple parts to charity in your definition is your opinion. Of your comments on charity, I agree with the encompassing idea:
It's a frame of mind, an ethos that defines how you conduct yourself in life.
And I believe that this varies across individuals. Consequently, charitable acts are often based on personal beliefs.
To give an example, I don't fully agree with this aspect of your idea of charity (emphasis mine):
In addition to taking less for yourself and giving time, you also need to proactively give some of what you take back to those who don't get a chance at the table to begin with. Between what you said here and in the charity thread, it appears your entire philosophy of charity is built upon the idea that everyone gets an equal crack at what you don't take for yourself.
The ideal situation is where everyone does get an equal chance at the table. I realize we're not at this ideal yet. But I'd rather work to improve the system and bring it closer to the ideal, than to blindly give back to those who miss the table. Why? Because there's too many factors at play that finally leads to someone missing the table. I believe in equalizing the chance. What people do with their chance is up to them. Are there people who miss the table despite their best efforts because they have a disproportionately small chance at it to begin with? No doubt. But I'm not alone. There other people (like you) who will help them. I may choose to help, but do I think I need to? No.
To conclude, my point is that your definition of charity (and all its parts) is not the hard-set rules of charity. People's charitable acts are based on personal beliefs. To say that doing A and B is not enough because you're missing C, and charity is A + B + C, is not for any other individual to decide.
-
Very interesting discussion. Since nobody mentioned it, I thought I'd mention this article which is somewhat related, in case you missed it: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/14/are-you-obsessed-with-early-retirement/
This only covers a small part of this discussion, but it's worth noting that you don't have to give up on the now in order to have more later. In fact, by living on less you can almost immediately start doing what's important to you (unless you need to eliminate huge amounts of debt). And, while the blog is about early retirement and money, that's by far the least important part of it all...
-
Casting charity aside, we owe the third world as much in aid as we've taken from it--it's the just payback for the externalities of our dirt-cheap oil and cotton.
Thread drift again, but I think it could be argued that any debt could well be the other way around. What's the value of eradicating smallpox, or polio?
-
Thank you for the thought-provoking post, Sol. I've been troubled by this paradox myself, and it reminds me of the Ursula Le Guin short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas."
I struggle with participating in a system that I find to be unjust (few reap the benefits while many are exploited and have limited access to the most basic of human needs like clean drinking water!!!). My post-FI plans are to be as self-sustaining as possible, so in the short term, I focus my energies on developing the skills that I will need, as well as on volunteering. But of course I will still be a part of this system (unless it ends), so sitting in my own smug sustainable bubble on arable land near a fresh water source isn't going to cut it for me. I'm still working out what else I can do.
-
Counteracting the thread drift, hopefully.
From what I can gather, the argument that we're dealing with is this:
- If the world isn't the way it ought to be, you're morally obligated to do what you can to make it better.
- The world isn't the way it ought to be.
- You're morally obligated to do what you can to make it better. (via1 & 2)
- Early retirement a) is benign to changing the world (i.e. one can achieve FI and then spend the rest of their lives watching TV, smoking pot, listening to jazz records), and b) is an agent in making the world is the way it is (due to the nature of inequality in distribution of resources, & job-ownership/job-workmanship).
- Therefore, we shouldn't be fixated on early retirement. It doesn't do anything to advance our moral cause, as such. (via 3 & 4a)
- Therefore, early retirement is morally condemnable. It perpetuates the conditions we're obligated to change. (via 3 &4b)
I don't take any issue with premises (1-3). If you want to argue that the world we live in is just/moral, have at it.
I also don't think that (4a) is problematic, either. Early retirement could be benign to moral matters in the way that brushing your teeth is benign to moral matters. When it is effectively treated as an all-consuming end in itself, however, it is problematic. Hence, (5) is a valid and sound inference. Such a person is failing not only in her moral obligation to others, she's also become vicious (in the classical sense, i.e. as opposed to virtuous, and not with the connotation that she's violent) Even if her "ecological footprint" has diminished as a result of her miserliness, she's not much different than the average consumer we all deride and somewhat of an embarrassment to her own rationality.
To my mind, the sticking point comes with (4b). Does, e.g., foregoing investment in index funds and instead seeking passive income streams like madgeylou, being an upstanding landlord, putting your accumulated funds in government bonds and tax liens, take you out of the "agent for inequality" camp? Certainly you've got to take care of you and yours. No question, but once you and yours is taken care of, how much do you sacrifice? Everything else? If we've got an obligation to do what we can to make the world better, and we can make the world better by working a bit longer or by taking excess investment funds and donating them to charity rather than using them to pad our safety margin, isn't that what we should be doing? If we've got mounds of free time and skills that are in demand for the cure of some social malady, shouldn't we allocate whatever free time we can to do so? At what point does our obligation to make the world a better place stop? Cheap prices for many goods sold in the Western world presuppose cheap, exploitative labor in other parts of the world. Are we willing to accept higher prices for reducing the inequality, even if that means foregoing FI in some capacity?
Ferreting out the truth of (4b) and the inference drawn from it (i.e. 6) is the real task here. And it's a scary one, precisely because it might reveal some unattractive things about something we are all otherwise attracted to. We're attracted to it because of the freedom that it provides. As I said in a thread a few months ago, FI is a regulative ideal (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/is-fi-as-soon-as-possible-really-your-goal/msg12141/#msg12141), and our pursuing it has to be balanced out with other ideals. If we ignore the purported fact that our pursuing FI is largely due to an immoral inequality, we do so at the peril of balancing out those other ideals, especially ideals of morality and fairness, since we'd have arbitrarily accepted our interests as more important than the interests of others.
As others have suggested, the concept of early retirement doesn't necessarily require a morally deplorable inequality. But this doesn't change the reality that it in our own time it could just as easily be part of the problem as part of the solution.
-
Ferreting out the truth of (4b) and the inference drawn from it (i.e. 6) is the real task here. And it's a scary one, precisely because it might reveal some unattractive things about something we are all otherwise attracted to.
Thanks for spelling out the logic of the debate, always helpful.
I struggle to see how 4b can be true.
In non-FI mode I continue working until age 65 and spending lots of my income of fancy food, plastic trash, entertainment etc.
In FI-mode instead I invest 15% of that spending budget into Vanguards Total International Stock Index which buys shares of companies in emerging markets - generating cash flow and promoting growth in the underdeveloped economies of the world.
I also have a hard time accepting the line about our cheap goods coming at the expense of exploited workers in other countries. Since we're not dealing with slave labor, the only reason said workers accept these jobs is precisely because they must be an improvement on whatever the previous status quo was (prostitution, for instance). We could, however, ask ourselves what if instead of spending $60 dollars on Nike sneakers and indirectly improving this workers life, we just sent him the $60. We have now two separate concerns:
1) would this type of wealth transfer be an effective means of sustained global development, the kind needed to pull emerging markets into the developed world?
2) Is it realistic or probable that lots of other people would agree to such a wealth transfer?
I suspect "no" on both counts. Plus I'd be out some nice sneakers.
-
Hate to burst your balloon, but there is no possible way to sustain the current human population indefinitely.
I think you mean to say that there's no possible way to sustain the current human population indefinitely at a first world standard of living, right?
serious topics are written about and it's valuable to do so, but physically talking on those subjects is just as equally important. If you have trouble doing so, perhaps it should be a moment of self-reflection upon why.
I don't think it should be difficult for the two of you to agree that different people communicate in different ways, and no one way is best for everyone. Thus far this thread has been mostly enlightening and polite, and I'm kind of hoping it stays that way.
I don't think working to achieve FI is in conflict with helping others. Achieving FI is about achieving an abundance of resources--you have more than you need. Almost by definition, that means you therefore have the *ability* to help others.
In the perfect world I envision, yes this is true. I definitely haven't been getting that feeling from this forum, though. Instead, I mostly hear about how people look forward to a life if leisure once they hit early retirement, rather than a life of productive unpaid work helping other people.
I'm not going to tell anyone how or where or even how much to give, as long as the how much part is more than nothing at all.
As a test, how many people here are willing to come forward and admit that they don't donate any of their income (not time, income) on a recurring basis, for example as a paycheck deduction or monthly bill. I'm sure some of us don't, and I'd wager that most of us don't. That's what I'd like to see change.
Just a dollar or two per paycheck, as an automated deposit to a cause of your choice, so that it you break the barrier of hoarding it all for yourself and learn to make giving part of your identity. Trust me, it feels good, even in small amounts.
The bible advises you to provide for your own household first.
I don't think that means you should devote yourself wholly to building your nest egg before you learn to have compassion for the less fortunate. I'm pretty sure Jesus said some stuff about that, too.
You can argue about the evils of capitalism all you want, but in my opinion it is superior to most other attempted economic systems
I think the socialist democracies of northern Europe are doing pretty well, but I concede it's all opinion at this early stage of the game. Check back with me in another century and we'll see how everyone has fared.
Here's a thought for the die-hard capitalists in the group: what about democratic corporations? Imagine a business model where every worker gets to vote on what the company does, and every worker takes some proportioned share of the profits. Where a CEO is elected to represent the people who do the work, rather than appointed to oppress them. If democracy is good enough for America, why isn't it good enough for American corporations?
-
If you obtain your Mustache in a way that deliberately and overtly exploits others in a way that is substantially destructive, what's the point? Throw a couple dollars at a charity later to make yourself feel better?
For some of us, the whole notion of the stock market itself exploits others is a socially destructive way. If you buy an index fund, most of your money is going places like Exxon, Walmart, and Philip-Morris. Are those the companies that soothe your conscience, or are they the ones that offer you the best financial return?
no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen.
I'm going to break up this thread's trend towards civility because I know Bakari can take it: dude, get your head out of your ass. You don't think individual people can change the world? Seriously? Can you give me an example of ANYTHING ELSE in history that has changed the world? I thought you of all people might be free of the brainwashing that says "it's too hard, don't try."
The current system is only perpetuated because people think like you do, that it's just too big and too entrenched and can never change. I call BS.
It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
I'm saying that there's a wide spectrum of morality between giving everything and giving nothing, and that one end of that spectrum is immoral. Not amoral, meaning lacking any moral connotations, but immoral, meaning morally reprehensible.
And most people, just by default and social norms, sit firmly up against the immoral extreme of complete disregard for the less fortunate and would be happier and better people if they could learn to share just the tiniest little fraction of their abundance. Don't rationalize it away by saying you give your time, or you'll give some day. Give something now. Half a percent would be an optimistic goal for such people, though well within the market variability they otherwise accept for growing their portfolio. Even 0.1% is a huge step better than nothing.
The difference between the latest smart phone and retiring early is that the phone brings extremely little real, meaningful, or lasting joy into the life of the consumer, while (depending on your job on your personality) early retirement actually can.
This is an excellent point. Early retirement certainly can bring lasting joy. And postponing that early retirement by a week can help a mother feed a starving infant for a year. I'm pretty sure they joy she experiences from not watching her child die of malnutrition is greater than the joy you would derive from exiting the workforce five days earlier.
In this context, the iphone is so far off the table as to be almost laughable.
Man, I thought this thread would help moderate some of these thoughts that have been kicking around in my head, but instead it's just making more and more of a crazy extremist on this issue. Someone talk some sense into me, quick, before I join a monastery.
-
serious topics are written about and it's valuable to do so, but physically talking on those subjects is just as equally important. If you have trouble doing so, perhaps it should be a moment of self-reflection upon why.
I don't think it should be difficult for the two of you to agree that different people communicate in different ways, and no one way is best for everyone. Thus far this thread has been mostly enlightening and polite, and I'm kind of hoping it stays that way.
Definitely agreed. What you actually quoted was never meant as an attack, but was a deliberate comment meant to inspire some introspection and self-examination. After all, the entire purpose of this thread is to force people out of their comfort zones and grow personally, right? Unfortunately, it wasn't taken as such, which is why I hadn't responded. A silent agree to disagree move.
I had a few other thoughts to add myself, but your additional post already hit on my talking points.
Man, I thought this thread would help moderate some of these thoughts that have been kicking around in my head, but instead it's just making more and more of a crazy extremist on this issue. Someone talk some sense into me, quick, before I join a monastery.
It's cool, Sol, and I'm not gonna talk you down so much as remind you that with everything in life, moderation. These threads the past few days have really provided myself some extra-laser-focused insight that's induced what I feel to be additional positive personal growth and a further refinement and understanding of my own value system, so I know how you feel. *shrug* Perhaps you're finding religion?
-
I struggle to see how 4b can be true.
In non-FI mode I continue working until age 65 and spending lots of my income of fancy food, plastic trash, entertainment etc.
In FI-mode instead I invest 15% of that spending budget into Vanguards Total International Stock Index which buys shares of companies in emerging markets - generating cash flow and promoting growth in the underdeveloped economies of the world.
The moral dilemma isn't one of "FI vs. non-FI mode," as if those are the only choices. I think it's safe to say that "FI mode" is unequivocally better than "non-FI mode." Even a total self-absorbed fuck who pursues FI but otherwise has nothing but contempt for humanity, the environment, etc. is at least not contributing more to the moral/environmental/etc. problems we face. The dilemma is between willing FI, pursuing it, and in the process potentially denying others that same privilege.
I also have a hard time accepting the line about our cheap goods coming at the expense of exploited workers in other countries. Since we're not dealing with slave labor, the only reason said workers accept these jobs is precisely because they must be an improvement on whatever the previous status quo was (prostitution, for instance).
Accepting cheap goods at the expense of exploited workers doesn't mean that their lives would be worse off because they work in a factory. What's at issue is that this arrangement very well may deny them the opportunity to achieve FI. If you will FI as a value for yourself, you will FI as a value for everyone. Hence the conundrum: Attaining and sustaining FI at the expense of others who may (probably will?) remain in a perpetual non-FI state.
We could, however, ask ourselves what if instead of spending $60 dollars on Nike sneakers and indirectly improving this workers life, we just sent him the $60.
We have now two separate concerns:
1) would this type of wealth transfer be an effective means of sustained global development, the kind needed to pull emerging markets into the developed world?
2) Is it realistic or probable that lots of other people would agree to such a wealth transfer?
I suspect "no" on both counts. Plus I'd be out some nice sneakers.
Right, so charity can have unintended consequences and participating in markets might actually make a better world. The question, however, is whether either allows for that worker to attain FI.
-
- If the world isn't the way it ought to be, you're morally obligated to do what you can to make it better.
Alternative proposition: if you think the world is not the way it should be, then devoting a reasonable amount of your resources to trying to improve it is a purely pragmatic, selfish decision, since it means that (if you're successful) you will get to live in a better world. No altruists need apply.[/list]
-
Hate to burst your balloon, but there is no possible way to sustain the current human population indefinitely.
I think you mean to say that there's no possible way to sustain the current human population indefinitely at a first world standard of living, right?
No. I meant what I said: I think there is no way to sustain the current population indefinitely at ANY standard of living. The issue is ongoing food supply.
Now I admit that I can't point to any "Do The Numbers" analysis that proves this, but neither do I know of any that disproves it, or has a sound methodology for finding a sustainable number. But there is a lot of suggestive evidence. Consider for instance the urbanization of the third world, and the fact that feeding much of this urban population depends on unsustainable agricultural practices. Ergo, if we lose first-world, unrenewable resource-dependent farming methods, most of the urban population will starve.
We can also look at history, and what low-tech farming methods did to the environment of the Middle East and North Africa. Civilizations grew in Mesopotamia, then collapsed when farming & grazing turned formerly fertile land into arid wasteland. The same happened in North Africa, first as Rome used it as the grainery for Italy; later as grazing by nomadic herdsmen and their flocks turned grasslands into desert. We can even see that the same thing happened in the America West: areas that were once grassland are now sagebrush desert.
Put all this together, plus many other things - e.g. the rate of ocean fishery depletion - and it seems pretty obvious that current populations aren't sustainable.
-
Early retirement a) is benign to changing the world (i.e. one can achieve FI and then spend the rest of their lives watching TV, smoking pot, listening to jazz records), and b) is an agent in making the world is the way it is (due to the nature of inequality in distribution of resources, & job-ownership/job-workmanship).
Is there any lifestyle choice in the broad spectrum of first world living which would not be part of 4b? Aren't almost all our choices in life designed to perpetuate just that? Honest question as I may be very very wrong.
I'm not going to say don't donate resources to charity. I believe everyone has a moral obligation to do so and help those around them. And I find it a fairly broad assertion to say that most people don't donate to charity (sol I apologize if I'm not paraphrasing you correctly on that one).
I would hazard that any person's mustache being evil or not would solely rest on the actions of that individual. If that individual gives resources to charity, helps better their community, betters the larger global community, or any other number of things that would help others then that individual would not be evil in my view. Ideally someone would do this throughout their lifetime but I can understand how there may be incidences of not contributing in some way for extenuating circumstances.
-
- If the world isn't the way it ought to be, you're morally obligated to do what you can to make it better.
Alternative proposition: if you think the world is not the way it should be, then devoting a reasonable amount of your resources to trying to improve it is a purely pragmatic, selfish decision, since it means that (if you're successful) you will get to live in a better world. No altruists need apply.[/list]
This alternative proposition is actually two arguments:
- Whatever you do, you do so for selfish reasons.
- You help others.
- Therefore, you help others for selfish reasons.
This is a bad argument. (1) can never be falsified, so why should we ever take it seriously as an empirical claim. Moreover, we're certainly able to imagine one acting altruistically, and so there's no reason to maintain (1) as a necessary, a priori feature of human nature. Third, people actually state they do things for non-selfish reasons (duty/obligation, charity, compassion, etc.). The egoist can claim that they're lying, but who knows better what their motives are?
The other argument is this:
- Whenever you do something that's beneficial to you, you do it for the sake of the benefit that comes to you.
- Making the world a better place is beneficial to you (i.e. you get to live in this better world).
- Therefore, you make the world a better place for the sake of that benefit that comes to you.
This suffers from the same problems as the first argument, but also has another problem: it ignores the fact that the benefit may be incidental, and therefore engages in some backward reasoning. The fact that one enjoys the benefit of some altruistic act doesn't require that she does it for that benefit, as the benefit could be unknown to them, or an after thought (e.g. sol's drowning girl - one needn't think "I might be a hero if I save her" or some other such thing; in all likelihood, the person doing the saving will react with no consideration of personal benefit or harm).
So no using psychological egoism to evade the issue.
-
Early retirement a) is benign to changing the world (i.e. one can achieve FI and then spend the rest of their lives watching TV, smoking pot, listening to jazz records), and b) is an agent in making the world is the way it is (due to the nature of inequality in distribution of resources, & job-ownership/job-workmanship).
Is there any lifestyle choice in the broad spectrum of first world living which would not be part of 4b? Aren't almost all our choices in life designed to perpetuate just that? Honest question as I may be very very wrong.
Excepting some sort of religious order, probably not. It's a very troubling thought, isn't it?
The question is, what do we do about it? Shug our shoulders and retreat in bad faith, or actually own our values and try to do something about it?
-
- If the world isn't the way it ought to be, you're morally obligated to do what you can to make it better.
Alternative proposition: if you think the world is not the way it should be, then devoting a reasonable amount of your resources to trying to improve it is a purely pragmatic, selfish decision, since it means that (if you're successful) you will get to live in a better world. No altruists need apply.[/list]
There isn't technically a thing on the face of the earth that people can do that one can't potentially spin and view as being done for selfish reasons. Heck, you could even claim self immolation as being a selfish act. This is why I keep saying it's so important to see beyond the acts performed towards the true purpose of these acts and for people to do things for the right reason, because true charity is about selflessness. There's a reason why the phrase, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," exists. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason can still lead to ruin.
This suffers from the same problems as the first argument, but also has another problem: it ignores the fact that the benefit may be incidental, and therefore engages in some backward reasoning. The fact that one enjoys the benefit of some altruistic act doesn't require that she does it for that benefit, as the benefit could be unknown to them, or an after thought (e.g. sol's drowning girl - one needn't think "I might be a hero if I save her" or some other such thing; in all likelihood, the person doing the saving will react with no consideration of personal benefit or harm).
Bingo. This highlights the very issue at heart within the community and this very discussion. Everyone who's commented here ultimately falls into one of two camps: charity performed for selfish reasons and charity performed for selfless reasons, and that's where the division line lies. The selfless camp argues that charity is necessary given the very nature of the world and should be performed at least to some extent solely for the betterment of others. The selfish camp is incapable of viewing altruism as anything but a selfish act, and when confronted with contrary ideals will treat it as a personal attack on their ethics. The concern over (a lack of) charity for selfish reasons with mustachians is a valid concern, and conflicts IMHO with the very purpose of the form of financial independence being extolled by our generous host.
-
Early retirement a) is benign to changing the world (i.e. one can achieve FI and then spend the rest of their lives watching TV, smoking pot, listening to jazz records), and b) is an agent in making the world is the way it is (due to the nature of inequality in distribution of resources, & job-ownership/job-workmanship).
Is there any lifestyle choice in the broad spectrum of first world living which would not be part of 4b? Aren't almost all our choices in life designed to perpetuate just that? Honest question as I may be very very wrong.
Excepting some sort of religious order, probably not. It's a very troubling thought, isn't it?
The question is, what do we do about it? Shug our shoulders and retreat in bad faith, or actually own our values and try to do something about it?
Yes but that is where I believe that, possibly naively, that people tend to give to charities. Now it is true that some don't and I'm making just as much of an assertion in saying that I think people do.
Am I allowed to shrug my shoulders and plow forward in helping in any small way that I can, hopefully help even more when I do achieve FI? Better yet don't answer that one and I'll just do it.
However life is unfair, societal structures aren't made for everyone to have the same opportunity, but that doesn't mean that I have to not pursue FI because of that. Given that all other options will perpetuate that same imbalance I'm going to pick the option that I feel resonates with my moral code, and that's FI with a drive to help others.
So I don't think my 'stache is evil. Could I do more to help others? Yes. But I'm using FI to try to be in a position to do that better.
-
Doesn't this presume that the only way to help people and alleviate suffering is by donating money?
No, it presumes that the decision to not donate money is immoral if you have the means and opportunity. It doesn't say anything about what else might also help, it just says that choosing not to do this minimum amount isn't moral.
sure there are some instances where A billionaire pays a low effective tax rate but the amount paid in absolute dollars is still sizeable
Progressive taxes exist because of the diminishing marginal utility of additional wealth. If Warren Buffet's tax bill goes up by $10k, he doesn't even notice, because he's rich as hell. If my tax bill goes up $10k, I have to make some sacrifices in my spending plan. If my unemployed brother's tax bill goes up $10k, he declares bankruptcy. Progressive tax rates are pretty easy to justify in light of this effect; it just doesn't hurt the billionaire very much to pay more since he will never need the money anyway.
This is basically the same debate Congress is having right now. Both sides agree we have a national deficit problem, but one side wants to collect more taxes from people who can easily spare it, and the other side wants to protect those rich folks and instead reduce benefits to those of us dependent on charity. What would Jesus say about that? Something like "Hallowed be the moneylenders, and screw the poor"?
(2) the government is horribly inefficient with its resources
This is a common refrain from some corners of society and as a federal employee it always bothers me a bit. Do you think our Army would be more cost effective if it were privately run? Then please ask the next returning Afghanistan vet you meet what he thinks about private mercs.
There is certainly government waste out there, I'm not disputing that. But the US government has one great advantage over the private sector when it comes to these enormous national programs like NASA or the DOT. It's not corrupt. Thus far, humanity has failed to provide any examples of non-democratic institutions that can control such large fractions of GDP without rampant corruption. Part of me feels that a higher overhead rate is par for the course to avoid having the contracts awarded to the manager's brother in law.
the part of early retirement that i struggle with morally is participation in the stock market, and all the horrible things that are being done in the name of increasing quarterly profits. the stock market fucking sucks in terms of morality. investing in the stock market via a broad index fund is troubling to me, because i have no desire to participate in most of the things that most of the big companies are doing.
I suggest that someone start a thread discussing investment options for people who want average market rate returns without investing in any of the obviously corrupt players that dominate most index funds. Surely the combined brain power here can come up with at least a few good suggestions.
-
it's not fair for you to say that dreams shouldn't ever be put on hold until you're good and ready to chase them unless you've got better support than a handful of anecdotes.
That's a more relevant point for someone with your dreams than someone with mine. But you're right, not all dreams are necessarily contradicted by exploiting third world labor and hoarding a personal fortune.
But I believe that human populations, like those of any other animal, expand to meet their food supply, so it's short-sighted and ultimately wrong for us to continue subsidizing millions of lives at near-starvation levels that wouldn't otherwise exist.
I was wondering if someone would toss out the eugenics argument. In essence, it says that the best way to alleviate suffering in the world is to kill off a whole bunch of people so that those who survive can be better off. It's classic ends vs means stuff, but I think most of here wouldn't seriously consider wiping out 6 billion innocents a viable option for making the world a better place.
But if you want to run with it, Grant, I'm all ears. Those people already exist, and convincing me to watch them starve to death is going to be a hard sell.
I think what you're really getting agitated over is that not everyone shares your values of charitable giving. Some of the forum's members are paralyzed by poverty, others by apathy.
The only thing I'm agitated about is that nobody has yet been able to make a sound argument as to why watching the girl drown is the better choice, and so I'm having to think more than I would like about whether or not the luxuries in my life are morally defensible. Whether or not anyone else joins me in this thought process is entirely up to them.
If the capitalist economy is exploitative, isn't it a whole hell of a lot better to participate in it to the tune of $30,000 a year than $80,000 a year?
This is Bakari's choice, and he and I have previously discussed this dichotomy. We share many of the same values, but he fights for them by accepting the system as it is and doing his own part to minimize the damages, while I have instead opted to game the system into spiraling wealth in the hopes of enacting real change.
-
This is another issue I have with your position, I don't feel I or anyone else should have to be taxed to support people who don't want support themselves.
My goal here is to encourage people who have surplus income to allocate a portion of it to a cause they believe in. I'm not asking anyone to support deadbeats. I don't really care if you give to an animal shelter or a museum or an orphanage. I just think that charity is one of the best uses of surplus income, in terms of improving your happiness and well being, and I'd like to see more people take that first tiny step from zero to $1 per paycheck in charitable donations.
Throwing money at a problem does not solve the problem, using resources to develop and implement solutions does.
It takes money to develop and implement solutions. There are tons of charities where your donation goes towards teaching fishing instead of handing out fish, surely you can find one that you can get behind. Are you still keeping every last cent you earn for your early retirement?
What's the value of eradicating smallpox?
Roughly akin to the costs of handing out smallpox-laden blankets to indigenous peoples? Are you really going to suggest that Africa owes us a debt of gratitude for eradicating smallpox?
A friend of mine once suggested that slavery was the best thing to ever happen to black people, because Africa has always been a shithole of poverty and despair and white slavers exported some of those black folk to America, where (after a few generations of whippings and rape) their descendants eventually gained freedom and became participants in the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth. See, we did them a favor! Try that one out at your next barbeque, and let me know how it plays.
-
This alternative proposition is actually two arguments:
- Whatever you do, you do so for selfish reasons.
- You help others.
- Therefore, you help others for selfish reasons.
This is a bad argument. (1) can never be falsified, so why should we ever take it seriously as an empirical claim. Moreover, we're certainly able to imagine one acting altruistically, and so there's no reason to maintain (1) as a necessary, a priori feature of human nature. Third, people actually state they do things for non-selfish reasons (duty/obligation, charity, compassion, etc.). The egoist can claim that they're lying, but who knows better what their motives are?
I think you misunderstand. I'm not claiming that it's the true explanation for all putatively altruistic behavior, but that it is A) a rational reason why people who are not by nature altruistic might want to try to make the world a better place; and B) the actual explanation for a lot of my own behavior. So I'm not evading anything, except perhaps the presumption that I subscribe in any great degree to the version(s) of morality being expressed here.
-
What's the value of eradicating smallpox?
Roughly akin to the costs of handing out smallpox-laden blankets to indigenous peoples? Are you really going to suggest that Africa owes us a debt of gratitude for eradicating smallpox?
Why, yes, I am suggesting exactly that - and not just Africa, but the entire world. You might care to remember what the world was like before vaccination: Upon a general calculation, threescore persons in every hundred have the small-pox. Of these threescore, twenty die of it in the most favourable season of life, and as many more wear the disagreeable remains of it in their faces so long as they live. Thus, a fifth part of mankind either die or are disfigured by this distemper.
Voltaire - "On Inoculation" http://www.bartleby.com/34/2/11.html Then multiply this by all the diseases that have been essentially eliminated by vaccination, antibiotics, and a simple knowledge of sanitation & public health. I'm old enough to remember a couple of older kids in my school who spent their childhood wearing leg braces because of polio - and those were the survivors. You tell me what a kid's life is worth.
I would also suggest that you learn something about historical epidemiology. Best evidence is that smallpox originated in Africa, and came to Europe via Asia, as did many of the plagues that afflicted Europe since the Romans began trading with distant lands. Look up the term "virgin field epidemic" for starters. Bottom line is that microbes don't give a damn about racial, ethnic, or political differences.
See, we did them a favor!
Who's "we" here? Perhaps the Islamic slave traders who ran the African trade, as well as one ranging from Ireland to the Slavic countries? The African rulers who saw the trade as a profitable way of disposing of conquered neighbors? It really would serve you well to learn something of history beyond the myopic "Europeans are to blame for everything" leftist cant.
-
no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen.
I'm going to break up this thread's trend towards civility because I know Bakari can take it: dude, get your head out of your ass. You don't think individual people can change the world? Seriously? Can you give me an example of ANYTHING ELSE in history that has changed the world? I thought you of all people might be free of the brainwashing that says "it's too hard, don't try."
The current system is only perpetuated because people think like you do, that it's just too big and too entrenched and can never change. I call BS.
You seem to misunderstand me. I didn't say "no one can make a difference."
I said "no one can save the world"
Like you said in the next sentence, there is a range between giving nothing and giving everything. I was responding to your implication that giving anything less than everything was immoral. I'm not saying no one should try to make things better. I'm saying don't stay up at night feeling guilty because - even though you have sacrificed to make things better, you maybe could have done a little more.
It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
I'm saying that there's a wide spectrum of morality between giving everything and giving nothing, and that one end of that spectrum is immoral. Not amoral, meaning lacking any moral connotations, but immoral, meaning morally reprehensible.
And most people, just by default and social norms, sit firmly up against the immoral extreme of complete disregard for the less fortunate and would be happier and better people if they could learn to share just the tiniest little fraction of their abundance. Don't rationalize it away by saying you give your time, or you'll give some day. Give something now. Half a percent would be an optimistic goal for such people, though well within the market variability they otherwise accept for growing their portfolio. Even 0.1% is a huge step better than nothing.
You can call it an excuse if you like, but at age 32, with 30k in income and 24k in savings, I am looking forward to retiring by normal retirement age, never mind early.
I honestly believe that 1) the utility of my dollars actually serves me as well as whatever percentage might trickle down to the end user were I to donate them; and 2) I will be in a much better position to give if I allow myself an accumulation phase first - so much so that the total I end up giving will likely surpass what I would have had I started now.
I really don't need to get into a "habit" of giving. I used to, to quite a few different organizations, regularly. I gave money to the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, Save the Children, I can't remember who else there may have been in the past, those ones stand out because they still keep sending me letters asking me to renew my "membership".
Of course this will fuel the whole idea behind this thread, but, yeah, realizing the value of planning for the future, passive income, and compound interest, made me decide to stop spending on basically anything besides food, shelter, and utilities. When I feel I can afford it, instead of giving cash to organizations who promise to do something useful with it, I want to buy ad space, and make my own public service messages.
When you say that any amount is better than nothing - even 0.1% - and that giving time doesn't count, it makes me think it isn't really about the value one is providing to others or to the world, its just for the principal, for the sacrifice.
You really think that me giving $30 annually to some random charity is better than me working unpaid hours directly for someone in need?
Money is just a placeholder for the value created by labor! If I give an hour of my time directly to an elderly widow, or the bicycle coalition, there is no administrative costs eating away a portion, no risk of embezzlement, no question if whether the actions the charity is taking are really the best possible way to use its resources. I've worked for charities and nonprofits. I've seen how they are run. I'm not saying that most of them don't provide valuable services, but - just like took would rather not pay taxes to an inefficient government - I feel I can provide better value directly, myself, than filtered through an organization.
I don't think charity should be penance. You may as well buy an H2, and then buy carbon-offset credits to feel good again. I think most American's have a bigger negative impact from their lifestyles than they could ever make up for by donating 10% or 20% or 40% of their income to a charity.
I think if one really wants to make a difference, the place to start is with looking at our own destruction that we do everyday. If you feel guilty about our American privileged and inequality, about our role in environmental degradation and resource consumption, the FIRST things to do are
1) don't have children
2) eat local and (at least) 95% plant based
3) don't ever drive a car
4) don't buy (new) stuff unless you absolutely need it, and then never anything imported
5) never fly anywhere on an airplane.
I don't think its really that charitable to be the problem (i.e. all the people in the first world who aren't following those steps - in other words, basically all of us) and then try to buy your way out of guilt by donating some percentage of your income.
Like I said before, I think true generosity should be measured by how much you keep, not how much you give away.
The pauper who gives a penny is more generous than the billionaire who gives away 99% of his fortune - the (ex)billionaire still has 10 million dollars. It wasn't a sacrifice.
Yet, obviously, the 990 million has the bigger impact on making things better.
I think you are too focused on the emotional side - generosity, as opposed to the utility side - effect.
-
This is why I keep saying it's so important to see beyond the acts performed towards the true purpose of these acts and for people to do things for the right reason, because true charity is about selflessness. There's a reason why the phrase, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," exists. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason can still lead to ruin.
That quote is saying the opposite of what you are saying! Its talking about doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. The intention was good, but the end result was ruin. This is exactly the risk I think you get with focusing on the motivation of the giver instead of the end result.
Everyone who's commented here ultimately falls into one of two camps: charity performed for selfish reasons and charity performed for selfless reasons, and that's where the division line lies. The selfless camp argues that charity is necessary given the very nature of the world and should be performed at least to some extent solely for the betterment of others. The selfish camp is incapable of viewing altruism as anything but a selfish act, and when confronted with contrary ideals will treat it as a personal attack on their ethics.
I'm not at all suggesting charity is or should be for selfish reasons.
I'm saying it doesn't matter.
I can absolutely promise you that the girl drowning in the river does not care, even a little bit, if the person who jumps in to save her only did it because he wanted to get in the newspaper as a hero. If we made the rule that saving her only "counts" if the person who does it is noble and pure of intention, she might end up drowning.
Would it be a better world if everyone did the right thing for the right reason, if no one was selfish? Well duh. I never argued that. I just don't see how it is relevant.
I have a friend who loves animals, and decided to stop eating meat. She says she can date a guy who eats meat, but only if he feels guilty about it.
But she has a problem with the fact that I don't think eating meat is inherently immoral - even though I am actually vegetarian!
Which school of thought do you think the animal that isn't served for dinner would prefer?
It seems like kind of a luxury to me to focus so much on the emotional motivation of the giver rather than the effect on the receiver. I think it makes it more about feeling good than about true compassion, which should be focused on the person in need.
-
If the capitalist economy is exploitative, isn't it a whole hell of a lot better to participate in it to the tune of $30,000 a year than $80,000 a year?
This is Bakari's choice, and he and I have previously discussed this dichotomy. We share many of the same values, but he fights for them by accepting the system as it is and doing his own part to minimize the damages, while I have instead opted to game the system into spiraling wealth in the hopes of enacting real change.
Perhaps this is a large part of why our feelings about this topic are so different, even though our basic underlying morality and feelings about the system are so similar.
See, I don't feel like I'm "accepting" the system.
I feel like I am LIVING my values, everyday. I'm trying to incorporate saving into that, but I am not making compromises to do it.
I could make a lot more money than I do by focusing on wealthier clients and raising rates, removing all my discounts (customers with no cars and/or nonprofits are a large percentage of my clients), not rounding down my bills (today I didn't charge for my last two hours of labor, just because I felt like I had made enough for one day).
I could stop working for the bikeshop and bike coalition, because I make $240 less for an 8-hour shift there than at my primary job.
I could start sub-contracting jobs, work on expanding the business - some people tell me I should, I would be providing jobs and opportunity.
I would certainly make a lot more money that way, probably for less work in the long run.
But I have no interest in that. I am anti-capitalist.
My mother wants me to inherit her property someday. I plan to either sell it and donate the profit, or use it to provide at-cost rent to someone deserving, because I don't believe in inheritance.
I have investments, but none are in general index funds, none are in oil or weapons or WalMart. Its a hodgepodge of "socially responsible" index funds and bonds, alternative energy mutual funds, hand selected stocks, and hand-selected consumer loans (lending club). All-in-all, I've lost money (mostly the alt energy mutual fund) - and I'm ok with that. I'd rather lose money than invest in anything I feel compromises my values.
I try to avoid buying anything from any chain store, if at all possible. I'll shop at a franchise before a corporation, a local place with a half dozen branches before a franchise, and a place with one location where the checker is also the owner anytime that's an option. I'll travel out of my way to get to an independent business, and I'll pay more with out a second thought. I'll buy certain things organic or not at all.
All of these things get in the way of amassing enormous wealth witch which I could hypothetically "make a difference", but I'm not willing to sacrifice my values in order to make more money so that I can then donate that money. That would make no sense to me.
Also, I'm not just quietly living in my little trailer not using stuff.
I'm here on this board, and at instructables (http://www.instructables.com/member/JacobAziza/?show=INSTRUCTABLES), and ecomodder (http://ecomodder.com/blog/), and youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFXgg2XnI8), and out in the real world talking to clients and friends and people on the street, anyone who will listen, about bicycles and hypermiling and anti-consumerism and how reducing your impact will save you money (because some people will do the right thing for the right reasons, and others need a selfish reason) and trying my best to inspire as many people as I can to change their own behavior.
The one place I did donate actual cash to recently (as well as time and labor) was OWS, because it was something i really believe in, and it reached a critical mass that made it impossible to ignore. I really don't think the little tiny battles some people do on their own have any real or significant impact. It takes a huge number of people getting on board. The first step is public education. I'd like to have the resources to spread the education I provide to those around me to a wider base, but it's going to take resources to do it. I.e. "accumulation phase". And since I am forgoing massive income on the basis of living my values, that phase is going to be a while.
In the meantime, I'll still be living low-impact and trying to inspire locally.
While I don't feel personally responsible to "fix" everything that is wrong in the world, I am also not content to "accept" the system.
I feel like all those things above is me not accepting the system.
I don't think anything I do is ever going to cause American citizens to all suddenly revert back from being "consumers" to being "citizens" or our elected officials to prioritize equity of distribution over raw GDP, but everyone of us here, participating in these discussions - and influencing not only the hundreds who comment, but the thousands who read without commenting - we are actually all helping to change the system, in a very real way.
That's something I feel good about.
-
This is basically the same debate Congress is having right now. Both sides agree we have a national deficit problem, but one side wants to collect more taxes from people who can easily spare it, and the other side wants to protect those rich folks and instead reduce benefits to those of us dependent on charity. What would Jesus say about that? Something like "Hallowed be the moneylenders, and screw the poor"?
I was traveling the last 4 days so I just got back on the forum and read this thread.
Why the hell did you have to bring politics into this? And justify it with religion to boot! Definitely a way to create division and discord here and prevent meaningful discussion on the issue at hand. The last thing this issue needs is a demagogue.
I was thinking of bringing up a topic along these lines for a while, I think it's a good issue to discuss here and I have a lot of thoughts. Unfortunately the way this topic was brought up is from a fundamentalist perspective. I rejected fundamentalist ideology a while back, I'm not going to join a discussion where it's so pervasive. Maybe I'll start a thread for those of us wanting a more helpful and practical discussion rather than fanatical philosophical bullshit.
I have enjoyed the more even handed participants (like Bakari), not because I agree with them completely but because they are practical, inspirational, helpful, productive. To those on this thread trying to have that sort of discussion I appreciate your attempts and would like to have more of that sort of discussion.
I'll edit to add that I probably should have waited to comment, I'm a bit irritable this morning... :) I'm decrying inflammatory rhetoric with inflammatory rhetoric and should probably just bite my tongue and move on.
-
From where I'm standing, the dots say that if you hit your retirement goal dollar amount and then quit working rather than put in one more day for another $100, you've effectively forsaken control of that $100 that you could have allocated to a cause you support. The hidden icebergs of our ongoing conversations here are all related to making value judgments about the best use of those dollars. Once we accept that upgrading to the new iphone is a stupid waste of my working career hours, why do we instead opt for retirement instead of malaria medication, or pertussis vaccinations, or HIV research, or counseling for women from abusive relationships, or even anything on Kiva or Kickstarter.
I think this is a key point in the conversation in that early retirement is a decision about allocation of resources just like all the other decisions before early retirement and should be considered mindfully as a choice along the way rather than as an end goal. To have early retirement not be leaning towards evil, I have to convince myself that the gains in time and assets afforded by early retirement (minus any losses incurred by decisions along the path towards er) allow me to more effectively identify and support the full scope of my values than other paths reasonably in my reach. I don't know the answer but it's a question that I do keep in mind.
I realize this is going to ruffle some feathers here, so I'll just come right out and give you all an easily quotable target to aim at: shooting for early retirement is evil. By walking away from income that could be used to save a child's life, knowing you have the power and the opportunity to save her, you have actively participated in her suffering and demise.
Another issue for me is that through my current profession I believe I do good in the world, and it affords me to have a far broader sphere of influence than if I wasn't working at it--but it does so at considerable cost to me and my family ( I wake up at 4 AM to work so that I can spend time with my kids before and after school--I work after they go to bed, I travel more than my family would like, I often feel like I am not fully present in my work or with my children or with my husband...). This disharmony leaves me somewhat burnt out and therefore less effective at everything I value and enjoy. And it doesn't seem sustainable. Sure, I can and do try to just be better at juggling it all, but my ideation of financial independence/early retirement is an "escape valve" on the pressure.
I think my key response to your "quotable target" is that I mainly agree, but that there's not just one child's life to save and that I need time and mental space to figure out how marshal my resources (time, talents, assets etc.) in more effective ways. The world has become extraordinarily complex and decisions that I don't really think that much about on a day-to-day basis (e.g., what all is in that index fund?) may have more impact on the world than the ones I do think about every day (e.g., am I doing my work with integrity? how can I find another way not to use my car?).
I am in a profession that has sabbaticals and I think I conceive of early retirement more in a sense of a sabbatical--I want to have the freedom to take a sabbatical from my current life, reflect on what I've done, what I think matters, what makes me happy, how to balance etc. and relaunch my next efforts whether they are income-producing or not. I think I get into the "how to make it happen" conversations on financial independence as a problem-solving, fun exercise and a distraction--and I get into the idea that at the end there's this escape pod of early retirement for managing my own personal burn-out--but it's not really why I am doing it.
On another note, having spent a good deal of time working in developing countries I do bristle at the gleeful and self-congratulatory tone the boards sometimes get when we realize how we can build wealth by the easy trimming of waste from our lives when I've seen so many folks in other countries be way, way more badass in figuring out ways of getting one more liter of water for their families.
-
Progressive taxes exist because of the diminishing marginal utility of additional wealth. If Warren Buffet's tax bill goes up by $10k, he doesn't even notice, because he's rich as hell. If my tax bill goes up $10k, I have to make some sacrifices in my spending plan. If my unemployed brother's tax bill goes up $10k, he declares bankruptcy. Progressive tax rates are pretty easy to justify in light of this effect; it just doesn't hurt the billionaire very much to pay more since he will never need the money anyway.
Buffett may not feel it but that doesn't make it right, and you are ignoring the corporate and other taxes that his companie and underlying companies pay that really should be factored into is effective tax rate. Your unemployed brothers taxes won't go up because he doesn't have any income, I just don't want me or even billionaires to pay for him to be unemployed indefinetly
This is basically the same debate Congress is having right now. Both sides agree we have a national deficit problem, but one side wants to collect more taxes from people who can easily spare it, and the other side wants to protect those rich folks and instead reduce benefits to those of us dependent on charity. What would Jesus say about that? Something like "Hallowed be the moneylenders, and screw the poor"?
Yes this is being debated in a dysfunctional congress right now but the reality is that the US has a spending problem not a tax problem. And just because people have something doesn't mean it is right to take it - again these rich people in many times actually give a lot back and raising thier taxes will not actually create that much more revenue anyway. Ultimately it will be the middle class that gets screwed like always.
This is a common refrain from some corners of society and as a federal employee it always bothers me a bit. Do you think our Army would be more cost effective if it were privately run? Then please ask the next returning Afghanistan vet you meet what he thinks about private mercs.
Yes I actually do beleive it would be run far more efficiently and cost effectively, but your point about mercs is off base. I didn't say that private soldiers would be better - you are dismissing the most important part of our military, which is that people who enlist choose to do so and generally have a high degree of moral apptitude and sense of pride and commitment to the country making for a very powerful and effective force.
There is certainly government waste out there, I'm not disputing that. But the US government has one great advantage over the private sector when it comes to these enormous national programs like NASA or the DOT. It's not corrupt. Thus far, humanity has failed to provide any examples of non-democratic institutions that can control such large fractions of GDP without rampant corruption. Part of me feels that a higher overhead rate is par for the course to avoid having the contracts awarded to the manager's brother in law.
If you think there is no corruption in government spending then you better have your head evaluated, but that doesn't mean government workers are corrupt, just means the some individuals and the system is.
-
This is another issue I have with your position, I don't feel I or anyone else should have to be taxed to support people who don't want support themselves.
My goal here is to encourage people who have surplus income to allocate a portion of it to a cause they believe in. I'm not asking anyone to support deadbeats. I don't really care if you give to an animal shelter or a museum or an orphanage. I just think that charity is one of the best uses of surplus income, in terms of improving your happiness and well being, and I'd like to see more people take that first tiny step from zero to $1 per paycheck in charitable donations.
Throwing money at a problem does not solve the problem, using resources to develop and implement solutions does.
It takes money to develop and implement solutions. There are tons of charities where your donation goes towards teaching fishing instead of handing out fish, surely you can find one that you can get behind. Are you still keeping every last cent you earn for your early retirement?
We agree - there are tons of ways to help out with money and time and a lot that are effective, so what we disagree on is how much, how often, and ultimately when people should contribute and the belief that people should feel obligated to do so otherwise they are evil.
-
I think you misunderstand. I'm not claiming that it's the true explanation for all putatively altruistic behavior, but that it is A) a rational reason why people who are not by nature altruistic might want to try to make the world a better place; and B) the actual explanation for a lot of my own behavior. So I'm not evading anything, except perhaps the presumption that I subscribe in any great degree to the version(s) of morality being expressed here.
It's not really an alternative proposition then. If you ought to do what is in your own interest, and making the world a better place is in your interest, then you agree with (1), which makes no claim about whether helping others is essential or incidental to making the world a better place.
The intention was good, but the end result was ruin. This is exactly the risk I think you get with focusing on the motivation of the giver instead of the end result.
And focusing on the end result along could mean adopting a course of action in which the good ends up being incidental. The processes, rules, and motivations are just as important.
For instance, consider a rich banker who gives to a homeless shelter without giving charitably: he wants to perpetuate the existence of the homeless through his "donation," but out of a belief that they deserve to suffer. When he gets the means, he purchases and imprisons the homeless in a torture chamber to increase their suffering. The motive for "donating" and the motive for torturing them were the same and the consequences were the result of the motivation, even though the consequence of "donation" was good and the consequence of torturing was bad.
In other words, we don't merely want a situation that provides the greatest overall good, we want a system that does so.
However life is unfair, societal structures aren't made for everyone to have the same opportunity, but that doesn't mean that I have to not pursue FI because of that. Given that all other options will perpetuate that same imbalance I'm going to pick the option that I feel resonates with my moral code, and that's FI with a drive to help others.
Right. Recognizing that pursuing and maintaining FI might be a part of the problem of inequality of opportunity for FI doesn't mean that one should refrain from pursuing and maintaining FI. One would have to make the case that some alternative is better. If there is no alternative, then FI it is. But awareness that it too might be part of the problem can help one be mindful in one's FI choices. Would you invest in a prostitution ring if it promised a %50 APY return? It could sure speed up your attaining FI, but at what expense to the goal of making the world a better place? Excepting possibly the whole legality part, is investing in the total stock market different in kind than this example?
-
There other people (like you) who will help them. I may choose to help, but do I think I need to? No.
Am I correctly understanding that your reason for not giving to charity is that other people give to charity so you don't have to? Do you think all of the available charity is "used up" so that your contribution no longer makes a difference?
On another level, this argument speaks directly to the point I was trying to make, and which several other posters have alluded without being too explicit. Namely, that charitable giving isn't a purely utilitarian activity, and has benefits for both the recipient and the giver. I believe that the act of giving to others is rewarding in and of itself, and makes us both happier people and better people. It's one of those inherently human activities that we've somehow forgotten how to do.
Are we willing to accept higher prices for reducing the inequality, even if that means foregoing FI in some capacity?
This one is an easily testable hypothesis, and ultimately comes down to which of those two things you value more. Do you value a more just world, or do you value low-low rollback prices for plastic crap at Walmart?
Several posters here have previously discussed this decision with threads like "I want to support local businesses, but not when they cost 50% more" in which case we've exactly quantified which of those two things that person values more. How many of us are complicit in exploitive business practices in the interests of better market returns?
-
I also have a hard time accepting the line about our cheap goods coming at the expense of exploited workers in other countries... what if instead of spending $60 dollars on Nike sneakers and indirectly improving this workers life, we just sent him the $60.
These goods are exploitive precisely because the worker does NOT get $60 for those sneakers. Instead, she gets 85 cents/hour to work in a sweatshop with no fire escapes. Those sneakers contain $3 in materials, 20 cents in labor, $2 in shipping charges and packaging, $15 dollar in advertising, and $40 in profit for the American executives who set the whole thing up.
Nike is actually a great example, as a company that doesn't actually make anything. The Nike corporation owns no factories, it employs no manufacturing jobs, manages no supply lines. All it does is marketing, and everything related to production it subcontracts out to the lowest bidder in a free trade zone. So technically, you might claim it is the subcontractors who are perpetuating third world poverty, but I don't feel like that lets Nike off the hook.
would this type of wealth transfer be an effective means of sustained global development, the kind needed to pull emerging markets into the developed world?
I think this system is designed precisely to avoid pulling emerging markets into the third word. It's designed to extract value from places where materials and labor are cheap, and consolidate the wealth thus created in the US and other developed nations. Shoes, clothes, coffee, oil, minerals, cars, electronics, the entire global economy works on the same model.
-
Put all this together, plus many other things - e.g. the rate of ocean fishery depletion - and it seems pretty obvious that current populations aren't sustainable.
This is a significant tangent so I won't go into too much detail without a new thread.
The summary of my argument on this point is that current populations are sustainable given sufficient energy resources. With enough energy, you can solve all of the rest of the world's problems in a pretty straightforward way. Desalinate ocean water. Extract carbon from the atmosphere. Chemically synthesize liquid fuels and industrial fertilizers and pesticides.
It's not a pretty world, or a natural one, but I think we have the power to artificially support our population for as long as we can continue to find new energy sources.
-
Why, yes, I am suggesting exactly that - and not just Africa, but the entire world...
Who's "we" here? Perhaps the Islamic slave traders who ran the African trade, as well as one ranging from Ireland to the Slavic countries? The African rulers who saw the trade as a profitable way of disposing of conquered neighbors? It really would serve you well to learn something of history beyond the myopic "Europeans are to blame for everything" leftist cant.
This post is awesome. In one tidy package you'e exonerated Europeans for their participation in the slave trade and the continent-spanning epidemics they spread around the world. Gee, I feel so much better about myself. Thanks!
-
I'll edit to add that I probably should have waited to comment, I'm a bit irritable this morning... :) I'm decrying inflammatory rhetoric with inflammatory rhetoric and should probably just bite my tongue and move on.
No sweat James, I expected the heat when I started this thread, and then continued to amp up the rhetoric as it evolved.
I tossed out the politics merely to highlight that these questions are not unique to our discussion, but are part of a larger national debate that is currently ongoing about the nature of prosperity and our social contract. If anything, I think this forum's version of that debate has been FAR more civil and productive than the version currently playing out in the popular media.
I tossed out the religion because several previous posters had referenced their spiritual motivations for some of these same decisions. I'm personally anti-superstition and try to base my morality on the world that actually exists, but that doesn't mean I don't see value in some aspects of religion and recognize that it is an important factor for a lot of other people.
-
I'll edit to add that I probably should have waited to comment, I'm a bit irritable this morning... :) I'm decrying inflammatory rhetoric with inflammatory rhetoric and should probably just bite my tongue and move on.
No sweat James, I expected the heat when I started this thread, and then continued to amp up the rhetoric as it evolved.
I tossed out the politics merely to highlight that these questions are not unique to our discussion, but are part of a larger national debate that is currently ongoing about the nature of prosperity and our social contract. If anything, I think this forum's version of that debate has been FAR more civil and productive than the version currently playing out in the popular media.
I tossed out the religion because several previous posters had referenced their spiritual motivations for some of these same decisions. I'm personally anti-superstition and try to base my morality on the world that actually exists, but that doesn't mean I don't see value in some aspects of religion and recognize that it is an important factor for a lot of other people.
I get all that, I just don't like it.
"amp up the rhetoric" "tossed out the politics " "tossed out the religion"
Is this conversation serving a higher purpose than your enjoyment of the debate itself? I feel this thread is more about your entertainment than growth for everyone involved and mutual understanding. Is the lack of civility and productivity on the political stage something you wish to emulate here? That's how it appears.
-
There other people (like you) who will help them. I may choose to help, but do I think I need to? No.
Am I correctly understanding that your reason for not giving to charity is that other people give to charity so you don't have to? Do you think all of the available charity is "used up" so that your contribution no longer makes a difference?
Way to take that sentence out of context. If you follow the posts containing the whole argument, my point is that people have different beliefs of what is and how to do charity. The end result is that people direct their charitable activities into different places in different ways. That sentence, in context, is part of the argument that I, as a single individual, don't have to cover every single charitable act every other people believe, primarily because I may not believe in what you believe, and also because I am not alone. People as a group will cover the different venues of charity.
-
Would you invest in a prostitution ring if it promised a %50 APY return? It could sure speed up your attaining FI, but at what expense to the goal of making the world a better place?
Yes, I would, assuming of course that I was confident that I could evade any legal sanctions. I mention this because it illustrates the differences in ideas of morality: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution, and think the world would be a better place if it were legal, and more people had more practical opportunity for sex. If in addition I can earn a spectacular rate of return on my investment, that's just gravy :-)
-
Why, yes, I am suggesting exactly that - and not just Africa, but the entire world...
Who's "we" here? Perhaps the Islamic slave traders who ran the African trade, as well as one ranging from Ireland to the Slavic countries? The African rulers who saw the trade as a profitable way of disposing of conquered neighbors? It really would serve you well to learn something of history beyond the myopic "Europeans are to blame for everything" leftist cant.
This post is awesome. In one tidy package you'e exonerated Europeans for their participation in the slave trade and the continent-spanning epidemics they spread around the world. Gee, I feel so much better about myself. Thanks!
As I said, some knowledge of actual history, rather than the stock leftist propaganday fantasy, would be helpful to any discussion.
First, why do Europeans, and ONLY Europeans, need to be exonerated of participating in a practice that was been commonplace in every culture much above the hunter-gatherer, and which only ended because the European-developed Industrial Revolution made it both unnecessary and unprofitable?
Second, as to Europeans supposedly spreading epidemics, do you really think that microbes care? Or that Europeans in those days had the slightest idea how diseases were spread? Or that the spreading wasn't far more a matter of bringing new diseases back to Europe? Or indeed, that Europeans were the only ones doing the spreading? Most such diseases are spread by travellers, and become epidemics when they reach populations that lack natural immunity. That's just the way infectious diseases work. There's no more morality to them than to the fact that gravity means that if you fall off a cliff, you'll wind up smashed at the bottom.
-
This is why I keep saying it's so important to see beyond the acts performed towards the true purpose of these acts and for people to do things for the right reason, because true charity is about selflessness. There's a reason why the phrase, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," exists. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason can still lead to ruin.
That quote is saying the opposite of what you are saying! Its talking about doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. The intention was good, but the end result was ruin. This is exactly the risk I think you get with focusing on the motivation of the giver instead of the end result.
See, I view it as something that goes both ways. It's not just the wrong things for the right reasons as you assert, it's also the right things for the wrong reasons. Both equally contribute to the wrong outcome.
Everyone who's commented here ultimately falls into one of two camps: charity performed for selfish reasons and charity performed for selfless reasons, and that's where the division line lies. The selfless camp argues that charity is necessary given the very nature of the world and should be performed at least to some extent solely for the betterment of others. The selfish camp is incapable of viewing altruism as anything but a selfish act, and when confronted with contrary ideals will treat it as a personal attack on their ethics.
I'm not at all suggesting charity is or should be for selfish reasons.
I'm saying it doesn't matter.
I can absolutely promise you that the girl drowning in the river does not care, even a little bit, if the person who jumps in to save her only did it because he wanted to get in the newspaper as a hero. If we made the rule that saving her only "counts" if the person who does it is noble and pure of intention, she might end up drowning.
Would it be a better world if everyone did the right thing for the right reason, if no one was selfish? Well duh. I never argued that. I just don't see how it is relevant.
I have a friend who loves animals, and decided to stop eating meat. She says she can date a guy who eats meat, but only if he feels guilty about it.
But she has a problem with the fact that I don't think eating meat is inherently immoral - even though I am actually vegetarian!
Which school of thought do you think the animal that isn't served for dinner would prefer?
It seems like kind of a luxury to me to focus so much on the emotional motivation of the giver rather than the effect on the receiver. I think it makes it more about feeling good than about true compassion, which should be focused on the person in need.
I never said you were necessarily advocating giving to charity for selfish reasons, but you do still defend others willing actions to do so with the expectation that it's better than nothing. I feel the subject is relevant because no matter how much right you may do, if you do it for the wrong reasons, it's still wrong, fixes nothing, and is nothing more than legalism.
Example: Some people won't eat pork because G-d deemed it a sin and stop their thought process right there. I personally won't eat pork because a) pigs are intelligent, independent creatures (not herd animals), b) we share too much genetic material to have it be a healthy protein source, c) they're omnivores with a diet that consists partly of waste materials, and d) because of (b) and (c), there's an increased risk in passing deadly pathogens between species by eating them, as such, e) I understand why it would be wrong to eat pork for a multitude of reasons beyond the purely religious dictate and usual generic anti-meat CAFO and slaughter method rhetoric (which I do agree with being wrong and is partly why I support organic, free range kosher slaughter as an ideal in meat processing). Without the understanding of why we should do certain things, the act itself becomes hollow and fails to instill any true value and insight into the practice. When it becomes hollow and meaningless, the act can become perverted by evil people and you become none the wiser because it still appears to fit the shallow understanding you have of it.
I find it interesting that you're assigning a purely emotional argument towards my definition of charitable giving. Yes, some emotion needs to be a part of the act given as empathy is an emotional response and driving force behind many selfless acts, but that's hardly my stance at all. My argument is cemented in a very logical process: Our lives are not purely our own, we impact others just as much as others impact us; as such, part of how we live our lives should be for the benefit of others. Because it is a segment of our entire life we're discussing, it needs to be expressed in all facets and practices performed in that lifetime, not just some. This requires a focus on compassion towards others, lest we lose sight of the reason.
It is a luxury to focus purely on the emotional benefit to oneself of giving, because that's being selfish. The very act I'm railing against in the practice of charitable giving. Your example highlights this. Your friend's outlook on the subject is for selfish reasons, and as such, for the wrong reasons. She loves animals but feels that simply feeling guilty about eating them will fix the problem combined with her personal lack of participation in modern agribusiness so she can sleep better at night. She's not doing it for the animal's benefit even if a couple animals benefit by her actions, she's doing it for her own and is actually compromising the very philosophy she's trying to lead her life by. Her choice in tolerable character traits in her suitors proves this.
You know logically that giving money can, does and will make a difference when done so properly. Before jumping on the FI bandwagon, your moral and ethical framework even had you doing so on top of everything else you did. Your approach to charity appears to be one of selflessness (the right reason), and you get that necessity. However, you've since introduced an "ends justify the means" argument into retreating from practicing that philosophy in all aspects of your life. "If I just stop giving money to others, I can achieve FIRE sooner, and can then be more generous with my money again later." It's a slippery slope. Although you're still plenty generous in other aspects and even appear to be compensating some for that financial giving loss in other areas, you've built a logical argument to defend eliminating a form of selflessness in your life. What we practice daily with enough time starts to alter our ideals. My worry is that by eliminating the full balance of charity in all aspects of your life, you'll eventually cease to value the importance of financial giving.
If we're to advocate selfless acts and charitable giving as a necessity in our pursuit of FI and daily living, then it's important to define what that really is and how it impacts us and others. Unfortunately, it cuts deep to the heart of the matter with people because it highlights the selfishness in their own lives, and people don't like being judged (even if it's merely by their own conscience). I'm not exempt from this in my own life. This discussion has added an insight into where I can improve things myself and perhaps where I even need to back off a bit from being too generous in some other aspects of my life. Instead of perhaps recognizing this, many people would rather instead argue and defend their selfish choices without admitting that they're being selfish and that perhaps what generosity they are providing in life might be for terrible reasons that could result in a terrible outcome because they don't completely understand the purpose.
-
Would you invest in a prostitution ring if it promised a %50 APY return? It could sure speed up your attaining FI, but at what expense to the goal of making the world a better place?
Yes, I would, assuming of course that I was confident that I could evade any legal sanctions. I mention this because it illustrates the differences in ideas of morality: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution, and think the world would be a better place if it were legal, and more people had more practical opportunity for sex. If in addition I can earn a spectacular rate of return on my investment, that's just gravy :-)
Let me make the intention behind my remark more explicit: Would you invest in a sex slave prostitution ring if it promised a %50 APY return? The whole "differences in ideas of morality" is a red herring.
-
Also, sol's injunction, "Just donate" requires that it be agnostic to any value system (hence the manner in which I formulated (1)). If you think, say, donating to the Objectivist foundation will make the world a better place, then by all means do so. This may conflict with his and I.P. Daley's emphasis on selflessness, but if the more fundamental message is "Just donate," this means that the core of this discussion isn't about rival value systems (e.g. altruism vs. egoism) so much as it is about the dilemma of pursuing early retirement potentially at the expense of (or, worse, in contradiction to) your value system.
And by "value system," I don't mean mere private/personal goals and such, but what you will for the world.
-
Is this conversation serving a higher purpose than your enjoyment of the debate itself?
I admit I do love a good argument. I value the diversity of opinions presented here, even the ones I think are ugly.
My intention in starting this thread was not to amuse myself, but to maybe cause someone a moment of reflection about their own financial decisions and how they relate to their personal values. I think it's a woefully underappreciated aspect of this whole site. As others have also pointed out, this site is mostly about the mechanics rather than the motivations of saving money.
Way to take that sentence out of context.
Sorry, that was not my intention. Thanks for clarifying.
And I kind of like the idea of different people covering different kinds of charity. It's a very democratic way to enact moral behavior.
Also, sol's injunction, "Just donate" requires that it be agnostic to any value system... this means that the core of this discussion isn't about rival value systems (e.g. altruism vs. egoism) so much as it is about the dilemma of pursuing early retirement potentially at the expense of (or, worse, in contradiction to) your value system.
This was my intention with the first post, in which I tried to phrase this discussion as balancing your financial plan with your life plan. We've since diverted a bit into the justifications for charity, which interest me less but I've been playing along anyway.
I'm sticking with the "just donate" message, for now. I don't really care about your choice of cause or whether you're at 0.5% or 50% of your income. I just think everyone benefits by the mere act of consciously deciding to give something back, and I started this thread in part to perpetuate that message.
There's been a lot of focus on how we can help ourselves by cutting expenses, but very little talk about how we can also help other people.
-
As a temporary aside, I wanted to extend a quick thanks to everyone who has participated thus far. I don't know of any other threads here that have grown to such length.
I do appreciate those of you who have expressed gratitude for the chance to talk about these topics, or have found value in the viewpoints expressed here. I've even had a few PMs on the topic, which is a first for me on the internet. I'm not accustomed to online communities responding to ideas with more ideas, instead of flames.
-
(2) the government is horribly inefficient with its resources
I remember living in Ottawa when people used to make this argument -- "What if the government was efficiently run like a business, like Nortel?" they would say. Oh, how we all laughed later.
and as I said I believe that in my hands the dollars spent would be far more impactful and to more people.
Yes, everybody believes this. So you get people hectoring others for not sharing their values. Which may be part of the reason why people on this site sometimes discuss investing and saving as if they existed in a moral vacuum -- because those are the aspects of a money worldview that we more or less share. The other stuff, maybe not so much.
-
It is very progressive - all the way to $300k annual income.
Only problem is, someone at the lowest end of the top bracket has an amount of income closer to a homeless guy than to the truly filthy rich billionaires. We currently have about the least progressive tax rates (in terms of how high the top bracket is, and what percentage of society pays that top rate) than we have ever had - with the predictable result of increasing inequality.
I am not sure I agree with it being the least progressive especially when other countries have higher individual income taxes many have lower corporate tax.
I said it was the least we ever had. I was comparing to the US in the past, not to other countries.
Income First Top Bracket
Year Brackets Bracket Rate Adj. Income (2011 dollars) Comment
1913 7 1% 7% $11.3M First permanent income tax
1917 21 2% 67% $35M World War I financing
1925 23 1.5% 25% $1.28M Post war reductions
1932 55 4% 63% $16.4M Depression era
1936 31 4% 79% $80.7M
1941 32 10% 81% $76.3M World War II
1942 24 19% 88% $2.75M Revenue Act of 1942
1944 24 23% 94% $2.54M Individual Income Tax Act of 1944
1946 24 20% 91% $2.30M
1954 24 20% 91% $1.67M
1964 26 16% 77% $2.85M Tax reduction during Vietnam war
1965 25 14% 70% $1.42M
1981 16 14% 70% $532k Reagan era tax cuts
1982 14 12% 50% $199k "
1987 5 11% 38.5% $178k "
1988 2 15% 28% $56k "
1991 3 15% 31% $135k
1993 5 15% 39.6% $388k
2003 6 10% 35% $380k Bush era tax cuts
2011 6 10% 35% $379k
Its not really a matter of opinion. We have one of the least progressive income tax schedules we have ever had.
Corporate taxes are irrelevant. Corporate taxes are on corporations, not individuals. It just means that the return investors get is lower, that's not the same as actually paying a tax out of one's income.
Setting that aside, the top 1% paid 37% of taxes, top 5% paid 59%, and top 10% of earners pay 70% of the total tax pie clearly they are paying a lot.
And those numbers seem pretty dramatic, and like they support your argument, when you take them out of context like that!
The top 1% holds 35% of all wealth. The top 5% hold 62% of wealth. The top 10% have 73% of all wealth. And the roughly 50% who pay no income tax? They have less than 1% of all wealth, with a net worth of zero or less.
Looking at it that way, our taxes aren't progressive at all, they are basically flat. So I don't see how our current system is even remotely unfair to the rich.
Mosquito abatement and sewage are more what taxes should be paying for,
wait, so you acknowledge that government has a legitimate role to play in society, and that mandatory taxes are an appropriate way to pay for projects for the common good? Then what are we even arguing about?
A single individual can't stop the local independent businesses from being displaced by a new WalMart coming to town with their own personal buying choices. If they used to work in one of those shops that goes out of business, maybe now the only reasonable option left open to them is taking the WalMart job. Business should not be allowed to just do whatever it wants, anymore than private citizens are able to do whatever they want. If anything, less so. We, as a society, get to decide what a business can and can't do.
...communities government representation changes zoning, makes tax accomodations, subsidizes infrastructure to get walmart and other retailers in. Tell your politicians to stop caving.
[/quote]
That's what I meant by "We, as a society, get to decide what a business can and can't do." Collectively people can (via their elected representatives) decide to prevent Walmart from opening up in their town. Which means business does not get to do whatever it wants. That's all I was saying.
-
I never said you were necessarily advocating giving to charity for selfish reasons, but you do still defend others willing actions to do so with the expectation that it's better than nothing. I feel the subject is relevant because no matter how much right you may do, if you do it for the wrong reasons, it's still wrong, fixes nothing, and is nothing more than legalism.
... When it becomes hollow and meaningless, the act can become perverted by evil people and you become none the wiser because it still appears to fit the shallow understanding you have of it.
I'll definitely grant that possibility, even that it happens in the real world. Where we really differ is your assertion that the right thing for the wrong reasons "fixes nothing". It can have an enormous positive impact on the real world!
It is a luxury to focus purely on the emotional benefit to oneself of giving, because that's being selfish.
I didn't say anything about the emotional benefit of giving. I was contrasting the emotional aspect of the concept of giving with the practical, utilitarian aspect of the end result. It seems like the mindset of the giver matters more to you and Sol than does the actual impact it has on the person in need.
You know logically that giving money can, does and will make a difference when done so properly. Before jumping on the FI bandwagon, your moral and ethical framework even had you doing so on top of everything else you did. Your approach to charity appears to be one of selflessness (the right reason), and you get that necessity. However, you've since introduced an "ends justify the means" argument into retreating from practicing that philosophy in all aspects of your life. "If I just stop giving money to others, I can achieve FIRE sooner, and can then be more generous with my money again later." It's a slippery slope.
It can be a slippery slope. But it goes both ways. The charity that jumps into community service before doing any fund raising won't be serving the community very long. The teacher that tries to single-handedly fix the problems of every inner-city student is the one that burns out after 3 years (I know some of them). As a utilitarian, I really believe it is better for the world if, by delaying donations now, the grand total amount of my contributions at the end of my life has been higher.
Although you're still plenty generous in other aspects and even appear to be compensating some for that financial giving loss in other areas, you've built a logical argument to defend eliminating a form of selflessness in your life.
Being a good person and trying to have a net positive impact are values of mine. Donating money to charity is not, and never has been.
If anything, I feel like most donations are done as a form of indulgence, allowing people to sleep well at night while living wasteful destructive lifestyles.
UPDATE: from the newest forum post on the topic " Studies have found that people who do a good deed will use that as an excuse to cut back on other good behavior"
What we practice daily with enough time starts to alter our ideals. My worry is that by eliminating the full balance of charity in all aspects of your life, you'll eventually cease to value the importance of financial giving.
Exactly. What we practice daily. Just having an automatic monthly debit from a bank account or paycheck is not really practicing daily. I try to live by my values in every way, at all times. I am not personally worried about the slippery slope threat, as I have made it this far in life without compromising my values.
If we're to advocate selfless acts and charitable giving as a necessity in our pursuit of FI and daily living, then it's important to define what that really is and how it impacts us and others. Unfortunately, it cuts deep to the heart of the matter with people because it highlights the selfishness in their own lives, and people don't like being judged (even if it's merely by their own conscience). I'm not exempt from this in my own life. This discussion has added an insight into where I can improve things myself and perhaps where I even need to back off a bit from being too generous in some other aspects of my life. Instead of perhaps recognizing this, many people would rather instead argue and defend their selfish choices without admitting that they're being selfish and that perhaps what generosity they are providing in life might be for terrible reasons that could result in a terrible outcome because they don't completely understand the purpose.
I totally agree. I don't know if I came across defensive; it wasn't my intention.
I still am just failing to see why money specifically gets its own special category that is supposed to be qualitatively different than anything else.
By that reasoning, a monk who takes a vow of poverty, lives in a room with a bed, table, chair, and nothing else, and spends every waking other helping those in need, is in some way immoral or not doing enough, because they aren't giving money.
Money is just a placeholder for goods and services. They are interchangeable - literally. If I work for a nonprofit residential facility for severely handicapped youth for 5 hours (at already below market rates) and then only charge them for 3 hours, how is that different from if I just gave them a check for a hundred dollars?
I don't see the difference.
Then extend that same reasoning to volunteering.
Giving money isn't a different form or aspect of charity, its just donating time via your workplace, and adding in an extra step.
That said, I will say this: this thread and yours on charity have inspired me to actually do something I have been putting off for a couple months for "when I had time" (which would have been in the fall), which is to sign up for a volunteer shift for The Green Branch, reading to children at a local farmer's market. All the clients who need a weekend spot will just have to wait.
Incidentally, to all those who find giving money is an important part of your life, here is one more option for where to give: http://www.greenbranchlibrary.org/
(Disclaimer - I was formerly on the board of directors)
-
No. I meant what I said: I think there is no way to sustain the current population indefinitely at ANY standard of living. The issue is ongoing food supply.
Now I admit that I can't point to any "Do The Numbers" analysis that proves this, but neither do I know of any that disproves it, or has a sound methodology for finding a sustainable number. But there is a lot of suggestive evidence. Consider for instance the urbanization of the third world, and the fact that feeding much of this urban population depends on unsustainable agricultural practices. Ergo, if we lose first-world, unrenewable resource-dependent farming methods, most of the urban population will starve.
We can also look at history, and what low-tech farming methods did to the environment of the Middle East and North Africa. Civilizations grew in Mesopotamia, then collapsed when farming & grazing turned formerly fertile land into arid wasteland. The same happened in North Africa, first as Rome used it as the grainery for Italy; later as grazing by nomadic herdsmen and their flocks turned grasslands into desert. We can even see that the same thing happened in the America West: areas that were once grassland are now sagebrush desert.
Put all this together, plus many other things - e.g. the rate of ocean fishery depletion - and it seems pretty obvious that current populations aren't sustainable.
Hmm. Now that is a very interesting proposition, and one I don't think I've heard before.
I'd say it is certainly obvious that the Earth could not sustain the entire world at 1st world standard of living.
It is even more obvious that, even at a 3rd world level of subsistence, it would not be sustainable given infinite population growth.
Since we currently are on a trajectory towards both of those things at once, we have a problem. Somethings got to give.
But if, hypothetically, we halted all population growth and all economic development, even turned back first world development (de-develop?)
Given the external inputs to modern ag, you could be on to something.
On the other hand, I suggest for your consideration:
-meat consumption provides roughly 1/10th the amount of final food calories per unit of land then plant consumption. If the first world cut back its consumption to the level of most of the 3rd world, this would free up an enormous amount of food for the world.
-our high external input ag practices are done because supply and energy are cheap, and they require less labor. Less resource intensive techniques exist. They require more labor. For most of history most labor was in ag, and there is no inherent reason it couldn't return if need be.
-modern permaculture also addresses the destructiveness of third-world "low-tech" practices that destroy soil
-if all else fails, people are working on hydroponic based skyscraper industrial vertical "farms" that could (hypothetically) provide more calories from less input or waste than anything that exists today.
You could still be right, but I'm not convinced that it is "obvious" that you are.
Afterall - despite the failures you mention in ancient history, humans ended up surviving. Just like the people who think the apocalypse is coming on such-and-such a date, why should this time be any different than all those other times the world didn't end?
-
I'll definitely grant that possibility, even that it happens in the real world. Where we really differ is your assertion that the right thing for the wrong reasons "fixes nothing". It can have an enormous positive impact on the real world!
But as it was pointed out rather recently, sometimes there's darker, unintended consequences of even the most good natured of those efforts... like third world clothing drives and the decline of textile jobs (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987628,00.html#ixzz0njS4KPdm). They may not immediately be visible consequences, but not all purely good intended charitable actions result in purely positive consequences (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story).
I didn't say anything about the emotional benefit of giving. I was contrasting the emotional aspect of the concept of giving with the practical, utilitarian aspect of the end result. It seems like the mindset of the giver matters more to you and Sol than does the actual impact it has on the person in need.
It should be to a reasonable extent, IMHO. Greater good means just that. What good have you truly done if you extract the drowning girl only to unintentionally abandon her with her lungs half-full of water surrounded by a flock of pissed off Canadian geese? Or as has already been pointed out, you head out to save her when you can't swim yourself? If you do it for the right reason, understand the limitations and stick it out to the bitter end, you're far less likely to fail at performing the very act you choose to make. I view charitable giving in a very holistic manner that requires understanding the point and purpose of the act in life, doing it selflessly, knowing yourself and your strengths and weaknesses, and being willing to take responsibility with and learning from your actions. Can you entirely do that with a split-second life-and-death decision? You can if you truly know yourself and know you can help effectively. This is what I feel paralyzes so many people into inaction during such events or making very, VERY stupid decisions. They don't actually know what they're doing.
It can be a slippery slope. But it goes both ways. The charity that jumps into community service before doing any fund raising won't be serving the community very long. The teacher that tries to single-handedly fix the problems of every inner-city student is the one that burns out after 3 years (I know some of them). As a utilitarian, I really believe it is better for the world if, by delaying donations now, the grand total amount of my contributions at the end of my life has been higher.
Talking about founding charities and doing ongoing charitable acts as a part of your life's routine aren't entirely the same thing, but it does highlight the necessity of balancing between the level of commitment provided and the necessity of meeting immediate responsibilities. It can be a slippery slope without due diligence.
Being a good person and trying to have a net positive impact are values of mine. Donating money to charity is not, and never has been.
Donating money to charity has never been a value of yours?
I used to give more - until I learned the idea of early retirement! Since then I'm reluctant to give up any potential "employees". I expect this to change if/when I hit FI.
Exactly. What we practice daily. Just having an automatic monthly debit from a bank account or paycheck is not really practicing daily. I try to live by my values in every way, at all times. I am not personally worried about the slippery slope threat, as I have made it this far in life without compromising my values.
Agreed, auto debits eat away at the purpose as one should make the effort and take the time to do it instead of having it just be done automagically. It doesn't mean that financial giving cannot still have a positive impact or shouldn't be practiced.
I totally agree. I don't know if I came across defensive; it wasn't my intention.
I still am just failing to see why money specifically gets its own special category that is supposed to be qualitatively different than anything else.
By that reasoning, a monk who takes a vow of poverty, lives in a room with a bed, table, chair, and nothing else, and spends every waking other helping those in need, is in some way immoral or not doing enough, because they aren't giving money.
Money is just a placeholder for goods and services. They are interchangeable - literally. If I work for a nonprofit residential facility for severely handicapped youth for 5 hours (at already below market rates) and then only charge them for 3 hours, how is that different from if I just gave them a check for a hundred dollars?
I don't see the difference.
Then extend that same reasoning to volunteering.
Giving money isn't a different form or aspect of charity, its just donating time via your workplace, and adding in an extra step.
Didn't necessarily think you were being defensive, and it wasn't my intent to make you feel as such. As much as money is a placeholder for goods and services, it only represents a portion of our life's fruits and some places need goods and services more than manpower. Sol's more the one banging on the "just give money" drum. My drum beat's more of a "give appropriately across all facets of your life - which includes money" groove. My advocation is to include cash finances along with other forms of charity as a means to keep a generous spirit active in all portions of your life. Sometimes a drowning girl needs a flotation device more than a strong swimmer.
As for the monk defense, we're not monks that swore to a life of poverty. Even still, the monks are technically giving away any money earned on top of the goods and services donated. It may all technically be coming out of the same pot, but it's still expressed in as many useful functions as is available and can be used by their beneficiaries, including cash.
That said, I will say this: this thread and yours on charity have inspired me to actually do something I have been putting off for a couple months for "when I had time" (which would have been in the fall), which is to sign up for a volunteer shift for The Green Branch, reading to children at a local farmer's market. All the clients who need a weekend spot will just have to wait.
Incidentally, to all those who find giving money is an important part of your life, here is one more option for where to give: http://www.greenbranchlibrary.org/
(Disclaimer - I was formerly on the board of directors)
Rock on, brother. :)
-
But if, hypothetically, we halted all population growth and all economic development, even turned back first world development (de-develop?)
Given the external inputs to modern ag, you could be on to something.
I think so, but I'm certainly not claiming omniscience :-) But let me ask you this: if we have the power to wave our magic wands and do things like halt population growth and de-develop, why would we WANT to maintain the Earth's population at its current level? Wouldn't it be a much nicer place to live with fewer people, few if any urban areas (no child should have to grow up in a city), and a lot more wild areas?
(And for the nit-pickers, of course I'm not suggesting that we kill off people to reach whatever target population we want, but attain it naturally by adjusting birth rates.)
-meat consumption provides roughly 1/10th the amount of final food calories per unit of land then plant consumption. If the first world cut back its consumption to the level of most of the 3rd world, this would free up an enormous amount of food for the world.
Yes/no. If you limit yourself to first-world, grain-fed production methods, you're probably right. However, in a 3rd world context, grazing animals provide an efficient way of producing high-quality food from marginal land. In North America, for instance, deer & buffalo, or even to some extent cows, can graze on lands that can't be used for food crops even with 1st-world tech.
-our high external input ag practices are done because supply and energy are cheap, and they require less labor. Less resource intensive techniques exist. They require more labor. For most of history most labor was in ag, and there is no inherent reason it couldn't return if need be.
And for much of history, that "more labor" was slave or serf labor. Look up the word latifudia sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifundium
-if all else fails, people are working on hydroponic based skyscraper industrial vertical "farms" that could (hypothetically) provide more calories from less input or waste than anything that exists today.
Which seem to ignore a pretty obvious fact: plants work via photosynthesis, and there's only so much sunlight per unit area to power it. Ever been in a dense forest? If so, you may have noticed that there are few if any plants growing at ground level: all the action is high in the tree canopy, because that's where the sunlight is.
Afterall - despite the failures you mention in ancient history, humans ended up surviving. Just like the people who think the apocalypse is coming on such-and-such a date, why should this time be any different than all those other times the world didn't end?
Except that while humans as a group survived, a lot of the individuals involved didn't. THEIR world ended, sometimes along with their culture & civilization. The difference this time is the interconnectness of the world: a thousand years ago, Europe, Asia, and Africa were unaffected by, and unaware of, the ecological collapse & subsequent famines that destroyed the Mayan civilization. That wouldn't be the case today, as the effects would be known & felt throughout the world.
-
I think so, but I'm certainly not claiming omniscience :-) But let me ask you this: if we have the power to wave our magic wands and do things like halt population growth and de-develop, why would we WANT to maintain the Earth's population at its current level? Wouldn't it be a much nicer place to live with fewer people, few if any urban areas (no child should have to grow up in a city), and a lot more wild areas?
are you kidding about this? just because YOU don't want to raise your kids in a city doesn't mean no one does! i and many people i know would much rather live in a city than in a small town -- any day of the week, any time of the year, kids or not. be careful not to extrapolate how all people should live from your personal preferences.
there's also the fact that, BY FAR, cities are the greenest way for people to live. population density supports walking/biking, streamlined distribution, and far less energy use. it also means that wilds can be kept wild, rather than being used for parking lots / highways / housing / big box stores.
if our future is going to be green at all, it's going to be city-based.
a few more things floating around the thread.
* it doesn't matter at all what we would wish our world to look like if we had a magic wand. how is that even a useful thought experiment? we have no magic wands, and everyone will have a different idea of what they'd want to see anyway.
the important question is: what is happening in our world right now, good and bad? how can we put more juice into the good and less into the bad, on a personal level and on a community level and on a societal level?
we are right smack where we are. dreaming about what if we weren't has no useful purpose, in my opinion. even if we could come to a consensus about what we'd rather see, there's absolutely no way of enacting it.
fwiw, here's what my magic want would create (http://www.worldchanging.com/). and what my hands can actually help create here and now, including all the people who are on the planet already.
* we are NOT heading toward unlimited population growth. in the first world, birth rates are barely at the replacement rate -- look at all of france's pro-natal policies. why would they put those in place if their population was growing exponentially? it's not.
in the 3rd world, as economies develop / cultures evolve / women gain more power, the birth rate will drop. this has already started in india. the issue in the coming decades is how will 1st world countries support all the old people when we are projected to have so few young people? immigration becomes even more important in an aging society. check out what stewart brand (http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2008/07/environmental-heresies/) has to say about this.
-
I said it was the least we ever had. I was comparing to the US in the past, not to other countries.
I missed that part of your position and I can't disagree with that view.
Corporate taxes are on corporations, not individuals. It just means that the return investors get is lower, that's not the same as actually paying a tax out of one's income.
Technically your right but it still goes into one pot but I stated it in context of your position that the wealthy pay low taxes as many of the wealthy own companies that pay taxes which is lowers the income they take home.
And those numbers seem pretty dramatic, and like they support your argument, when you take them out of context like that!
The top 1% holds 35% of all wealth. The top 5% hold 62% of wealth. The top 10% have 73% of all wealth. And the roughly 50% who pay no income tax? They have less than 1% of all wealth, with a net worth of zero or less.
Looking at it that way, our taxes aren't progressive at all, they are basically flat. So I don't see how our current system is even remotely unfair to the rich.
I don't see how it was taken out of context they are fact based numbers, just because people have more wealth doesn't mean they don't pay thier fair share. You have to keep in mind that much of the wealth gap was created through the use of leverage, productivity gains, and importing cheap crap from overseas, and outsourcing jobs - these people would still be extraordinarily wealthy many times more than the ordinary person even if taxes were higher.
If you want argue about closing loopholes and limiting unncessarty subsidies and imposing regulations/taxes the foreign bullshit - ok even though it would likely have unintended consequences but as it relates to income taxes they are already way too progressive. I hate the idea of attacking people because they have money. So Mark Zuckerberg created facebook and is now a billionaire, when the IPO was done should the government have said well $1B is too much why don't you keep $100K and we'll take the rest because your rich and there is more to come for you.
wait, so you acknowledge that government has a legitimate role to play in society, and that mandatory taxes are an appropriate way to pay for projects for the common good? Then what are we even arguing about?
I never said there shouldn't be taxes, but we disagree on how much those taxes should and how they are used.
That's what I meant by "We, as a society, get to decide what a business can and can't do." Collectively people can (via their elected representatives) decide to prevent Walmart from opening up in their town. Which means business does not get to do whatever it wants. That's all I was saying.
but it takes one person to start it and I still don't believe it is right that a town can prevent walmart or any other use from opening if it complies with already in place zoning and regulations. Again, the issue is not walmart it is the people that shop there, if it was so terrible, so evil, then nobody would shop there and they would go down.
I'll be the first....I vow not to shop at walmart. Maybe it will catch on.
-
we are right smack where we are. dreaming about what if we weren't has no useful purpose, in my opinion. even if we could come to a consensus about what we'd rather see, there's absolutely no way of enacting it.
It servers the purpose of solidifying what actions we need to take to at least move in that direction.
For example, on the surface it may feel like the most charitable thing to do is provide food for the hungry in a land that can't produce enough food for itself, but thinking about a point like James made might indicate you will do more good in the long run by providing family planning methods and education. Providing food may actually help increase the population even farther past what the local land is capable of providing for.
* we are NOT heading toward unlimited population growth. in the first world, birth rates are barely at the replacement rate -- look at all of france's pro-natal policies. why would they put those in place if their population was growing exponentially? it's not.
France is not the entire 1st world.
In the US - the country with the highest per capita resource use in the world, the (native) population is increasing by 1.6 million a year (that's not considering immigration).
The very nature of population growth means that ANY net positive population growth is exponential. That is a mathematical fact. Given that the average American uses roughly 20 times the resources than a person in the third world, our population growth is equivalent to roughly 32 million 3rd world people a year.
[/quote]
And those numbers seem pretty dramatic, and like they support your argument, when you take them out of context like that!
The top 1% holds 35% of all wealth. The top 5% hold 62% of wealth. The top 10% have 73% of all wealth. And the roughly 50% who pay no income tax? They have less than 1% of all wealth, with a net worth of zero or less.
Looking at it that way, our taxes aren't progressive at all, they are basically flat. So I don't see how our current system is even remotely unfair to the rich.
If you want argue about closing loopholes and limiting unncessarty subsidies and imposing regulations/taxes the foreign bullshit - ok even though it would likely have unintended consequences but as it relates to income taxes they are already way too progressive. I hate the idea of attacking people because they have money.
(emphasis mine)
So you are claiming that. OK, so did you actually look at the numbers I posted? And compare them to your numbers? Did you not notice anything about them? Forget about the percent of the population each group represents.
The people who have 35% of all wealth pay 37% of taxes
The people who have 62% of all wealth pay 59% of taxes
The people who have 73% of all wealth pay 70% of taxes.
The people who have 0% of all wealth pay 0% of taxes.
That is not a progressive system! That is pretty much flat.
It doesn't even take into account Sol's point about the diminishing marginal utility of additional wealth.
but wait!
Remember I pointed out that the the top bracket only covers the top 1%?
The top 0.1% has roughly 23% of all wealth - but they only pay 17% of taxes, and it gets more recessive after that.
The top 0.0001% collectively holds 1-2% of the nations wealth, but only pays 0.001% of income taxes (including capital gains taxes, dividends, etc)
-
are you kidding about this? just because YOU don't want to raise your kids in a city doesn't mean no one does! i and many people i know would much rather live in a city than in a small town -- any day of the week, any time of the year, kids or not. be careful not to extrapolate how all people should live from your personal preferences.
Along the same lines, many people would rather consume Big Macs & beer than a healthy diet, sit on the couch watching TV rather than exercising, and indeed, max out their credit cards on consumer spending rather than saving & investing. Does that mean these things are good for them? Neither is it good for children to be raised in cities.
Note that I mean good in an objective sense: the consequences of people doing what they'd rather do are measureable adverse effects on health (or wealth).
there's also the fact that, BY FAR, cities are the greenest way for people to live. population density supports walking/biking, streamlined distribution, and far less energy use. it also means that wilds can be kept wild, rather than being used for parking lots / highways / housing / big box stores.
This is false. It only applies (if in fact it does, as the studies I've seen seem to leave out a lot in order to bias the results in favor of cities) to cities versus suburbia, when in my view suburbia is only another kind of city.
if our future is going to be green at all, it's going to be city-based.
* it doesn't matter at all what we would wish our world to look like if we had a magic wand. how is that even a useful thought experiment? we have no magic wands, and everyone will have a different idea of what they'd want to see anyway.
* we are NOT heading toward unlimited population growth. in the first world, birth rates are barely at the replacement rate -- look at all of france's pro-natal policies. why would they put those in place if their population was growing exponentially? it's not.
This is not true. Look at real population growth figures. As for why France has pro-natal policies, perhaps it's because their politicians are jingoistic nativist idiots. Why do so many American politicians oppose any sort of family planning?
in the 3rd world, as economies develop / cultures evolve / women gain more power, the birth rate will drop.
Dropping doesn't matter, unless and until it drops to or below replacement rate. Otherwise the growth's still exponential.
...how will 1st world countries support all the old people when we are projected to have so few young people?
Get rid of age discrimination, and "retirement" policies that convince people to voluntarily toss themselves on the trash heap long before they wear out.
-
So you are claiming that. OK, so did you actually look at the numbers I posted? And compare them to your numbers? Did you not notice anything about them? Forget about the percent of the population each group represents.
The people who have 35% of all wealth pay 37% of taxes
The people who have 62% of all wealth pay 59% of taxes
The people who have 73% of all wealth pay 70% of taxes.
The people who have 0% of all wealth pay 0% of taxes.
That is not a progressive system! That is pretty much flat.
It doesn't even take into account Sol's point about the diminishing marginal utility of additional wealth.
but wait!
Remember I pointed out that the the top bracket only covers the top 1%?
The top 0.1% has roughly 23% of all wealth - but they only pay 17% of taxes, and it gets more recessive after that.
The top 0.0001% collectively holds 1-2% of the nations wealth, but only pays 0.001% of income taxes (including capital gains taxes, dividends, etc)
Just because the amount of taxes a group pays is a similar percentage as the amount of wealth they control doesn't make them correlated. Also, wealth is not income and income is not wealth - Obama claims the cutoff for wealthy is $250k - this is not wealthy but it will certainly translate to wealth if it is not squandered and as long as it is earned consistently, but if it is only earned for one year no way. This also dismisses the notion of accountability, and choosing to live below your means.
Again, wealth for individuals and their heirs is created through investing involving the use of leverage, productivity gains, and importing cheap crap from overseas, and outsourcing jobs. No different than the tools/strategies everyone on this board is using to get to FIRE. Make a dollar, save a dollar, invest a dollar, have more dollars, and so on and so on. Furthermore, much of the taxable income from the wealthy is in the form of capital gains and dividends, which have lower tax rates - xyz Billionaire owns 10,000,000 shares of home depot and therefore would get $11,600,000 a year in dividends at 15% tax rate. Why is this wrong. Can he not lose his investment like you or I. Nevermind that home depot paid income tax equal to 37% so combined that is 52% tax rate. This is also the case if they own a company. Althoug below a certain income an individual wouldn't have to pay the 15% on the dividend.
MMM worked hard, saved and invested, took risks (lost some/won some) and put his family in a position that he doesn't have to work - therefore he is wealthy (definitely a relative term) but yet he pays little taxes (even wrote an article on it) so I suppose your position is that he should be taxed far more aggesively and anyone else like him should be as well.
The marginal utility argument is BS, yes the concept is true that there are diminishing returns, but that doesn't mean that one's money should be taken away simply because they have more than YOU. Sure I wouldn't mind being in that category of wealth, but you know what it is possible. People start companies, make investments (i.e. take risks) and they should be rewarded for it and when they achieve it they shouldn't be penalized for it.
-
Would you invest in a prostitution ring if it promised a %50 APY return? It could sure speed up your attaining FI, but at what expense to the goal of making the world a better place?
Yes, I would, assuming of course that I was confident that I could evade any legal sanctions. I mention this because it illustrates the differences in ideas of morality: I don't see anything wrong with prostitution, and think the world would be a better place if it were legal, and more people had more practical opportunity for sex. If in addition I can earn a spectacular rate of return on my investment, that's just gravy :-)
Let me make the intention behind my remark more explicit: Would you invest in a sex slave prostitution ring if it promised a %50 APY return? The whole "differences in ideas of morality" is a red herring.
No, the difference in ideas of morality is the crux of the issue - unless I've entirely lost the main thread, which is always a possibility. Was not the thrust of the original post the idea that investing for FI/RE might be immoral, because it profits from the (in his view) immoral acts of the companies which make up the mutual funds in which we invest? So if I don't consider those acts to be particularly immoral, that whole argument falls flat for me. (Of course your moral values may differ.)
Now to digress... No, I wouldn't invest in the sex slave prostitution ring, not only because the slavery aspect would be immoral by my values, but because I can't see how it could be a good investment, and so would suspect a scam. I've always had a degree of skepticism about this sort of sex trafficing: given the costs and what I think would be a highly negative customer experience, I just don't see how it could compete with willing sex workers.
-
hairshirt environmentalism makes my eye twitch.
isn't it possible that there might be a way to live on this planet, all 7 billion of us, and have access to goods and services and forms of energy that not only do not continue to destroy the planet, but in fact prop it up? might it be possible to redesign the way we do things in such a way that adds value and diversity to the biosphere instead of destroying it?
i believe it is possible. more than that, it is happening already. see: worldchanging (http://www.worldchanging.com/book/) and whole earth discipline (http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Earth-Discipline-Ecopragmatist-Manifesto/dp/0670021210) and google "bright green environmentalism."
now, if sacrifice-based environmentalism could work, then i'd be all for it. but the thing is -- no one is buying it.
and you absolutely cannot expect folks in the developing world, who've never had access to the kind of affluence we have, to give it up before they even taste it. to me, THAT is immoral. they deserve every opportunity for comfort and education and health that we've had.
the trick is to create a new kind of prosperity that is not based on having a massive house and owning every last thing in the world, but is based on freedom and mobility and opportunity. these are all things that cities help create, and things that are already happening. more than previous generations, millennials are uninterested in driving and owning stuff. (http://www.fastcompany.com/1842581/why-millennials-dont-want-to-buy-stuff?partner=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company+Headlines%29) a new kind of prosperity is emerging.
now, there's a possibility that everything may crash, and we'll have to pick up the pieces, but i'm more optimistic than that. i think that we can embrace clean energy, cradle-to-cradle design, high-population-density living, genetic engineering, and all the other tools of 21st century technology and culture to not only stop doing bad things to the environment, but also to actually support its healing and growth.
now for some replies.
Along the same lines, many people would rather consume Big Macs & beer than a healthy diet, sit on the couch watching TV rather than exercising, and indeed, max out their credit cards on consumer spending rather than saving & investing. Does that mean these things are good for them? Neither is it good for children to be raised in cities.
Note that I mean good in an objective sense: the consequences of people doing what they'd rather do are measureable adverse effects on health (or wealth).
what evidence do you have to support the statement that it's objectively better for children to not grow up in cities? it sounds a lot like an opinion to me, and not one that more than half of the world's people -- who voluntarily live in cities -- support.
people doing subsistence farming in rural areas all over the world are saying fuck that and voting with their feet and moving to cities. if it's objectively so much better for children to grown up in the country, why would they do that?
i have seen evidence that children need to spend time in nature, but there are ways to achieve that and still maintain the population density that's needed for public transport and shared resources.
This is false. It only applies (if in fact it does, as the studies I've seen seem to leave out a lot in order to bias the results in favor of cities) to cities versus suburbia, when in my view suburbia is only another kind of city.
again, show me something that supports this. are you saying that the way human beings "should live" is loosely packed and rural? if so, how are these people supposed to access the goods and services they need to support their lives without driving?
there are more reasons to bank on cities than just logistics, too. when you live in a city, you bump up against people who don't look like you or think like you. new ideas and projects and breakthroughs are born from these interactions. not gonna happen living with your family on a farm.
This is not true. Look at real population growth figures. As for why France has pro-natal policies, perhaps it's because their politicians are jingoistic nativist idiots. Why do so many American politicians oppose any sort of family planning?
"It takes 2.1 live births per mother to keep a population stable. Here are the total fertility rates in the world's most populous countries: China (1.54); India (2.62); the United States (2.06); Indonesia (2.25) and Brazil (2.18).
From my hometown paper (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/jack-kelly/fretting-liberals-the-population-bomb-is-a-bust-but-they-still-dont-get-it-51958/#ixzz22KR2Uz70)
Also on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate), stats from the World Bank.
Dropping doesn't matter, unless and until it drops to or below replacement rate. Otherwise the growth's still exponential.
that is a nonsensical statement. of COURSE a dropping birth rate matters. it shows the trends and the machinations of how a developing society works. look at figure 2 on this page (http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2011/world-population-data-sheet/india.aspx) -- birth rates in india are dropping rapidly as the country develops.
this is the pattern -- it happened in europe, it happened in the states, it it how things work. countries develop, birth rates drop. judging by the shape of the graph, at some point fairly soon those birth rates will dip below replacement levels.
Get rid of age discrimination, and "retirement" policies that convince people to voluntarily toss themselves on the trash heap long before they wear out.
funny, when you say age discrimination, i think of the fact that far more resources are spent on old people in our country than on the young. in fact, over the past couple of decades, the old have been methodically selling out the younger generations.
"In 1984, American breadwinners who were sixty-five and over made ten times as much as those under thirty-five. The year Obama took office, older Americans made almost forty-seven times as much as the younger generation."
Read more in The War Against Youth (http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412#ixzz22KTNaDc6) in Esquire.
tl;dr: the future is not about getting everyone to agree to consume less. it works for some of us, but the vast majority of people are 100% uninterested. so, if we want to work with that reality, we need to figure out ways to close the loop, redesign our wasteful industrial processes, and deliver prosperity to every human being on the planet. me and my magic wand are interested in nothing less.
-
No, the difference in ideas of morality is the crux of the issue...
I don't disagree with this, but...
unless I've entirely lost the main thread.
You seemed to have missed this:
Also, sol's injunction, "Just donate" requires that it be agnostic to any value system (hence the manner in which I formulated (1)). If you think, say, donating to the Objectivist foundation will make the world a better place, then by all means do so. This may conflict with his and I.P. Daley's emphasis on selflessness, but if the more fundamental message is "Just donate," this means that the core of this discussion isn't about rival value systems (e.g. altruism vs. egoism) so much as it is about the dilemma of pursuing early retirement potentially at the expense of (or, worse, in contradiction to) your value system.
And by "value system," I don't mean mere private/personal goals and such, but what you will for the world.
Now, I disagree with the notion that "just donate" can be value-system agnostic (hence my multi-layered example of "donating" to the Objectivist Foundation), but that was the intention of the original post.
So if I don't consider those acts to be particularly immoral, that whole argument falls flat for me. (Of course your moral values may differ.)
Hopefully the above explains why your point is a red herring. The particular example is used to elicit a conflict in investing behavior with a conflict in value system. If that particular example doesn't do it for you, then use another one that does. Everyone's got a value system, even - to quote the second best movie of all-time - "fucking nihilists."
-
hairshirt environmentalism makes my eye twitch.
isn't it possible that there might be a way to live on this planet, all 7 billion of us, and have access to goods and services and forms of energy that not only do not continue to destroy the planet, but in fact prop it up? might it be possible to redesign the way we do things in such a way that adds value and diversity to the biosphere instead of destroying it?
i believe it is possible. more than that, it is happening already. see: worldchanging (http://www.worldchanging.com/book/) and whole earth discipline (http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Earth-Discipline-Ecopragmatist-Manifesto/dp/0670021210) and google "bright green environmentalism."
now, if sacrifice-based environmentalism could work, then i'd be all for it. but the thing is -- no one is buying it.
and you absolutely cannot expect folks in the developing world, who've never had access to the kind of affluence we have, to give it up before they even taste it. to me, THAT is immoral. they deserve every opportunity for comfort and education and health that we've had.
the trick is to create a new kind of prosperity that is not based on having a massive house and owning every last thing in the world, but is based on freedom and mobility and opportunity. these are all things that cities help create, and things that are already happening. more than previous generations, millennials are uninterested in driving and owning stuff. (http://www.fastcompany.com/1842581/why-millennials-dont-want-to-buy-stuff?partner=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company+Headlines%29) a new kind of prosperity is emerging.
now, there's a possibility that everything may crash, and we'll have to pick up the pieces, but i'm more optimistic than that. i think that we can embrace clean energy, cradle-to-cradle design, high-population-density living, genetic engineering, and all the other tools of 21st century technology and culture to not only stop doing bad things to the environment, but also to actually support its healing and growth.
I too once felt like you did. That technology would save the day and that we'd invent amazing new methods of energy and everything that humans could need to get us all to a very high standard of living.
But the more I read, I just can't buy it. It is 100% impossible to create something from nothing. We simply can't make clothes, and fuel, and food, and toys out of thin air. No matter how advanced we become, things just don't work that way.
Infinite growth on a finite planet just can't happen. Even if we stopped growing(everything, population, food/water usage, energy usage) we still can't sustain what we are doing for very long.
But there is no magical technology anywhere in the works right now to solve our issues. And using the argument that "no one is buying it" seems a bit like a cop out of finding a way to get people to really see the big issues.
A 5 year old doesn't really understand why he has to go to school, but he has to do it regardless.
If you're interested in real numbers on alternate energies and growth and similar stuff, here are some links.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/
http://dalynews.org/
-
hairshirt environmentalism makes my eye twitch.
Mine too.
isn't it possible that there might be a way to live on this planet, all 7 billion of us, and have access to goods and services and forms of energy that not only do not continue to destroy the planet, but in fact prop it up? might it be possible to redesign the way we do things in such a way that adds value and diversity to the biosphere instead of destroying it?
I don't see how. If nothing else, there's the simple matter of living space.
now, if sacrifice-based environmentalism could work, then i'd be all for it. but the thing is -- no one is buying it.
This is what I just don't understand. What exactly am I supposed to be sacrificing? I have worked pretty darned hard for most of my life in order to acquire some semblence of this lifestyle. To me, the folks who live in tiny urban apartments, or spend hours commuting from suburbia on crowded freeways, are the ones being sacrificed.
the trick is to create a new kind of prosperity that is not based on having a massive house and owning every last thing in the world, but is based on freedom and mobility and opportunity.
So far we agree. I have a fairly small house, on a fairly large piece of land by (sub)urbanite standards. I have freedom: I can hike, bike, ski, climb mountains, ride the horse for hours and not see another soul but my riding companions... I have mobility: I can drive without being stuck in traffic, bike if I like, get to an airport with little more hassle than the average urbanite...
these are all things that cities help create, and things that are already happening. more than previous generations,
This is old tech. For most of human history, people had to crowd into cities in order to cooperate effectively. A lot of them died in those urban pestholes, which is why there was a continuous rural->urban migration, as young people went to the city to make their fortunes, and the tiny fraction who actually did that left again. Nowadays most of us don't actually need to do that. I've lived in northern Nevada for years, while telecommuting to work in places from Silicon Valley to Switzerland.
what evidence do you have to support the statement that it's objectively better for children to not grow up in cities? it sounds a lot like an opinion to me, and not one that more than half of the world's people -- who voluntarily live in cities -- support.
You'd have to do a lot of reading for the evidence, as AFAIK there's no one place that collects it. But consider just the fact that children who are raised with a certain amount of dirt and contact with animals (which is far more likely in rural areas) have stronger immune systems, less asthma, etc.
As for half of the world's people VOLUNTARILY living in cities, I strongly doubt that that is the case. Often they are forced to do so, either by economics or by being forced off their lands by government.
people doing subsistence farming in rural areas all over the world are saying fuck that and voting with their feet and moving to cities. if it's objectively so much better for children to grown up in the country, why would they do that?
First, you are apparently assuming that subsistence farming is the only way to live outside of cities. When that is no longer the case, things may change. Why do you think people who make fortunes buy estates in the country? Second, since when do all parents, or even a majority, choose to do what's best for their children?
It takes 2.1 live births per mother to keep a population stable. Here are the total fertility rates in the world's most populous countries: China (1.54); India (2.62); the United States (2.06);
If that were true, the US population would be stable, or actually declining. US census figures say that it is growing.
funny, when you say age discrimination, i think of the fact that far more resources are spent on old people in our country than on the young. in fact, over the past couple of decades, the old have been methodically selling out the younger generations.
And why so? Because the older generations have been sold on the idea that they ought to retire at a given age, and in fact DESERVE to retire. But along with that, we've gotten a whole bunch of social and legal pressures that often force them to retire. Now obviously, when people are prevented from supporting themseves by working, they will vote to be supported by public resources.
"In 1984, American breadwinners who were sixty-five and over made ten times as much as those under thirty-five."
Those "breadwinners" made up what small fraction of the 65 and over population? How about the rest, who were prevented from working by age discrimination, and so mostly lived on small Social Security payments?
...and deliver prosperity to every human being on the planet.
Fine, but as above, what's prosperity? To me, having to endure life in say a Manhattan apartment, even if that apartment happens to be a 5th Avenue penthouse, is poverty indeed.
-
isn't it possible that there might be a way to live on this planet, all 7 billion of us, and have access to goods and services and forms of energy that not only do not continue to destroy the planet, but in fact prop it up? might it be possible to redesign the way we do things in such a way that adds value and diversity to the biosphere instead of destroying it?
I doubt it. Jacob started ERE because of this issue, and he recommends reading Overshoot (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/63fae3tq9780252008184.html) by William Catton. I only managed to get through the first chapter before it was due back at the library. The gist of that chapter is that humans have always increased their population to the level that technology can handle, at which point the death rate increases and the population stabilizes. The last big technological boost to carrying capacity was modern agriculture, and we're about to test the limits on that in a few years. If these droughts hold up, we might hit that point even sooner.
-
If anything, I feel like most donations are done as a form of indulgence, allowing people to sleep well at night while living wasteful destructive lifestyles.
I think you have to be pretty smug to assert that people who perform charitable acts that you do not are doing it out of selfishness. That's ballsy. How dare they attempt to do good?
By that reasoning, a monk who takes a vow of poverty, lives in a room with a bed, table, chair, and nothing else, and spends every waking other helping those in need, is in some way immoral or not doing enough, because they aren't giving money.
This whole argument, along with the one about measuring your morality by how much you keep vs how much you give, seems to me to be entirely besides the point. I'm not really arguing about the best way to give, I'm saying giving is worthwhile in whatever means you can handle. Money is just the easiest hurdle for most people to tackle, and an important first step.
I also think that lots of people say "I give time instead of money" as an excuse to not give money, because they are greedy bastards. They basically value money more than their time, so they give what they think is cheap.
now, if sacrifice-based environmentalism could work, then i'd be all for it. but the thing is -- no one is buying it.
Bakari is buying it. He seems to be saying that earning and spending 20k/year and giving away nothing is morally superior to earning 100k and giving half away and spending half, because you have "taken" more regardless of how much you've given. This seems in direct conflict with his earlier statements that the ends justify the means and a person making the right moves for the wrong reasons is still doing good.
Care to clarify for me, B?
-
So you are claiming that. OK, so did you actually look at the numbers I posted? And compare them to your numbers? Did you not notice anything about them? Forget about the percent of the population each group represents.
The people who have 35% of all wealth pay 37% of taxes
The people who have 62% of all wealth pay 59% of taxes
The people who have 73% of all wealth pay 70% of taxes.
The people who have 0% of all wealth pay 0% of taxes.
That is not a progressive system! That is pretty much flat.
It doesn't even take into account Sol's point about the diminishing marginal utility of additional wealth.
but wait!
Remember I pointed out that the the top bracket only covers the top 1%?
The top 0.1% has roughly 23% of all wealth - but they only pay 17% of taxes, and it gets more recessive after that.
The top 0.0001% collectively holds 1-2% of the nations wealth, but only pays 0.001% of income taxes (including capital gains taxes, dividends, etc)
Just because the amount of taxes a group pays is a similar percentage as the amount of wealth they control doesn't make them correlated.
I have no idea what you are trying to get at. I never said they were correlated.
You claimed that federal income taxes are "way too progressive".
I am showing you the actual numbers. If you consider the amounts of wealth that each group of tax payers has, our taxation system IS NOT progressive. It is flat for incomes between $0 and $300,000 and it is extremely REgressive after that point. This isn't a value judgement. This is numbers.
You were the one who brought up the issue of what percent of total tax is paid by the wealthy.
I'm pointing out it is proportionate to how much they have.
Also, wealth is not income and income is not wealth
Right. Which is the reason why a nominally progressive structure ends up being flat - income tax is based on income, even though how wealthy a person is depends on... well... how much wealthy they have. A person with a billion dollars has no need to have a 9-5 job. They may have no income, but they are still using just as much common infrastructure.
Furthermore, much of the taxable income from the wealthy is in the form of capital gains and dividends, which have lower tax rates
yep, thats the other reason the super wealthy actually pay lower overall tax rates than the merely well-off. As you say, 100-200k a year isn't necessarily rich. That could include doctors and lawyers and engineers who actually have jobs and contribute directly to society. A billionaire doesn't need to have a 9-5, and for some reason our politicians have decided that passive income deserves to be taxed less than earned income.
- xyz Billionaire owns 10,000,000 shares of home depot and therefore would get $11,600,000 a year in dividends at 15% tax rate. Why is this wrong. Can he not lose his investment like you or I. Nevermind that home depot paid income tax equal to 37% so combined that is 52% tax rate.
wow, seriously? There is so much wrong with your math!
First of all, you are making a rather baseless assumption that if the corporation didn't have to pay taxes they would pass 100% of the tax savings on to higher dividends, rather than say, lower prices, or higher salaries, or internal improvements.
Secondly, the percentages don't add! A dividend is just a fraction of the actual share price, which may or may not accurately reflect the actual finances of the underlying company (since the status of the overall market as well as investors opinion of the company). The elimination of corporate tax would increase the cash the company had, which might increase the share price, which in turn could increase the dividend those shares paid - but it wouldn't increase it by 37%.
MMM worked hard, saved and invested, took risks (lost some/won some) and put his family in a position that he doesn't have to work - therefore he is wealthy (definitely a relative term) but yet he pays little taxes (even wrote an article on it) so I suppose your position is that he should be taxed far more aggressively and anyone else like him should be as well.
At the very least I'm saying he shouldn't be taxed less
Again, my whole point was in responding to your claim that our tax system is "too progressive"
I definitely think 300k shouldn't be the top bracket. I don't think there should be any top bracket. If it were up to me, it would be a formula which uses a mathematical limit, where it would only reach 100% at infinity dollars.
The marginal utility argument is BS, yes the concept is true that there are diminishing returns,
Well, here is where we can simply agree to disagree. You are clearly an individualist. I believe that sometimes the overall good of everyone outweighs personal freedom. But that is a moral / philosophical debate without a "right" answer, and I'm just posting this to point out what is, not debate what should be.
but that doesn't mean that one's money should be taken away simply because they have more than YOU.
Just because YOU think that selfishness is the only motivation anyone has for anything doesn't mean everyone else sees the world the same way. How does how much I have or not have have anything to do with anything?
How do you reframe that rationalization when its Warren Buffet pointing out that taxes on the super rich are regressive?
People start companies, make investments (i.e. take risks) and they should be rewarded for it and when they achieve it they shouldn't be penalized for it.
Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it. Taxes aren't a penalty. They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not. You have already acknowledged that role.
Perhaps you would only be happy with a tax system where everyone paid the exact same amount in dollars, regardless of income level or total wealth?
-
By that reasoning, a monk who takes a vow of poverty, lives in a room with a bed, table, chair, and nothing else, and spends every waking other helping those in need, is in some way immoral or not doing enough, because they aren't giving money.
I also think that lots of people say "I give time instead of money" as an excuse to not give money, because they are greedy bastards. They basically value money more than their time, so they give what they think is cheap.
I think you have to be pretty smug to assert that people who perform charitable acts that you do not are doing it out of selfishness. That's ballsy. How dare they attempt to do good?
;)
I wasn't saying that everyone who donates is using it as an excuse to not do anything else, I was saying that some people do. Like you said "Money is just the easiest hurdle for most people to tackle". That doesn't mean it isn't a positive thing. I'm just asking you to acknowledge those people who choose to go further than the easiest step, regardless of whether they skip that first step or not.
In other words:
I think there are a lot of different opinions here about what charity entails and each person's plan of action is going to be different. While sometimes forcefully verbalizing my own views, I wouldn't presume to tell other people how to act on their own value systems.
I was responding to what I felt was some people here presuming to tell other people how to act on their own value systems.
now, if sacrifice-based environmentalism could work, then i'd be all for it. but the thing is -- no one is buying it.
Bakari is buying it. He seems to be saying that earning and spending 20k/year and giving away nothing is morally superior to earning 100k and giving half away and spending half, because you have "taken" more regardless of how much you've given. This seems in direct conflict with his earlier statements that the ends justify the means and a person making the right moves for the wrong reasons is still doing good.
Care to clarify for me, B?
I don't see the conflict. In order to simplify, lets pretend the world has 100k in total resources (remember, money is a placeholder for tangible goods and services needed or desired by humans - and although it grows with technology, at any given moment there is a finite amount)
If you take and spend 20k, that leaves 80 k for everyone else.
If you take 100 and give half back, that leaves 50k for everyone else.
The ends is you have more resources at the expense of everyone else.
You did the wrong thing, even if it was for the right reason (earning more specifically so you could give more)
I'll elaborate more in my numberline post.
-
Poverty is not in itself proof of morality.
It most certainly isn't!
In fact, there are plenty of poor people who use their poverty as an excuse to rationalize immoral things like violence and theft and environmental degradation.
My primary reason for mentioning my own background is that I often feel I have a totally different outlook on money than many of the people here, which may be one part of why I end up so often disagreeing with people when we seem to share similar basic principals and goals.
I should probably confess that although my lifestyle is frugal, my end goals do include being mega-wealthy, like dynasty-building disgustingly filthy rich kind of wealthy. I think it's a necessary prerequisite to enacting real change.
In that context the initial idea behind the OP of "mustache may be evil" makes sense: putting off doing good in order to do good may be counter-productive.
But I don't see wealth as a means of change.
Consider the people known for enacting real change: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, Fredrick Douglas, Mahatma Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Siddhartha Gautama (known colloquially as " Buddha"), Jesus of Nazareth...
None of these people needed wealth to make a tangible positive impact on the world.
Now compare them to some of the people who are known as "philanthropists" - people who give lots of cash to charity by virtue of the fact that they have enormous wealth (but who never give so much away that they themselves are no longer wealthy) - what real, lasting, positive impacts can you point to any of them having on the world?
Another reason for my mentioning poverty is various opinions expressed in this and other threads to the effect of "anyone who is poor in America is that way because of bad spending choices" or possibly "poor educational decisions" or in one way or another, entirely their own fault; therefore it does not reflect any inherent injustice in our system.
I know from personal experience that this is not true. We didn't have cable TV growing up, or cars, or new clothes, or new anything. We didn't have a microwave, or one of those fancy TVs with a remote control (ours had a knob; we got it for free).
My father had a Master's degree (and not in something stupid like art history) but he found it hard to get work being one of the only Black men in an industry where a (99% white male) union got to make unilateral decisions of who got which job
(he works on international container ships and is just below the ship's captain in rank - and a lot of people were uncomfortable with the idea of a Black man in a command position, with an entire ship full of white guys who had to do what he told them).
Therefore, in between jobs, he was always doing different odd-jobs, starting little businesses - and then he would finally get a spot on a ship, and the side business would die with him away for half a year.
After my parents divorce my mother went back to school - which meant that welfare cut the portion of payments that was supposed to cover her living expenses, because they mandated that she spend at least 40 hours a week looking for a job - any job - rather than "waste" time getting educated. So we just got by on even less, and she eventually got her master's degree and went to work for social services.
The family was able to eventually get out of poverty - but only because the safety net was available. Even the reduced benefits were enough to allow my mother to finish college, as opposed to just finding a minimum wage job so everyone could eat, which would have kept us at that same level for ever.
-
While I'm on the topic;
I don't feel I or anyone else should have to be taxed to support people who don't want support themselves. I don't want to be accountable for adults who don't want to be accountable. Is that wrong, does that make me a bad person, or even an EVIL one? I think not.
Difficult things happen and there so many ways and circumstances that cause people to become homeless and this is not a judgement on that. There should be temporary services/safety nets available to help these people when times get bad, and there are such services and resources but many seem to become permanent in nature and are available without question in perpetuity.
Do you actually know anyone who has been on unemployment, or have any idea how it works?
Someone who never works is not able to get unemployment. Someone who quits, or is fired, is not eligible. How much you get is directly proportional to how much you put in - both in terms of your salary (and therefor how much you paid in each month) and in terms of how long you were working. If someone does get laid off through no fault of their own, and has been paying into the system long enough, then they get a check every month IF AND ONLY IF they can prove that they are actively searching for a new job. Have you ever seen the episode of Seinfeld were George wants Jerry to pretend to be Vandalay Industries in case the unemployment office calls? You have to give them a list of places you have applied, every month, and they may randomly check up on your list at any time. If you are determined to not be seriously looking for work, you not only get cut off, but you may have to pay back what you got. Even if you are actively looking for work, if you don't have enough years of working behind you, you will get cut off anyway. And then come next April, all those checks count as income, and you have to pay taxes on it. (And incidentally, no, I have never used it myself)
As far as welfare goes, even before the "welfare reform" under Clinton, the average welfare recipient was on it less than 2 years, and then got off and never used it again. Now (thanks to the public perception that welfare users are taking advantage of tax payers and therefor the system needed "reform") it's everyone, because 2 years is the cap. And, as I mentioned above, just like with unemployment, you have to show that you are actively looking for work and going to school in order to have a chance at getting out of poverty and contributing something meaningful to society doesn't count.
The supposed abuses of the system which taxpayers have to cover really just don't happen.
Of course you can dig up dramatic examples here and there, but they are rare enough to be negligible. Conservative talk show hosts, and occasionally politicians, love to stir up indignation about how your tax dollars are going to support all these deadbeats. The reality is that the grand total federal budget for welfare is all of $168 billion. Sounds like a lot, but that's out of a $3.8 trillion budget - in other words, about 3%.
(Note that the official budget numbers combine lots of things together under the heading "welfare" - including worker / employer funded things like UI and worker's comp).
We could eliminate all welfare, and it would make a difference of about 3%. If 1 in 100 abuse the system, then ferreting out those few people might save 0.03% - or it might cost more than it saves. Its simply a non-issue.
Now if you really want to eliminate government waste, you need to start by looking at where the money is going. Health care is a huge one, and of course almost all independent analysis finds that those costs would drop if we had nationalized health care. Not counting health care, military spending is higher than every other category combined. In fact, our military budget is higher than every single other nation in the entire world combined. Of that, more goes to buying technologically advanced vehicles and weapons - in other worlds goes ultimately into the pockets of the CEOs and investors of defense contractors - than goes to paying personnel salary; in order to fight an advanced enemy equally as imaginary as all the people supposedly taking advantage of welfare and unemployment.
-
Getting back to the original topic...
Where was I?
Oh, right, poverty.
Being poor doesn't automatically make you a good person.
But it does make it much more likely that they have a smaller "footprint".
Our ecological footprint isn't just an issue because of all the poor animals. We humans, no matter how sanitized and orderly the cities we live in are, no matter what technology we come up with, are still biological creatures.
I would gladly see the entire planet go up in flames if it ensured the continued survival of the human race.
That makes no sense. We are dependent on other life forms. We can't make food out of rocks and air. We don't even have a way to support a couple of people for a couple of years outside the ecosphere without constructing an entire artificial ecosystem (i.e. mission to mars).
So obviously our footprint, our use of resources on a finite planet has EVERYTHING to do with our impact on the rest of humanity.
Bakari ... seems to be saying that earning and spending 20k/year and giving away nothing is morally superior to earning 100k and giving half away and spending half, because you have "taken" more regardless of how much you've given.
I see this entire issue as a sort of a karmic numberline.
0, in the middle, would be if a person had exactly no impact on the word around them, positive or negative (or if there positive and negative exactly canceled out).
The more you use, the more destruction you do (directly or indirectly), the more your pointer slides down the number line into the negative. The more good you do, in whatever form, the more it heads towards positive.
Each of us starts out only taking, but until we get into at least our teens, we don't really have a choice, so maybe we can decide to reset it to zero from the time our choices are our own.
Most of us moves rapidly into karmic debt right off the bat, by virtue of the lifestyles we all take for granted. We have a long way to go just to reach neutral. But the less resources one has, the slower they move down. It isn't because they are a "better" person, but the negative impact they have on the world is smaller. Which is why we expect ourselves in the first world to donate to hungry people in other countries, but we don't expect the people of Somalia to donate 10% of their income to feed the homeless in the US.
This numberline analogy may make my point from my last long post clearer. The goal for each of us moral citizens should be to have as positive a number as possible.
Mathematically, whether you are adding a positive, or taking away a negative, the result is the same.
If you have a gigantic optional negative, and a tiny optional positive, you will have the greatest net effect by subtracting the negative.
Now, emotionally it feels more proactive, more tangible, more satisfying, to add a positive, even if its a tiny one. That's what I see
Give something now. Half a percent would be an optimistic goal for such people, though well within the market variability they otherwise accept for growing their portfolio. Even 0.1% is a huge step better than nothing.
as being - adding a tiny positive.
Don't rationalize it away by saying you give your time,
But if the point is to make the world a better place, then the focus needs to be on what is most effective, not what feels better to the giver.
This is why I pointed out those particular 5 things that have the biggest negative impact. I don't think anyone is going to give away 100% of their money and devote 100 hours a week to helping others. Which means that everyone draws a line somewhere, between what they are willing to give and what they reserve for their own life.
I'm saying to prioritize whatever will have the biggest effect on your personal karmic numberline - and that for most of us that is eliminating our giant negatives.
That isn't to say don't donate, I'm not discouraging volunteering, or arguing against any other form of charity. I'm saying that if the goal is to make the world a better place, or make life better for humanity, or whatever you want to call it, focus on where you can make the biggest difference first, and then add in whatever bonus things appeal to you.
-
And to be clear:
I'm in no way perfect and would never claim to be.
Of my own list:
1) Don't have kids;
I don't have any - although its possible I might by now, had I chosen my first wife more carefully (or if Roe v Wade had turned out differently!) and I'm still not 100% sure if I ever will. I feel very conflicted about it. I have always wanted to, and on the one hand if I only have one then between me and my partner, we are personally at less than replacement rate. On the other hand, lots of other people have more than one, and its the overall average that counts. On the other hand, it shouldn't be my personal responsibility to sacrifice extra because so many other people aren't doing their part. On the other hand, its thinking like that which keeps people from enacting positive change. At this point in my life, its a moot point anyway.
2) Don't eat meat (unless you personally killed it);
I'm vegetarian, but the main reason is because I have been my entire life, and the thought of eating flesh is about as appealing as the thought of eating cockroaches or kittens is to most Americans. I only buy eggs from cage-free farms, but I don't always get organic dairy products (cheese, yogurt, and ice cream). I need to start. I have known this for a while.
3) Don't drive a car;
My truck runs on 100% biodiesel made from recycled vegetable oil. This is better than running on petrol. But it would not be sustainable if scaled up to US consumption levels, so I don't consider it benign. However, I only drive the truck for work, and it is displacing jobs that would have been done with a petrol powered vehicle, so maybe it counts, I don't know. But I also have a motorcycle. It gets ~70mpg, and I rarely drive it - but rarely is a lot more than never. Nor can I claim that I never drive it when there is a viable alternative.
4) Don't fly on planes;
I have been good about this since I learned just how dramatic the impact of air travel is - a single round-trip international flight can contribute as much to climate change as an entire year of an average commute in an average sedan. In other words, the move up the karmic numberline caused by riding a bike to work everyday is completely canceled out if you fly several places a year for travel and vacation and family visits. I have been on planes since learning this, but only for Coast Guard duty, which isn't voluntary.
5) Spend less on new items than you donate each year;
Well, obviously I don't quite make that one, since I donate only slightly above $0 with any regularity. I came up with that idea as a result of this thread. I like it. I just might do it. My spending on new things is low enough that it will probably be affordable.
And finally: In answer to this question
Was anyone actually made a change in their life after reading these threads over the past week or so?
1) I signed up for a volunteer shift with Green Branch
2) I realized that - now that I have a bike trailer - I can get food from the independent natural grocery several miles away, instead of the supermarket which is walking distance from home. It only occurred to me because this thread made me question what I could be doing better in my own life.
3) see 5, above.
-
In fact, our military budget is higher than every single other nation in the entire world combined. Of that, more goes to buying technologically advanced vehicles and weapons - in other worlds goes ultimately into the pockets of the CEOs and investors of defense contractors - than goes to paying personnel salary; in order to fight an advanced enemy equally as imaginary as all the people supposedly taking advantage of welfare and unemployment.
It's 2/3s what every other nation combined spends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). Still egregious, and still excessive, but not more than every other nation combined.
-
It's 2/3s what every other nation combined spends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). Still egregious, and still excessive, but not more than every other nation combined.
meh, my numbers are out of date. It was true a few years ago, but I guess China has been increasing their spending faster than we have.
-
I never said they were correlated.
You claimed that federal income taxes are "way too progressive".
I am showing you the actual numbers. If you consider the amounts of wealth that each group of tax payers has, our taxation system IS NOT progressive. It is flat for incomes between $0 and $300,000 and it is extremely REgressive after that point. This isn't a value judgement. This is numbers.
You were the one who brought up the issue of what percent of total tax is paid by the wealthy.
I'm pointing out it is proportionate to how much they have.
So you arguing that you never said they were correlated by saying that they are correlated. Yes I brought it up and yes I am saying they are not correlated they are coincidence, too many variables contribute to the concentration of wealth and that doesn't mean that the system is not progressive.
Also, wealth is not income and income is not wealth
Right. Which is the reason why a nominally progressive structure ends up being flat - income tax is based on income, even though how wealthy a person is depends on... well... how much wealthy they have. A person with a billion dollars has no need to have a 9-5 job. They may have no income, but they are still using just as much common infrastructure.
If a billionaire and a non-billionaire drive down a highway for 60 miles, are they not using the common infrastructure in the same amount so why should the billionaire pay more. Sidenote: tolls on said highways are actually one of the least regressive forms of taxation.
wow, seriously? There is so much wrong with your math!
First of all, you are making a rather baseless assumption that if the corporation didn't have to pay taxes they would pass 100% of the tax savings on to higher dividends, rather than say, lower prices, or higher salaries, or internal improvements.
Secondly, the percentages don't add! A dividend is just a fraction of the actual share price, which may or may not accurately reflect the actual finances of the underlying company (since the status of the overall market as well as investors opinion of the company). The elimination of corporate tax would increase the cash the company had, which might increase the share price, which in turn could increase the dividend those shares paid - but it wouldn't increase it by 37%.
The math is correct, your added assumption is wrong. I never said that the total corporate income was taxed at 37% plus 15% just the portion that is distributed out via dividends.
And if there were no taxes or they retained more cash companies wouldn't necessarily lower prices, higher more people, pay higher salaries - also those are dictacted by what the market will bear (supply and demand). Companies are not in the business of arbitrarily being stupid with money, that is the government's role. Companies are sitting on more cash then they ever have and yet jobs and incomes continue to decline.
If it were up to me, it would be a formula which uses a mathematical limit, where it would only reach 100% at infinity dollars.
That would be good for capital investment, I take the risk you take the reward....great formula. Can you and I structure that deal today between us, I will take you up on the deal straight away.
Just because YOU think that selfishness is the only motivation anyone has for anything doesn't mean everyone else sees the world the same way. How does how much I have or not have have anything to do with anything?
How do you reframe that rationalization when its Warren Buffet pointing out that taxes on the super rich are regressive?
Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it. Taxes aren't a penalty. They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not. You have already acknowledged that role.
Perhaps you would only be happy with a tax system where everyone paid the exact same amount in dollars, regardless of income level or total wealth?
Where to begin.....first of all lets be clear on one thing....WARREN BUFFETT IS A BIG FUCKING HYPORITE!!!!!!! Throughout the history of his company he utilized every avenue of the tax code to grow his company and his wealth....and now as he is approaching his death bed he purports that the system is unfair. His company never paid dividends because he believed he could do better by reinvesting but also because retaining the capital has more favorable tax treatment. He put all is money in a charitable trust, earmarked for the Gates Foundation, but still controls it and doesn't pay any taxes on any income that the trust earns (unless it is distributed out to him). Not to mention he is using it as a means to escape the death tax - if his estate went to his heirs almost have of his wealth would go to the government. Lest not forget that he was one of least charitable people on the planet while he was growing his company because he arogantly thought he could do better with the money and have more to give later. So I call BULLSHIT on Buffett and his sudden care for the world and lower income taxpayers. It is nothing more that marketing genious to cover up a history of benefiting from the code and system.
Setting that aside I don't feel that I am being selfish or that people shouldn't consider the greater good and I never said taxes aren't necessary. Taxes are necessary but you and I will likely disagree about what and how they should be used for - but that is not a debate for here.
I disagree with the fact that people should have to pay more because they have more. If anything you are injecting YOUR personal values on me, whereas I feel that people should have the freedom to choose and execute on their own personal values.
That said I will acknowledge that there is a signifcant imbalance in wealth and income distribution currently which is attributed to to a number of reasons noted above but also due to the fact that our economy is more service oriented as apposed to production oriented. You believe that taxing these people further will solve the problem, and it might temporarily, but if you are just taking it and giving it to those less fortunate it solve it. Also the wealthy through lawyers, accountants, and connections will always find ways to minimize their tax burden and the politicians are in bed with them - it is not coincidence that almost all politicians exit thier posts with more wealth or more lucrative positions. Pay to play is the way - I HATE OUR POLITICIANS and how they transact business. Like the article i posted about capitalism there is a complete loss of virtue in our political system. Because of this we also absolutely have a spending problem (due to what, when, inefficiencies, waste, fraud) that needs to be addressed.
-
As far as welfare goes, even before the "welfare reform" under Clinton, the average welfare recipient was on it less than 2 years, and then got off and never used it again. Now (thanks to the public perception that welfare users are taking advantage of tax payers and therefor the system needed "reform") it's everyone, because 2 years is the cap. And, as I mentioned above, just like with unemployment, you have to show that you are actively looking for work and going to school in order to have a chance at getting out of poverty and contributing something meaningful to society doesn't count.
The supposed abuses of the system which taxpayers have to cover really just don't happen.
Of course you can dig up dramatic examples here and there, but they are rare enough to be negligible. Conservative talk show hosts, and occasionally politicians, love to stir up indignation about how your tax dollars are going to support all these deadbeats. The reality is that the grand total federal budget for welfare is all of $168 billion. Sounds like a lot, but that's out of a $3.8 trillion budget - in other words, about 3%.
(Note that the official budget numbers combine lots of things together under the heading "welfare" - including worker / employer funded things like UI and worker's comp).
We could eliminate all welfare, and it would make a difference of about 3%. If 1 in 100 abuse the system, then ferreting out those few people might save 0.03% - or it might cost more than it saves. Its simply a non-issue.
Yes actually I do know people that are unemployed and the system is corrupt. I know people that are collecting or have collected who have quit, been fired, or laid off. It doesn't matter because there is no oversight. It is all automated now as far as monitoring once you get it....go online or make phone call....check the box that says you looked for work (no proof needed)....receive check in mail a few days later. And how much you get is not directly proportionate to how much you make....there are caps on how much you can collect but no caps on the income that is taxed. And if you were unemployed you fall under the government level where it would be taxed, it would be different if you found a job that paid well. Also the requirement to collect unemployment is having worked six months out of the last twelve since the downturn benefits were extended perpetually - there are plenty of people that have been collecting unemployment for the last five years - although that is supposed now ended or coming to an end but it is an election year so the could be extended. Why would I look for a job, especially if I was a lower paid employee. Financial Sam has showed is showing how all this is the case as we speak. Also do you think it is a coincidence that SSI Disability claims have skyrocketed since the downturn and as the unemployment benefits expire....no oversight here either.
As for the federal budget amount how much these things represent of it - and keep in mind that of $3.8B budget $1.3B is being funded with debt (very anti-MMM) - sure welfare may be 3% but if you take 10 spending categories of similar amounts that each have a some fraud and waste it adds up quickly. And for the record I never brought welfare into the equation and did in fact say there needs to be some form of social safety nets, but they have to be efficiently run, monitored for waste and fraud, and not be perpetual or otherwise easy to get on and off of recurringly.
Now if you really want to eliminate government waste, you need to start by looking at where the money is going. Health care is a huge one, and of course almost all independent analysis finds that those costs would drop if we had nationalized health care. Not counting health care, military spending is higher than every other category combined. In fact, our military budget is higher than every single other nation in the entire world combined. Of that, more goes to buying technologically advanced vehicles and weapons - in other worlds goes ultimately into the pockets of the CEOs and investors of defense contractors - than goes to paying personnel salary; in order to fight an advanced enemy equally as imaginary as all the people supposedly taking advantage of welfare and unemployment.
This is definitely an issue for another thread but the short story is that SSI, SSDI, Healthcare, and interest on our debt makes up the 49% of our budget and when you look at the defense portion of the budget most of it is for payroll, pensions, benefits, and repairs and maintence and not nearly as much as you suggest is going into new weapons (but there is some) and is far is it going into the CEO's pockets then there is another discussion. These government contractors are in many ways quasi government companies (because they don't sell to anyone else), offer similar benefits and yet their executives and shareholders get rewarded handsomely, some of which is driven by the theoretical $500 hammer. .
Also nationalized health care won't solve the problem and BTW we alread have it even prior to obamacare, which incidentally the result of which has caused insurance costs to rise and others to cancel their plans already and it is not even fully in effect yet. To my point, if we already have a health care budget item in medicare (and more in medicaid at the state level) such that the old and the poor are already taken care of then we have socialized medicine but with adjucnt that people can choose to get better service if they have the means to do so, and this doesn't even factor in the emergency room visits by people who can't/won't pay. Ignoring the merits for or against socialized medicine and Obamacare all I am saying is that it might have been a better idea to fix and improve the current system before creating a new additional one - some of those savings and improvements could have been used to fund additional programs.
-
when you look at the defense portion of the budget most of it is for payroll, pensions, benefits, and repairs and maintence and not nearly as much as you suggest is going into new weapons (but there is some) and is far is it going into the CEO's pockets then there is another discussion. These government contractors are in many ways quasi government companies (because they don't sell to anyone else), offer similar benefits and yet their executives and shareholders get rewarded handsomely, some of which is driven by the theoretical $500 hammer. .
1. Defense contractors do sell to other nations as well as private parties. Such sales make up 26% of Lockheed Martin's budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin), for example.
2. You could benefit from spending some time with the military's budget. Use this snazzy infographic (http://dailyinfographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DAT2010mint.jpeg) I was so kind as to find for you: adding up just procurement and R&D, and not looking for subcategories of the other categories related to weapons research and acquisition, I'm getting $186.5B, which is over a quarter of the armed services' budget including wartime allocations or over a third the military budget without those allocations.
it might have been a better idea to fix and improve the current system before creating a new additional one - some of those savings and improvements could have been used to fund additional programs.
Let me make sure I read this right. You're suggesting that of the 535 members of Congress, their thousands of employees and aides, the incredible community of genius think tanks and policy analysts, consumer organizations representing patients, and professional organizations representing medical professionals, nobody stopped to seriously consider modifications to Medicaid and Medicare or any other alternative to the PPACA and determine which, if any of them, should be put in place?
-
1. Defense contractors do sell to other nations as well as private parties. Such sales make up 26% of Lockheed Martin's budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin), for example.
Ha ha fine, but still the majority is for government and of the rest how much is for our allies.
2. You could benefit from spending some time with the military's budget. Use this snazzy infographic (http://dailyinfographic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DAT2010mint.jpeg) I was so kind as to find for you: adding up just procurement and R&D, and not looking for subcategories of the other categories related to weapons research and acquisition, I'm getting $186.5B, which is over a quarter of the armed services' budget including wartime allocations or over a third the military budget without those allocations.
I have looked at the budget. Keep in mind that you wouldn't include all the procurement because some of it is for food, clothing, etc as well as items needed to repair and maintain vehicles, weapons, housing, etc. The figure for acquiring and developing new weapons is more like $100B, still a lot but people always through around the total figure of $800-900B.
[/quote]
Let me make sure I read this right. You're suggesting that of the 535 members of Congress, their thousands of employees and aides, the incredible community of genius think tanks and policy analysts, consumer organizations representing patients, and professional organizations representing medical professionals, nobody stopped to seriously consider modifications to Medicaid and Medicare or any other alternative to the PPACA and determine which, if any of them, should be put in place?
Yes actually I am suggesting that, or a more likely scenarion of all those morons looking at it and and making any 1000s of recommendations (most of which likely are to ensure their own continuing existance) that was evaluated by the politicians that have polls saying don't touch medicare because if you do you won't get eleceted/re-elected. Every politician knows that medicare is a polital fireball.
-
I have looked at the budget. Keep in mind that you wouldn't include all the procurement because some of it is for food, clothing, etc as well as items needed to repair and maintain vehicles, weapons, housing, etc. The figure for acquiring and developing new weapons is more like $100B
Clearly you didn't take the time to look at the infographic, because none of those are listed as procurement costs. Food is listed as a personnel cost. Maintenance and repair come out of the "Operations and Maintenance" category. Housing is not even remotely a procurement cost, and how you count "weapons" as a different thing than "weapons is totally beyond me. Like I said above, if anything $186.4B is a conservative estimate.
still a lot but people always through around the total figure of $800-900B.
Nobody here has thrown that figure around. What your friends outside this discussion say has no bearing on this discussion.
Yes actually I am suggesting that, or a more likely scenarion of all those morons looking at it and and making any 1000s of recommendations (most of which likely are to ensure their own continuing existance) that was evaluated by the politicians that have polls saying don't touch medicare because if you do you won't get eleceted/re-elected. Every politician knows that medicare is a polital fireball.
Politicians are careful to consider the political ramifications of their actions? What a brave statement.
-
I have looked at the budget. Keep in mind that you wouldn't include all the procurement because some of it is for food, clothing, etc as well as items needed to repair and maintain vehicles, weapons, housing, etc. The figure for acquiring and developing new weapons is more like $100B
Clearly you didn't take the time to look at the infographic, because none of those are listed as procurement costs. Food is listed as a personnel cost. Maintenance and repair come out of the "Operations and Maintenance" category. Housing is not even remotely a procurement cost, and how you count "weapons" as a different thing than "weapons is totally beyond me. Like I said above, if anything $186.4B is a conservative estimate.
still a lot but people always through around the total figure of $800-900B.
Nobody here has thrown that figure around. What your friends outside this discussion say has no bearing on this discussion.
Yes actually I am suggesting that, or a more likely scenarion of all those morons looking at it and and making any 1000s of recommendations (most of which likely are to ensure their own continuing existance) that was evaluated by the politicians that have polls saying don't touch medicare because if you do you won't get eleceted/re-elected. Every politician knows that medicare is a polital fireball.
Politicians are careful to consider the political ramifications of their actions? What a brave statement.
How very passive aggressive of you and while nobody explicitly had THROWN around that figure it was implied in Bakari's comment that the US defense budget is more than all the other nations combined. The fact is Barkari was making a comment about how large the defense budget is and implied that most goes to new weapons and the like, and I was stating that is not in fact the case. And while I had the general range of figures in mind you were put forth the effort and proved my case with more detail - thank you. So even if it is $186B that still would not be enough to qualify as most of the defense spending. Setting that aside I didn't make representations on whether or not defense spending was too high or low, but did suggest that we may not be getting our money's worth given the inefficiencies and egregious contract amounts.
Also he segwayed that into the fact that the money just flows into the CEO's hands and I essentially agreed and suggested they are quasi government entities and couldn't exist without the government, which results in waste/fraud. I still believe that to be the case even though 26% of Lockheeds revenue comes from elsewhere, which by the way per your own link is incorrect - 74% came from Military where as 85% came from the US Government, foreign govt was 13% and commercial was 2%. Your link, not mine but wow clearly not at all dependant on the US to be a going concern. As much as I think the govt is highly inefficient and wasteful I think these private-public concerns are even worse and surely allows for room for improvement.
And for the record, you have way too much faith in the virtues and inteligence of our political representatives. I have little faith and believe a wholesale change is needed on both sides of the aisle.
-
you have way too much faith in the virtues and inteligence of our political representatives.
Nobody's told me that before. Shirley, you mistake me for someone else.
-
you have way too much faith in the virtues and inteligence of our political representatives.
Nobody's told me that before. Shirley, you mistake me for someone else.
Then clearly I must have missed the intended sarcasm in your prior comments.......and don't call me Shirley. :)
-
I think it should be clear to most everyone that politicians are self-serving opportunists (I would add 'bottom-feeding' to that list, but some would disagree). But statecraft is in some sense a technical process, and if there were a more effective and less costly alternative to the PPACA, I have to believe that someone in the statecraft and related industries would have noticed it. Even if you were only in it for yourself and your ego, wouldn't you rather be remembered for effective legislation than ineffective legislation? Moreover, the PPACA was passed at the height of Obama's political power: it's the one thing that he expended the most of his political capital for, and he was willing to lose control over his Democratic Congress for the remainder of its term just to get it passed. If he weren't sure that PPACA was the optimal solution to the problem, why would he have been willing to make such great sacrifices for it?
-
I think it should be clear to most everyone that politicians are self-serving opportunists (I would add 'bottom-feeding' to that list, but some would disagree). But statecraft is in some sense a technical process, and if there were a more effective and less costly alternative to the PPACA, I have to believe that someone in the statecraft and related industries would have noticed it. Even if you were only in it for yourself and your ego, wouldn't you rather be remembered for effective legislation than ineffective legislation? Moreover, the PPACA was passed at the height of Obama's political power: it's the one thing that he expended the most of his political capital for, and he was willing to lose control over his Democratic Congress for the remainder of its term just to get it passed. If he weren't sure that PPACA was the optimal solution to the problem, why would he have been willing to make such great sacrifices for it?
I don't do things for how I will be remembered, I do things for what I view is best. Unfortunately, politicians do not take this view. Obama ONLY got it passed because of democratically controlled congress not because he was willing to risk losing control of it, and the fact that he had to expend most of his political capital at the height of his power certainly suggests that it was not the best course of action. The problem is that people in general don't like making hard choices and decisions, which is further compounded when it involves the well being of others and themselves, which is further compounded exponentially when it involves self-serving opportunistic bottom-feeding blood suckers. It is also the reason our tax code is so big and complicated because nobody ever wants to go back and touch/fix/improve anything, its just easier to add to it and we all pay for it - either through higher taxes or poor execution and service, and usually both.
-
OK, so obviously we disagree on a fundamental level about the proper balance between individualism and collectivism - but at least we can both see that we both find some value in both.
But I'm thinking part of this back and forth may actually be a semantic issue.
If a billionaire and a non-billionaire drive down a highway for 60 miles, are they not using the common infrastructure in the same amount so why should the billionaire pay more.
I disagree with the fact that people should have to pay more because they have more.
Let me see if I understand you correctly...
You are not actually arguing for a flat tax rate - as in, one where people at every level of income pay the same percentage of their income. You are arguing for a flat tax amount, where everyone pays the same total dollar amount, and income is totally irrelevant.
Our current system is nominally progressive - the wealthy are not just supposed to pay a greater total amount, they are supposed to pay a higher percentage. Most libertarians and conservative capitalists argue that the rich shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage. They still acknowledge that they should have to pay a higher total amount.
Lets look at some real numbers:
Lets say libertarians got their way and we completely eliminated healthcare and welfare (all forms) as well as cut back the military budget to a level competitive with China. That frees up 2 trillion dollars, leaving a budget of 1.8 trillion.
Divided by 196 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65 means a tax bill of roughly $9000 each.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems like you are saying that:
a person who makes $14,500 per year (minimum wage) should pay $9000 in taxes (leaving him $5,500 to live on) and
a person who makes $300,000,000 (average income of the Forbes 400) should also pay $9000 in taxes (leaving her $299,991,000 to live on - not counting the 1-60 billion she already has)
If it were up to me, it would be a formula which uses a mathematical limit, where it would only reach 100% at infinity dollars.
That would be good for capital investment
How would additional tax brackets that included a million, ten million, 100 million, and 1 billion in anyway affect capital investment?
Are you suggesting that only billionaires invest?
That seems a silly implication, esp. given the forum we are on right now?
Are you suggesting that no one would invest if they didn't think they could one day reach infinity dollars?
You must realize that even if there were no taxes at all, no one is ever going to have infinity dollars, right?
-
Clearly you've never heard of the Weimar republic. Everybody there had infinity dollars!
-
I am not arguing for or against a particular tax structure and was initially illustrating that the high earners pay the majority of taxes, which is due to making most of the income but also because they pay per a progressive system (the more you make the more they take) and half of the population pays no federal tax so it is not a fair system. And that the majority a signifcant portion of the spending benefits more heavily those that don't pay the taxes.
My main issue is that we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem so I am not saying cut taxes for the wealthy just don't raise them any further.
In a theoretical sense your example about each person paying $9k for their share of the system actually does make sense, again in a purely theoretical sense and not me advocating sense. In theory it is no different then buying food or going to the movies...you don't pay more or less for those things (assuming same things - not guci vs. walmart) because of your income. But that wouldn't work, actually it might because government would be far smaller because the people that it serves the most may actually decide to be mindful of the dollars.
A flat tax percentage, to me, would be the most fair because everyone would pay based on thier income, even though the wealthy would be more advantaged because more of their income is discretionary, and half the voting block that doesn't pay anything may decide that efficiency and value from spending may be more important, as it is they are not vested in the effectiveness of government but they are dependant on it. Of course, for me I would want all the loopholes closed that wealthy people and corpations use.
But as I started with my main point is not to change the system as it stands and focus on being more efficient and less wasteful - and that is in all areas whether they are democrat or republic favored - defense, health care, SSI & SSDI, # of govt jobs and their pay and benefits and pensions), whatever - go through them all and do better is my point.
I wasn't suggesting that only billionairs invest, but if they or anyone esle believes that the tax man will take all of my gain then they simply won't make the investment.
-
I am not arguing for or against a particular tax structure and was initially illustrating that the high earners pay the majority of taxes, which is due to making most of the income but also because they pay per a progressive system (the more you make the more they take) and half of the population pays no federal tax so it is not a fair system.
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online). Them not paying tax is a drop in the bucket and is absolutely insignificant in comparison to even slight changes in the way the other half of America (and, with them, 97.5% of the nation's wealth) are treated by tax policy. Ease off the Limbaugh and quit thoughtlessly repeating irrelevant and misleading statistics.
And that the majority a signifcant portion of the spending benefits more heavily those that don't pay the taxes.
We'll ignore for a second that that's not even a sentence. Your argument that most government spending only benefits the bottom 50% of the nation is totally specious. Welfare and social security benefit the entire nation by ensuring survival for everyone. They allow entrepreneurs to welcome risk to extreme levels in their lives. They allow corporations to pay miserably low wages that are declining at an incredible rate, because there's still a livable floor below. Medicare and medicaid ensure a minimum level of health for our population, something everyone benefits from. The CDC eradicated smallpox for everyone, not just the poor, and Bill Gates himself will not catch smallpox as a result. The EPA keeps our country habitable despite the externalities not accounted for before the closure of industrial extraction and production facilities: here in the Midwest we've got the strip mines, while the plains have open pit mining of lead and other toxins. Commerce depends on roads, and our society depends on the rule of law and the enforcement agencies that the rule of law depends on. Effective commerce depends on a relative lack of corruption enforced by organizations like the GAO and the SEC. I can go on, and I'd be happy to, but I'm sure by this point you've realized a handful of ways in which people other than your imaginary welfare queens benefit from government spending.
My main issue is that we don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem so I am not saying cut taxes for the wealthy just don't raise them any further.
Unless you have some incredible cogent argument that you've been hiding all this time, I'm not convinved the two are distinguishable from each other. We have an outsized government budget relative to its tax income, and addressing either, or both, would solve the problem. There are nations that tax much more heavily than we do (cf. Europe), so clearly it would not be impossible for us to increase taxes in order to help narrow the revenue-expenditure gap. Since the wealthy top half of the nation controls 97.5% of the assets, even confiscating every cent owned by the poor would only increase the funding available to the government by something on the order of 12%, so if we're raising taxes and we want it to have any budgetary impact, we've got to raise taxes on the wealthy.
But that wouldn't work, actually it might because government would be far smaller because the people that it serves the most may actually decide to be mindful of the dollars.
Would you make up your mind and then type whichever half of the sentence you actually believe?
A flat tax percentage, to me, would be the most fair because everyone would pay based on thier income, even though the wealthy would be more advantaged because more of their income is discretionary, and half the voting block that doesn't pay anything may decide that efficiency and value from spending may be more important, as it is they are not vested in the effectiveness of government but they are dependant on it.
Again, we'll ignore for a moment that that's not actually a sentence. Why is it fair for the wealthy to be more advantaged when the United States is already the fourth most-unequal economy (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9M_Dt54zGecJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) in the world?
But as I started with my main point is not to change the system as it stands and focus on being more efficient and less wasteful - and that is in all areas whether they are democrat or republic favored - defense, health care, SSI & SSDI, # of govt jobs and their pay and benefits and pensions), whatever - go through them all and do better is my point.
Like I said Friday: statecraft is a scientific and refined actual discipline, and there's an entire ecosystem of highly compensated and highly competent professionals examining every single step that anyone in the government takes. If you think that the entire governing community has never thought to "do better" and that our budgetary problems can be cured by diligently looking for waste, and further that nobody in this giant, genius, fast-paced industry is doing so currently, you're entirely delusional. If that were the case, wouldn't you have found and presented some sort of statistical or anecdotal evidence suggesting that waste was 1) a tractable problem with 2) a fiscally meaningful size?
I wasn't suggesting that only billionairs invest, but if they or anyone esle believes that the tax man will take all of my gain then they simply won't make the investment.
That is not how progressive tax structures work. It is not a bad idea to make more money unless a marginal tax bracket has a rate of more than 100%. This is basic math. If you are a billionaire, you understand basic math; therefore, if you are a billionaire, you do not believe that all the gain will be taken by the 'tax man'.
Remember, too, that billionaires are far from the only investors. Think about investment banks, venture capital companies, pension funds, nonprofit endowments...
-
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth
You guys keep bringing wealth and tax rates into the equation, I have never once said that wealth wasn't concentrated at the top and in fact I even think I said that the gap is too disproportiante.
Clearly you view that tax rates are far too low on anyone who is successful and that is the only reason why they become wealthy. If that is the case the MMM should be paying a lot more than he does and has demonstrated that it is possible to live well and actually even save/invest some at that low income, of course that is largely attributed to paying almost no income taxes even though you could argue he is wealthy, so first of all ....wealth is not the same as income. So the question is for the lower 50% why aren't they saving more, investing more. Basically you are saying I want to penalize the poor and you are saying you want to continue to reward them for being anti-MMM.
Capital (human or financial) is invested to create income, which is then is used to accumulated wealth.
Pardon the language, but you are out of your FUCKING MIND if you are using Europe as an example....horrendessly low growth, high unemployment, supported by excess sovereign debt.....and that is before and what lead up to the current issues.
And that the majority a signifcant portion of the spending benefits more heavily those that don't pay the taxes.
Your argument that most government spending only benefits the bottom 50% of the nation is totally specious.
If you are going to make accusations please at least do it correctly, so re-read my comment .
Also, in the spirit of being completely antagonistic in a devil's advocate kind of way, I would argue that if the smallpox or other disease weren't eradicated the global population and resource depletion that environmentalists are so worried about would not exist.
I have accused you before of having way too much trust and confidence in our government, which you denied and yet your comments once again tell a different story.
And nevermind that the main point of my position is that government is inefficient and stupid with the existing resources, so I want that to change before/if they get more to spend. If someone posted on this board that they make a lot of money, have a big mortgage, four high priced cars, went to disney three times, and maxed out all of their credit cards and then asked if they should apply for a line of credit to keep it going I am guessing the answer would be no, you should cut back, get rid of the cars, stop the trips, sell the house.
The problem here is that you live in a world of theory and not in one of application - typical professor mentality. Don't get me wrong it is great to have people that want to be thinkers for a living and extol their values on others, but god forbid they actually try to live by thier logic in the real world.
-
Clearly you view that tax rates are far too low on anyone who is successful and that is the only reason why they become wealthy.
Those are not my views, and the second half of the statement does not follow from the first.
so first of all ....wealth is not the same as income. So the question is for the lower 50% why aren't they saving more, investing more.
We've been over this before. Income is an unrepresentative yardstick to use when examining prosperity and inequality because the very rich have little income relative to their assets, which is why people who study prosperity and inequality use wealth in their analyses, not income. If you have a problem with that, then use the slightly different numbers for income, which we've repeatedly explained are inaccurate. It won't invalidate a single thing I've said.
Basically you are saying I want to penalize the poor and you are saying you want to continue to reward them for being anti-MMM.
No, I'm not saying that. I did not say that. I have not said that. I will not say that.
Pardon the language, but you are out of your FUCKING MIND if you are using Europe as an example....horrendessly low growth, high unemployment, supported by excess sovereign debt.....and that is before and what lead up to the current issues.
You must be reading into what I said, because I nowhere said anything about growth, unemployment, or debt, and nowhere did I suggest that Europe was the paragon of human economic achievement or even a model to emulate. Quit foaming at the mouth, and slow down and address the points I actually made?
If you are going to make accusations please at least do it correctly, so re-read my comment.
Sure. Although I'd like to point out your comment would be more intelligible if you spelled things correctly and adhered to the norms of English grammar, writing complete sentences with one predicate and one subject each.
And that the majority a signifcant portion of the spending benefits more heavily those that don't pay the taxes.
Majority (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Amajority).
Also, in the spirit of being completely antagonistic in a devil's advocate kind of way, I would argue that if the smallpox or other disease weren't eradicated the global population and resource depletion that environmentalists are so worried about would not exist.
I agree. That does not relate to my comment in any way, though.
...
You completely sidestepped what I said. Show me the evidence that government waste is a problem of large magnitude that can be addressed in a meaningful way for reasonable costs, and that such a solution is not currently in place or being implemented. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
-
We've been over this before. Income is an unrepresentative yardstick to use when examining prosperity and inequality because the very rich have little income relative to their assets, which is why people who study prosperity and inequality use wealth in their analyses, not income.
So we agree. Income and wealth aren't the same thing and if the wealthy have very little income relative to their wealth then how will taxing more solve the issue - oh, it won't. I wasn't arguing that income or wealth inequality didn't exist, but please explain the basic premise that we should be able to take more from those who have more and why that is ok and beyond the fact that it is for the greater good. If you have a house, and I don't, why can't I have a piece of your house because in that scenarion you are more wealthy than I. Other than the size of dollars involved, how is this scenario any different? Think about the principle of the argument, and not the social impact of the argument.
You must be reading into what I said, because I nowhere said anything about growth, unemployment, or debt, and nowhere did I suggest that Europe was the paragon of human economic achievement or even a model to emulate. Quit foaming at the mouth, and slow down and address the points I actually made?
There are nations that tax much more heavily than we do (cf. Europe), so clearly it would not be impossible for us to increase taxes in order to help narrow the revenue-expenditure gap.
Yes I am reading into what you said, the above previous comment suggests that you feel doing what Europe does is acceptable - sure they have higher taxes but all the other issues that I indicated as well. Therefore, if higher taxes were the solution then Europe wouldn't have its issues.
You completely sidestepped what I said. Show me the evidence that government waste is a problem of large magnitude that can be addressed in a meaningful way for reasonable costs, and that such a solution is not currently in place or being implemented. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
I could ask and say the same of you. Just because you feel it is effiecient doesn't make it so, and citing that we have 1000's of representatives, think tankers, and the like involved in the process also doesn't make it so. Also, it is not just waste that is the issue, it is also inefficiencies, mismanagement, fraud, high salaries/pensions/benefits, too many employees, and quite honestly poor math and assumptions, etc. This is about the things the governement buys, who they employ and how, the services it provides, and how it makes decisions. SSI is good example - life expectancy has increased far more than the age for SSI eligibility yet politicians won't touch it because it is the population closest to SSI is not only the largest generation but it also has the greatest likelihood to actuallty vote....parlays into medicare.
The problem is that there is one-upsmanship when it comes to spending....republicans spend record amounts, then democrats say we can do better, then republicans say oh yeah we will show you, and on and on and on. Paul Ryan's budget proposal was vilified by democrats and toxic to republicans, and yet unlike what most think it didn't actually CUT spending it simply slowed the growth when compared to Obama's. At best Republicans are hypocrites.
The US has spending problem and I am not talking about WHAT it is spending it on just the manner in which it is being spent. It is crazy how you think the government can do anything more efficiently and cost effectively than private enterprise, that is just nonsense - again I am not debating what it is spending it on, that is a different but related topic. What government can do is fund things that economically not viable from a private invest perspective, some of which are worthwhile and some are not, all I ask is that it is done in as cost effective way as possible.
-
So we agree. Income and wealth aren't the same thing and if the wealthy have very little income relative to their wealth then how will taxing more solve the issue - oh, it won't.
That's a really good point. Because household spending can't be taxed, or inheritance, or capital gains, or corporate earnings. That's why the entire US tax revenue comes from income tax on earned income by private individuals.
Think about the principle of the argument, and not the social impact of the argument.
The social impact is the principle of the argument! That's what literally this entire thread is about!
Yes I am reading into what you said, the above previous comment suggests that you feel doing what Europe does is acceptable
No, it doesn't suggest that, especially when I explicitly told you that it was misreading the argument to interpret it in that way. I mean exactly what I said: that societies can still function under a higher tax burden, and so increasing the total tax burden on the private sector is not impossible. I said "it would not be impossible." Those were my exact words! Why you continue to insist that I sneakily meant something other than what I said instead of reading the sentence with the plain common-sense usage of the actual words I wrote is beyond me!
Therefore, if higher taxes were the solution then Europe wouldn't have its issues.
I didn't say higher taxes would fix all problems. I distinctly and clearly said that higher taxes were one possible solution to one specific problem. It's as if you went to the ER with a broken rib and the attending told you he wouldn't do anything about it because he still couldn't cure cancer even if he did set your rib.
[About evidence] I could ask and say the same of you.
Are you six years old? "I know you are but what am I?"
Every time you or anyone else has asked, I've brought the requested evidence forward. Like the time that Nevada's STRS was in a non-crisis, for example, or the time the Belvedere couple tore down a century-old piece of this nation's heritage. Do you remember how I was using actual numbers and facts to support my argument?
Just because you feel it is effiecient doesn't make it so
That's not what I said. Again, please respond to the words I say and not the words you imagine I say, because they're clearly very different. I said that neither you nor anyone else I've read has ever presented a compelling and achievable way to reduce government waste, or a compelling argument that the problem is large in magnitude.
Also, it is not just waste that is the issue, it is also inefficiencies, mismanagement, fraud, high salaries/pensions/benefits, too many employees, etc.
Those are synonyms and types of government waste. I'm not sure how you think they're different, but you can assume that I've been referring to all of them each time I've said waste.
The problem is that there is one-upsmanship when it comes to spending....republicans spend record amounts, then democrats say we can do better, then republicans say oh yeah we will show you, and on and on and on.
Do you have any evidence to support this view?
It is crazy how you think the government can do anything more efficiently and cost effectively than private enterprise.
Please show me anywhere, ever, where I said anything to this effect. The forum has a built-in search tool, which you'll find very helpful. Perhaps you're thinking of something sol said?
-
The social impact is the principle of the argument! That's what literally this entire thread is about!
You're right. We have completely taken this thread in way different direction and have morphed it into thread about arguing for the sake of arguing - guilty. We can take this into different discussion or not. I don't disagree that you very good at bring facts and statistics to the equation, which is great, I have also done the same and have also pointed out that some of the references (yours and others) are not correct and mine have been wrong or could have been interpreted differently as well. You have to appreciate that statistical data can almost always be massaged to support any side of an argument (I am not saying you have done this but some of the sources may) and there are times when accurate or reliable data is not readily available and one needs to formulate opions based on information that is anecdotal or intuitive in nature based on observed trends. And sometimes there are things observed that for various reasons can't be shared.
Separately, you consistently respond to comments like I didn't say/imply/mean that when I suggest that that you did, and maybe you didn't actually say/imply/mean it but your style suggests that you say/imply/mean something different - like in the "read between the lines" sense. Like in the Europe example - sure you did say it was not impossible to increase taxes but it was in the context of refuting my position of we shouldn't increase taxes (BTW I never said taxes couldn't be increased) and when doing so it naturally implies that that your bias is that Europe's approach is a positive alternative and if doesn't then at best you are really just arguing to argue by extractin one individual point. Taking an affirmative position would minimize this.
So to be clear my position is that the government is inefficient and wasteful (in the broad sense) and that taxes shouldn't be raised until this is addressed - this is not an indictment on what they spend it on, that is a different discussion, but how they spend it. I know you'll ask for facts but I think you know the reality...and see my SSI example in my prior comment.
-
I wasn't suggesting that only billionairs invest, but if they or anyone esle believes that the tax man will take all of my gain then they simply won't make the investment.
That is not how progressive tax structures work. It is not a bad idea to make more money unless a marginal tax bracket has a rate of more than 100%. This is basic math. If you are a billionaire, you understand basic math; therefore, if you are a billionaire, you do not believe that all the gain will be taken by the 'tax man'.
I remember overhearing more than one person saying something along the lines of "there is no point to playing the lottery - because even if you win, the government will just take half of it anyway."
Ignoring for the moment the statistical unlikelihood of winning...
This would be that "bad at math" type of thinking
So, if you win a million dollars, you "only" get to keep $500,000 - and this is not better than not getting $500,000?
Might explain why the people who say things like this are always poor people...
If the marginal tax rate on income over 10 million dollars is 90%, that means an investor still gets another million dollars a year. If generating income of an additional million dollars in a year isn't motivation, what is?
-
Bakari - your anology is only partially correct and I also hate it when people say that lottery BS - fine give it to me.
The part you are missing is that income is the result of investment and is the "return on investment", it is the income (return) that is taxed, and it is the after-tax return that dictates whether or not an investment should be made. So for your scenario it depends more heavily on what the investment was to get that incremental $1,000,000.
None of it really matters though because once income begins to approach the higher brackets the wealth people create new entities/corporation/shelters to avoid it. For instance, back when I was in California it was against the law for a company to own gas stations and be a wholesale buyer of gasoline (I believe this was the case for liquor as well) and so it required a distributor (i.e. middleman) between the two. Guess what, the owners of the gas stations created a distriution company (separate legal entities) and the distributor sold almost exclusively to the owners gas stations and they could manage the distribution price to manage taxes between the two entities.
-
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth
You guys keep bringing wealth and tax rates into the equation, I have never once said that wealth wasn't concentrated at the top and in fact I even think I said that the gap is too disproportionate.
How do you think it got that way?
How do you suppose society could change it?
Clearly you view that tax rates are far too low on anyone who is successful
Nope. I don't equate extreme wealth with "success".
1/2 of the 20 richest people inherited their wealth. "Luck" is very different from "success".
Taxes on inheritance have dropped substantially - 77% top bracket and 60k deduction in 1977 down to 45% and 3.5 million deduction in 2009 (and NONE what-so-ever 2010!)
and that is the only reason why they become wealthy.
Nope.
But it is one factor in how a handful of people in the past couple decades have become enormously ridiculously wealthy.
In addition to a top income tax bracket of only 35% (down from over 90% in the 40s and 50s - you know, that period of time in America known for high unemployment, stagnant growth, economic uncertainty, and general pessimism...) there is also the inheritance tax I mentioned a moment ago.
Other factors include changes in US law which encouraged corporate consolidation and outsourcing. Also, increases in technology, which increase productivity, which in our system benefits the owners of companies at the expense of the employees. And even some good old fashion hard work and innovation thrown in as well.
If that is the case the MMM
MMM is not enormously ridiculously wealthy.
I'm going to guess you aren't really aware of just how extreme wealth inequality really is. MMM has a closer amount of wealth to that homeless guy you passed by yesterday than he does to anyone on the Forbes 400 list.
You can be forgiven for not really comprehending the vast scale of inequality though - most people don't:
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5u3t6f6Tn1qj171uo1_r3_1280.jpg)
Note that this graphic is fairly misleading - the smallest it shows is 1% of the population, but within that group, if you subdivide it even further to .1% or .01%, that set of subgroups is just about as unequal as the 1% is to everyone else.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/24/business/economy/economix-24percentilechart/economix-24percentilechart-custom1.jpg)
See that pink square about 4 squares down from the top on the right? There is more or less your successful Mustachain, or other 1%er. See how much closer it is to the rest of the 99% than it is to the top square? When I talk about taxing the wealthy, I'm talking about that top square, maybe the top two, not everyone above 50%.
But you don't have to take my word for it (or these people's either - most provide references, so you can check if you think they are just making up numbers):
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/forget-the-top-1-look-at-the-top-0-1/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/income-inequality/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/
http://daviddegraw.org/2011/08/who-rules-america-economic-elite-have-at-least-45-9-trillion-in-wealth-revealing-the-economic-top-0-1/
should be paying a lot more than he does and has demonstrated that it is possible to live well and actually even save/invest some at that low income,
yup. The fact that the middle class wastes its money a) has no bearing on this discussion and b) doesn't mean that other people aren't actually poor enough that they have no left over money to save.
So the question is for the lower 50% why aren't they saving more, investing more.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money/msg20692/#msg20692
Basically you are saying I want to penalize the poor and you are saying you want to continue to reward them for being anti-MMM.
"Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it. Taxes aren't a penalty. They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not."
Taxes aren't a penalty. Not paying taxes isn't a reward.
Being poor doesn't mean you are anti-MMM.
-
If the marginal tax rate on income over 10 million dollars is 90%, that means an investor still gets another million dollars a year.
Huh? I'm guessing what you mean is that if the marginal tax rate of income over 10mil is 90%, and an investor earns another 10mil, he still gets to keep that extra 1mil for a total of 11mil (minus the taxes for that first 10mil). Correct?
If generating income of an additional million dollars in a year isn't motivation, what is?
That depends. If said investor had to risk say, 10mil, to earn that last 10mil, he would basically be risking 10mil for 1mil profit. I make no judgement whether that's reasonable or not, or something I'd personally do or not. I'm just trying to give a possible reasoning on the argument of how such a high marginal tax rate may reduce an investor's incentive to invest further, especially when combined with the likelihood that at that income, that last 1mil is likely to have lower marginal utility as well.
Put in another way: If you work 20h to earn $500, and need to work another 20h to earn another $500, but that second $500 is taxed at 90% rate, so you can get $500 for 20h, or get $550 for 40h. Would you work that extra 20h?
There comes a point, which vary between individuals, where the additional post-tax amount they can earn, is not worth the amount of work /investment they need to put in. That makes perfect sense to me. I am, however, intentionally staying away from any discussion of what these rates should be.
edit: modify numbers to get decently liveable amount, fix typo, math
-
You have to appreciate that statistical data can almost always be massaged to support any side of an argument (I am not saying you have done this but some of the sources may) and there are times when accurate or reliable data is not readily available and one needs to formulate opions based on information that is anecdotal or intuitive in nature based on observed trends.
I absolutely agree.
...Taking an affirmative position would minimize this.
Duly noted. I will say, in many cases, I don't have a fully-formed affirmative position yet. I'm wary of rushing into things and forming opinions, because there are so many facets of many of these issues and considering just a side or two of them can lead to awful policy.
So to be clear my position is that the government is inefficient and wasteful (in the broad sense) and that taxes shouldn't be raised until this is addressed - this is not an indictment on what they spend it on, that is a different discussion, but how they spend it. I know you'll ask for facts but I think you know the reality...and see my SSI example in my prior comment.
I understand your argument better now. Means-testing SS payments is a great example of something that I think would cut down as expenditures, but I hadn't thought of that as a component of your waste argument. I thought you were arguing for efficiency alone, and not for dramatic policy changes to parts of the government that do unnecessary things (and which I definitely agree exist). I thought you were referring to pork-barrel spending, pension double-dipping, contractor fraud, and things like that. I know all those are problems but it doesn't seem to me that they are easily addressed.
-
How do you think it got that way?
I didn't say taxes weren't a factor, but that there are more things that contributed and you touched on it lower in your post.
How do you suppose society could change it?
This is the question - I just don't think it should be in the form of increased taxes and instead should come in the form of tax reform such as closing loopholes and removing the elements of tax policy that can be easily manipulated (legally speaking).
Nope. I don't equate extreme wealth with "success".
1/2 of the 20 richest people inherited their wealth. "Luck" is very different from "success".
Taxes on inheritance have dropped substantially - 77% top bracket and 60k deduction in 1977 down to 45% and 3.5 million deduction in 2009 (and NONE what-so-ever 2010!)
Nevermind the fact that I don't think the government should get a piece of the action just because you die, this is a different topic and definitely falls under the category of hitting the "sperm donor lottery". That said, a lot of middle market business go under or get sold because the family can't afford the estate taxes. Wealthy people know how to circumvent this - they do it with charitable trusts, generation skipping trusts, resetting asset values, etc - and as a result they don't and have never paid as much as you think. The reason whey the receipts went down is because the increased exemption - it is those people in the under $5 million range that have wealth but not so much so that they have an army of accountants and attorneys. I pointed out Buffett and Gates falls into this as well - but these are two individuals with $70B if bet worth that the government won't see a dime from via the estate tax as all of their assets are in a charitable trust.
Other factors include changes in US law which encouraged corporate consolidation and outsourcing. Also, increases in technology, which increase productivity, which in our system benefits the owners of companies at the expense of the employees. And even some good old fashion hard work and innovation thrown in as well.
This a few others including plus leverage....and keep in mind that leverage for the individual is a transfer of wealth to those who are making the loans.
MMM is not enormously ridiculously wealthy.
I'm going to guess you aren't really aware of just how extreme wealth inequality really is. MMM has a closer amount of wealth to that homeless guy you passed by yesterday than he does to anyone on the Forbes 400 list.
I didn't say he was ridiculously wealthy and I understand and appreciate the wealth and income gap, and said it a couple of times throughout this thread. That said MMM is retired and has about $1,000,000 in his mid-30's - I view that as wealthy but not enormously ridiculously wealthy. And the point I made was that if he is living on income that is at/near/below the poverty line and still manages to save a little then you have to ask yourself why isn't it possible for actual poor people to live at/near/below the povertly level and not save a bit.
"Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it. Taxes aren't a penalty. They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not."
Taxes aren't a penalty. Not paying taxes isn't a reward.
Being poor doesn't mean you are anti-MMM.
I wasn't injecting my values, I was accusing the other poster of claiming that was my position, possibly incorrectly so. I have said it numerous times that taxes are necessary. However, there can be debates about what the government provides and how it provides it. And for the sake of this argument, I have left out the what government provides and instead focused on how it provides it.
-
Duly noted. I will say, in many cases, I don't have a fully-formed affirmative position yet. I'm wary of rushing into things and forming opinions, because there are so many facets of many of these issues and considering just a side or two of them can lead to awful policy.
I believe it is the right course of action so don't worry about. Just be mindful that so many things in life (politics, investments, relationships, etc.) have intangible elements, are fluid in nature, and the fact that more often than not you will not have 100% of clarity in all situations there will be times when you will be forced to make decisions on imperfect data - business people, politicians, parents, etc do it every day. The thing I don't like about having to do this is that sometimes I make the wrong decision but live and learn.
I understand your argument better now. Means-testing SS payments is a great example of something that I think would cut down as expenditures, but I hadn't thought of that as a component of your waste argument. I thought you were arguing for efficiency alone, and not for dramatic policy changes to parts of the government that do unnecessary things (and which I definitely agree exist). I thought you were referring to pork-barrel spending, pension double-dipping, contractor fraud, and things like that. I know all those are problems but it doesn't seem to me that they are easily addressed.
That is correct, open it all up for discussion. I agree that the complexities of addressing one, let alone, all of the issues are tough but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I just feel too many decisions in Washington are polictilly motivated or the issues aren't getting addressed because they are too busy focussing on the politically motivated issues. I would rather their decisions be pragmatic in nature as was originally intended. Also, I would just rather existing pot be better managed before we increase the pot, and afterwards if it is not enough then we increase the pot (hopefully on a temporary basis).
I admit I don't have all the answers, nowhere close in fact, and discussions like these help.
-
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online).
Let's think about that. Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18. Few of them would hold significant wealth. About 10% of the population is in the 18-24 age range, and about half those are attending college. They would not be expected to have significant wealth (and many probably have negative wealth, due to student loans).
Then consider that it's going to take any young person (bar a few trust fund babies & similar) a few years to get going and accumulate significant wealth, and we can see that that "half the population holds 2.5% of wealth" is a pretty good example of how to lie by telling only part of the truth.
-
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online).
Let's think about that. Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18. Few of them would hold significant wealth. About 10% of the population is in the 18-24 age range, and about half those are attending college. They would not be expected to have significant wealth (and many probably have negative wealth, due to student loans).
Then consider that it's going to take any young person (bar a few trust fund babies & similar) a few years to get going and accumulate significant wealth, and we can see that that "half the population holds 2.5% of wealth" is a pretty good example of how to lie by telling only part of the truth.
What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?
Grant said that in response to "half of the population pays no federal tax so it is not a fair system."
Should we start taxing children under 18? If not, I just don't see how that statistic is a "lie"
-
Let's think about that. Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18. Few of them would hold significant wealth.
I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned. Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession.
Sums of money that big are just too big to be amassed by earning a paycheck, so that wealth is either inherited (see: the Waltons) or financed (see, the Zuck). In neither case is your age a determining factor.
-
Age and wealth
That's a reasonably compelling argument, although I did not make my argument in the context of the way society should be. I made my argument in the context of the way society currently is, and the tax realities that result from it. It's an angle I hadn't considered. Surely if your argument is correct, the census data about wealth and income will support what you're saying, right? (It's available on Wikipedia if you're interested in actually learning about the economy instead of just patting yourself on the back for being right all the time, and since Wikipedia is free you could even conceivably go there, gather data to test your assertion, and then report back here!)
-
What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?
It doesn't, except insofar as it's forcing an incorrect view of reality. But what does the question of progressive taxation have to do with evil-or-not mustaches?
-
I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned. Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession.
Not correct. I've no idea of the percentage of inherited wealth, but if you look at the Forbes 400, or any list of the very wealthy, you'll find that the great majority made the money themselves. In the few cases where they didn't - most prominently the Waltons - they're the first generation heirs of someone who did make his own money. Last I looked, you had to go down close to the end of the list to find a Rockefeller or Ford.
-
It doesn't, except insofar as it's forcing an incorrect view of reality. But what does the question of progressive taxation have to do with evil-or-not mustaches?
You didn't demonstrate it was incorrect, you just insinuated that you didn't like what it measured. Regardless, the reason it's related is because, like first world to third world charitable donations, it exemplifies the marginal utility of money.
-
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth (check out wikipedia when it comes back online).
Let's think about that. Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18. Few of them would hold significant wealth. About 10% of the population is in the 18-24 age range, and about half those are attending college. They would not be expected to have significant wealth (and many probably have negative wealth, due to student loans).
Then consider that it's going to take any young person (bar a few trust fund babies & similar) a few years to get going and accumulate significant wealth, and we can see that that "half the population holds 2.5% of wealth" is a pretty good example of how to lie by telling only part of the truth.
What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?
Grant said that in response to "half of the population pays no federal tax so it is not a fair system."
Should we start taxing children under 18? If not, I just don't see how that statistic is a "lie"
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Just because a system is progressive doesn't make it fair. I have asked several times directly and through example but once please explain to me the absolute sense why somebody who makes more should pay more beyond that "it is good for society" or "if the tax man don't taketh they won't giveth away" or "because they inherited it" or "because they benefit more because Obama built all the roads that they uese".
Simply answer the question why is it fair. I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair. That doesn't mean it should change or that the societal arguments don't come into play or fact of the matter that so what the system isn't fair, but life isn't always fair.
You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.
-
I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned. Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession.
Not correct. I've no idea of the percentage of inherited wealth, but if you look at the Forbes 400, or any list of the very wealthy, you'll find that the great majority made the money themselves. In the few cases where they didn't - most prominently the Waltons - they're the first generation heirs of someone who did make his own money. Last I looked, you had to go down close to the end of the list to find a Rockefeller or Ford.
2 Kochs, 4 Waltons, and 3 Mars is 9 of the top 20, little less than half.
So, you're both wrong. Its just "very few", but its not "the great majority" either.
The rest is almost all computers and finance - they did make it themselves, but it wasn't exactly "just by working hard in their chosen profession."
-
Let's think about that. Per the US census, 23.7 percent of the US population is under 18. Few of them would hold significant wealth.
I suspect that this argument holds less water than you might suspect when you consider what a large percentage of wealth in this country is inherited rather than earned. Very few of the wealthiest 0.1% of individuals got that way just by working hard in their chosen profession.
Sums of money that big are just too big to be amassed by earning a paycheck, so that wealth is either inherited (see: the Waltons) or financed (see, the Zuck). In neither case is your age a determining factor.
The Walton family still earned its money so why is it ok that it be taken away. As much as I can't stand Zuck and he was lucky as hell for all the stupid money palcing crazy values on his company, you're are crazy if you think he didn't earn it and/or contribute to its success. Not to mention all the people that are employed by FB or in some the result of FB.
-
......... they did make it themselves, but it wasn't exactly "just by working hard in their chosen profession."
Define hard....just because one doesn't work with his hands doesn't mean he is not working hard...I-banker's notoriously work 24/7 for many years and need to keep doing so for a long time to get to that level of wealth. Sure there are some that make the right trade and hit the lottery, but that is the exception and not the rule. Also, think about it, let's say they work 24/7 type of hours (call it 1 whole day off and 20 hours for the other 6 days) - I have known plenty of people that do this in NY - in a sense they are working 3 times as much in a year as the typical 40 hr/week person is. Would I do it - no, and I would expect them to make more than me as a result.
-
2 Kochs, 4 Waltons, and 3 Mars is 9 of the top 20, little less than half.
So, you're both wrong. Its just "very few", but its not "the great majority" either.
Re-think your top 20. The Kochs (much as I dislike them) did make most of the wealth that puts them in the top 20, though I grant they had a head start. So by my count, that makes 15 out of the top 20 who made the bulk of their money themselves. The rest are 1st-generation descendants of the person who made the money. (I'm using the 2011 list, here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/ )
-
You know first generation descendants still inherited their money, right?
-
The Walton family still earned its money so why is it ok that it be taken away.
Key word "family"
......... they did make it themselves, but it wasn't exactly "just by working hard in their chosen profession."
Keyword "just" - thats why I had it bold and italic.
You already acknowledged Zuck got lucky, so while he may have worked hard, and he may have had an innovative idea, it wasn't only hard work.
The Kochs (much as I dislike them) did make most of the wealth that puts them in the top 20, though I grant they had a head start.
I would call having your parents pay for prep school and an ivy leauge college, maybe even buying you a house, a "headstart"
300 million dollars plus the reigns of an already established and successful company? In my book, that's inherited wealth, even if you are able to use that money to make a whole lot more money.
-
What difference does that make for the question of whether or not taxes should be more or less progressive?
It doesn't, except insofar as it's forcing an incorrect view of reality. But what does the question of progressive taxation have to do with evil-or-not mustaches?
Congress is debating this exact question right now.
If one is voting for whoever will lower their own taxes the most, they may choose differently than if they are considering what is best for society.
For example; I have a friend who is a day trader. She was talking about the pending raise in tax rates for capital gains and dividends, and I said "I know, I'm really glad about that! Money that you had to acually work for and which contributed something tangible to society shouldn't be taxed more than money you make just by virtue of already having money. Taxes need to get paid for society to function."
And then she was quiet for a little bit as she thought about it, and she said "Thank you. I like that perspective. I was just thinking about it from the point of view of how much taxes I pay. I feel better about it when you say it that way."
A central part of FI is passive income. If we are trying to be responcible citizens, do we try to lower our own tax bill, even if it is at the exspense of society as a whole?
-
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Just because a system is progressive doesn't make it fair. I have asked several times directly and through example but once please explain to me the absolute sense why somebody who makes more should pay more beyond that "it is good for society" or "if the tax man don't taketh they won't giveth away" or "because they inherited it" or "because they benefit more because Obama built all the roads that they use".
Simply answer the question why is it fair. I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair. That doesn't mean it should change or that the societal arguments don't come into play or fact of the matter that so what the system isn't fair, but life isn't always fair.
You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.
First, my principals dictate a focus on the social view. I.e. I believe what is most important is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. I think any prinical which causes some people to suffer so that one person can gain a negligable amount of marginal utility is an invalid principal. Hence my examples of why propety rights (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/pursuing-and-maintaining-a-responsible-early-retirement/msg20853/#msg20853) should not be a fundamental / universal value.
There is more than one way to define "fair".
If a grop of people has a limited food supply, you could say it is most fair if everyone gets an exactly equal portion.
However, if one person is a 98lb female, and another is a 200lb male who, by virtue of his strength, is tasked with doing the heavy lifting for the group, an equal division of the food may result in some having more than they need and others having not enough.
Just like I think in determining generosity, considering how much a person has left over is more relevant than how much they give away, so to with taxes, how much a person has post-tax needs to be taken into consideration to figure out what is "fair"
You really want to make everything fair and say that all wealth is built on merit, we could start by making preschool, kindergarten, mandatory and free, making at least the first 4 years of college free, and taxing all inheritience, trusts, and "gifts"(beyond sentimental value)
Since that isn't the world we live in, fair becomes relative
-
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Just because a system is progressive doesn't make it fair. I have asked several times directly and through example but once please explain to me the absolute sense why somebody who makes more should pay more beyond that "it is good for society" or "if the tax man don't taketh they won't giveth away" or "because they inherited it" or "because they benefit more because Obama built all the roads that they use".
Simply answer the question why is it fair. I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair. That doesn't mean it should change or that the societal arguments don't come into play or fact of the matter that so what the system isn't fair, but life isn't always fair.
You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.
First, my principals dictate a focus on the social view. I.e. I believe what is most important is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. I think any prinical which causes some people to suffer so that one person can gain a negligable amount of marginal utility is an invalid principal. Hence my examples of why propety rights]https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/pursuing-and-maintaining-a-responsible-early-retirement/msg20853/#msg20853]propety rights (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/pursuing-and-maintaining-a-responsible-early-retirement/msg20853/#msg20853) should not be a fundamental / universal value.
There is more than one way to define "fair".
If a grop of people has a limited food supply, you could say it is most fair if everyone gets an exactly equal portion.
However, if one person is a 98lb female, and another is a 200lb male who, by virtue of his strength, is tasked with doing the heavy lifting for the group, an equal division of the food may result in some having more than they need and others having not enough.
Just like I think in determining generosity, considering how much a person has left over is more relevant than how much they give away, so to with taxes, how much a person has post-tax needs to be taken into consideration to figure out what is "fair"
You really want to make everything fair and say that all wealth is built on merit, we could start by making preschool, kindergarten, mandatory and free, making at least the first 4 years of college free, and taxing all inheritience, trusts, and "gifts"(beyond sentimental value)
Since that isn't the world we live in, fair becomes relative
You have an RV, right? Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week. After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it.
I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair. My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.
-
Simply answer the question why is it fair. I suspect I can't get answer because it is not fair.
You are focusing on the social/politcal view of this whereas I am focusing on the principled/absolute view of this.
First, my principals dictate a focus on the social view. I.e. I believe what is most important is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. I think any prinical which causes some people to suffer so that one person can gain a negligable amount of marginal utility is an invalid principal. Hence my examples of why propety rights (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/pursuing-and-maintaining-a-responsible-early-retirement/msg20853/#msg20853) should not be a fundamental / universal value.
You have an RV, right? Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week. After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it.
I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair. My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.
Bakari couldn't leave out the soical stuff because his position is fundamentally utilitarian. As such, a progressive taxation system is not a matter of whether it is fair or not, but whether it is justified under the Greatest Happiness or the Greatest Good principles.
Moreover, you've presented a false analogy in comparing the purported unfairness of taking Bakari's van with the purported unfairness of the progressive taxation system. In the latter case, those at the top suffer a negligible loss in utility in being taxed. In the former case, Bakari will suffer a total lost of utility or something approaching a total loss of utility if you were to take his van.
On another note, since you're claiming to represent an absolute/principled perspective on what's fair/unfair, I suggest you revisit the Rawlsian position that partially got us into this labyrinthine discussion. Distributive Justice (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/) is a complicated, multi-faceted animal. Any serious notion of fairness must inevitably go beyond the notion of fairness as "equal proportion" that you've been insistent on throughout this conversation.
-
You know first generation descendants still inherited their money, right?
Of course, but what I was addressing there was the notion of dynastic wealth. If we'd looked at that list a decade or so ago, the wealth of the Walton and Mars families would still be in the hands of the people that first made it.
-
300 million dollars plus the reigns of an already established and successful company? In my book, that's inherited wealth, even if you are able to use that money to make a whole lot more money.
Did I say that it wasn't inherited wealth? The original question was whether MOST wealth in the US is inherited. Now if the Kochs started with $300 million, and now have a combined net worth of $50 billion, that means that only 0.6% of their wealth was inherited. You could, if ambitious, do the same calculation for the rest of the Forbes 400, or any other subset of rich people.
For the top 20, earned is (roughly) $359.1 billion, inherited $101.1 billion (adjusting for the Koch's $300 mllion inheritance, and figuring that all the Walton and Mars wealth was inherited). That works out to just over 28%, which I don't think counts as "most".
-
That works out to just over 28%, which I don't think counts as "most".
I said most inherited or financed. And by financed, I mean extracted from an IPO or otherwise leveraged within the financial system, not wealth they earned by collecting a paycheck. Sums of money that large just cannot be acquired by depositing a biweekly paycheck, and instead are the result of either taking someone else's wealth as inheritance or taking other people's wealth by offering to invest it for them, and instead turning it into your personal fortune.
Then I suppose you could argue that some of them are CEOs who neither inherited nor created companies, but instead make 20 million a year in CEO salary based on a Harvard business degree. In my mind, that's equally immoral but even those people are unlikely to ever hit billionaire status, unless they live very frugally and work long careers.
-
You know what I find to be the most interesting(hypocritical) is that most of these dipshits that you find immoral tend to become the most liberal after they accumulate their wealth and espouse all kinds of rhetoric about how we should be more mindful of society and pay more taxes - of course by that point they have made/earned their money, sheltered it, and don't actually give any away until they die (if at all) yet they are extremely influential in driving policy and causing people to buy into this logic. Hollywood types are probably the biggest offenders then followed by wall street types.
It is more a form of guilt than anything else.....or refocusing back to the premise of the OP is it better to good along the way or accumulate more and then do good.
-
You know what I find to be the most interesting(hypocritical) is that most of these dipshits that you find immoral tend to become the most liberal after they accumulate their wealth
It is an interesting observation and I agree that Hollywood types are predominately liberal, with some notable exceptions of course (Clint Eastwood, Adam Sandler, Chuck Norris...).
On the flip side, Hollywood does not control the majority of wealth in this country and I think that most of the people who do control the wealth are conservatives. I don't think this has much to do with philosophy, but a lot to do with the pro-business policies of the Republican party. We're all motivated by self interest, and it's no surprise to me that most rich people would favor politicians and parties that protect the interests of rich people.
Hollywood liberals make easy targets, but it's not like their money will swing an election. Instead, it's conservative businessmen like Sheldon Adelson (gambling), the Koch brothers (fossil fuels) and Foster Friess (hedge funds).
As an example, look up the number of donors who have given 1 million dollars or more to each party this election cycle. The Democrats have two such donors, and yes they are both Hollywood types. The Republicans have almost 30 such donors who are known by name, and a possibly overlapping 24 more who have been able to remain anonymous by giving through Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove's 501(c).
Which isn't to say your point isn't valid; Hollywood millionaires are disproportionately liberal. I'm not sure either of us can say if they became liberals after acquiring wealth, or if they were always liberal and have been true to their principles while getting rich.
It is more a form of guilt than anything else.....or refocusing back to the premise of the OP is it better to good along the way or accumulate more and then do good.
I'm the OP, so I'm well aware of what I said up front. I'm not sure about your assertion that the above noted effect is guilt-driven, though. If guilt were such a large factor, I'd think a few more of those GOP sugar daddies would spend their money on non-partisan philanthropy, instead of spending it to prop up the policies that directly benefit themselves.
Or are you suggesting that only the liberal millionaires feel guilt? That's a theory I might be able to support, I think.
-
You have an RV, right? Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week. After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it.
I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair. My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.
Leave out the social stuff? If you were considering one single person on an otherwise deserted island, than the concept of "fairness" wouldn't even apply. "Fair", by its very nature, implies a relation between 2 or more people, which makes it a social concept. How do you leave the "social stuff" out of it?
Even my 2 year old nephew who I used to take care of recognized the difference between one person taking something from you, and a third party mediating what is fair.
More specifically, if we were playing a game, and his mom said "ok, now its my turn" he would refuse to give up his turn, because she wanted to take it for herself. But if I - a neutral third party - said "ok, now its her turn" he would accept it. Same thing if her and my roles were reversed.
So there is one difference between your analogy and mine.
There is also the utility I pointed out with my food example. I'll try a different one, since you didn't seem to get it.
Lets say one person purchases the entire supply of medical insulin in the world, and then refuses to sell it at any price. This would be legal, and within their property rights, but is it "fair" to all of the diabetics of the world? In your "absolute" framework, would it be immoral for the government to order them to give up the insulin?
How about if one person stole something, didn't get caught, and then passed it down to their child. Should it be taken from the child and returned to the original owner? Why punish the child, they didn't do anything wrong? Which is more fair in this case?
The problem with what you are calling absolute principals is that it requires a very simple world.
If the supposed principal requires doing things that violates other principals or makes for a less than ideal system, you have to rethink that principal - maybe it is the principal itself which is invalid
-
Moreover, you've presented a false analogy in comparing the purported unfairness of taking Bakari's van with the purported unfairness of the progressive taxation system. In the latter case, those at the top suffer a negligible loss in utility in being taxed. In the former case, Bakari will suffer a total lost of utility or something approaching a total loss of utility if you were to take his van.
hey! I don't live in a "van"!
I have a 250 sq ft travel trailer.
Totally different. I'm living the life of luxury here, not like some hippy in a VW microbus
-
Moreover, you've presented a false analogy in comparing the purported unfairness of taking Bakari's van with the purported unfairness of the progressive taxation system. In the latter case, those at the top suffer a negligible loss in utility in being taxed. In the former case, Bakari will suffer a total lost of utility or something approaching a total loss of utility if you were to take his van.
hey! I don't live in a "van"!
I have a 250 sq ft travel trailer.
Totally different. I'm living the life of luxury here, not like some hippy in a VW microbus
Hahaha. Sorry.
-
I agree that hollywood types are typically liberal from the start, and while I don't think their money will swing an election I think their voices can given the audience they command. You also focues just on the hollywood part, I also said wall streeters (i.e. I have referenced Buffett as big one a couple of times).
To your point about there being more $1 million donors for GOP than for Democrats, which I believe there are more than that for the democrats, I would contend that it supports my point - remember that I effectively said they were hypocrites and don't put their money where their mouths are, they simply run their mouths and expect everyone else's money for it. At least the GOP supporters put their money where their mouth is.
Also keep in mind that contributions from businesses are done for two reasons (1) to be aligned with what they think will be the winning horse and (2) to influence policy. I assure you if they thought that Romney had no chance of winning (doesn't mean he will) you would see contributions start shifting to Obama so they can look like supporters (it was proved out when Obama was running the first time) - business first. And don't for a minute think Obama isn't influenced by business - he his is a politician. Again both sides suck.
-
You have an RV, right? Well I don't and need to travel....I will be by to pick it up later next week. After all you have something I don't so it is FAIR that I can take it.
I asked you to leave the social stuff out of the answer and again you couldn't, and as I remind you I didn't say the system needed to fair just that it wasn't fair. My comment above is ridiculous, and as ridiculous as it is it is, in the absolute sense, no different than take it from the wealth argument that you make.
Leave out the social stuff? If you were considering one single person on an otherwise deserted island, than the concept of "fairness" wouldn't even apply. "Fair", by its very nature, implies a relation between 2 or more people, which makes it a social concept. How do you leave the "social stuff" out of it?
Even my 2 year old nephew who I used to take care of recognized the difference between one person taking something from you, and a third party mediating what is fair.
More specifically, if we were playing a game, and his mom said "ok, now its my turn" he would refuse to give up his turn, because she wanted to take it for herself. But if I - a neutral third party - said "ok, now its her turn" he would accept it. Same thing if her and my roles were reversed.
So there is one difference between your analogy and mine.
There is also the utility I pointed out with my food example. I'll try a different one, since you didn't seem to get it.
Lets say one person purchases the entire supply of medical insulin in the world, and then refuses to sell it at any price. This would be legal, and within their property rights, but is it "fair" to all of the diabetics of the world? In your "absolute" framework, would it be immoral for the government to order them to give up the insulin?
How about if one person stole something, didn't get caught, and then passed it down to their child. Should it be taken from the child and returned to the original owner? Why punish the child, they didn't do anything wrong? Which is more fair in this case?
The problem with what you are calling absolute principals is that it requires a very simple world.If the supposed principal requires doing things that violates other principals or makes for a less than ideal system, you have to rethink that principal - maybe it is the principal itself which is invalid
Yes the questions is posed in the context of your comment in bold.
Your example about the game depends on the rules...if in fact it is the mothers turn was next you would not be playing the role of mediator you would be playing the role of regulator/enforcer in a game scenario the better example would be you get to keep rolling the dice until you lose well if they go on a roll for an extended period of time then it wouldn't be fair (or fun) for the other person but would it be fair to say well you played by the rules but we never expected it to get to 10 rolls so now give the other person a try. That's not fair, that's not the game.
Your other examples actually support my point and that things in life don't need to be, and are often not, fair and I understand the utility argument but again utility doesn't equal fairness but doesn't mean it is moral. In your utility example, yes if one wanted to hold all of the insulin, assuming it were legal, then I would argue while it is not fair to the diabetic it would also not be fair to take away this persons property - but I do beleive in this instance that it would be immoral for this person to withhold this supply or command payment so high that it would result in a form of enslavement that it would be justified to either regulate prices (ensuring that this person got a reasonable return) or seize it if this person did not comply. But it doesn't make it fair for insulin holder.
As for the stolen property example...it is not fair to the child that their gift be taken away or that they have someone in their lives that would put them in such a position, but it is the right thing to do. Separately while this is demonstrates an argument of fairness, if you are using to support the fairness of progressive taxes you would be implying that wealth people, who would be the child in this comparison, illegitimately received their wealth from someone who stole it and therefore it should be taken away. I don't think this it what you are saying but that is how this example would be compared - although without getting into a deeper issue you could argue that slavery was exactly this and the call for reparations would be supportable ignoring the difficulty of actually figuring it out.
At the end of the day I think you agree that in the absolute principle sense that a progressive tax structure/inheritance taxes/etc. are not fair and I agree that while it is not fair it is needed and those with more should bear an increased responsibility to support our society. Although what and how much that responsibility should equal is a whole different story.
Right?
-
That works out to just over 28%, which I don't think counts as "most".
I said most inherited or financed. And by financed, I mean extracted from an IPO or otherwise leveraged within the financial system, not wealth they earned by collecting a paycheck. Sums of money that large just cannot be acquired by depositing a biweekly paycheck, and instead are the result of either taking someone else's wealth as inheritance...
Well, you're right about the biweekly paycheck part :-)
But let's put this to the test on the top 20 again. There's a total of $459.2 billion there (unless my fingers slipped). Out of that, at least $190.1 billion is NEW WEALTH, obtained by creating something that did not exist before. It could certainly be argued that quite a bit more of the total is new wealth, too.
...taking other people's wealth by offering to invest it for them, and instead turning it into your personal fortune.
You're talking about Bernie Madoff, right? Because he (and similar scam artists) are the only ones who take the money and turn it into their personal fortunes. Others, from Warren Buffet on down, arguably provide a service for which they're entitled to charge a fee. It's really no different from me calling a plumber. If I don't have the skill or desire to crawl around under my house trying to fix a leaking pipe, I call a plumber, and pay for the service. Likewise, if I don't want to spend time doing my own investment research, I can put my money with Berkshire Hathaway - or Vanguard, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, etc.
Then I suppose you could argue that some of them are CEOs who neither inherited nor created companies, but instead make 20 million a year in CEO salary based on a Harvard business degree. In my mind, that's equally immoral...
Immoral? Can't see that. Foolish, perhaps, on the part of the board who hires a CEO at that rate.
-
Even my 2 year old nephew who I used to take care of recognized the difference between one person taking something from you, and a third party mediating what is fair.
More specifically, if we were playing a game, and his mom said "ok, now its my turn" he would refuse to give up his turn, because she wanted to take it for herself. But if I - a neutral third party - said "ok, now its her turn" he would accept it.
But the reason he can accept it is because you are an adult, so he can believe (rightly or wrongly :-)) that you ARE a neutral authority figure who will be fair. In the adult world, especially in the political sphere where most redistributionist schemes are hatched, there is a notable lack of unbiased authority figures.
-
Great thread. So great that I don't have much to add.
-
MOD NOTE: A reply about enjoying life now has been split to its own thread here: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/enjoy-life-now/
-
Half of the population only holds 2.5% of the wealth
You guys keep bringing wealth and tax rates into the equation, I have never once said that wealth wasn't concentrated at the top and in fact I even think I said that the gap is too disproportionate.
How do you think it got that way?
How do you suppose society could change it?
Clearly you view that tax rates are far too low on anyone who is successful
Nope. I don't equate extreme wealth with "success".
1/2 of the 20 richest people inherited their wealth. "Luck" is very different from "success".
Taxes on inheritance have dropped substantially - 77% top bracket and 60k deduction in 1977 down to 45% and 3.5 million deduction in 2009 (and NONE what-so-ever 2010!)
and that is the only reason why they become wealthy.
Nope.
But it is one factor in how a handful of people in the past couple decades have become enormously ridiculously wealthy.
In addition to a top income tax bracket of only 35% (down from over 90% in the 40s and 50s - you know, that period of time in America known for high unemployment, stagnant growth, economic uncertainty, and general pessimism...) there is also the inheritance tax I mentioned a moment ago.
Other factors include changes in US law which encouraged corporate consolidation and outsourcing. Also, increases in technology, which increase productivity, which in our system benefits the owners of companies at the expense of the employees. And even some good old fashion hard work and innovation thrown in as well.
If that is the case the MMM
MMM is not enormously ridiculously wealthy.
I'm going to guess you aren't really aware of just how extreme wealth inequality really is. MMM has a closer amount of wealth to that homeless guy you passed by yesterday than he does to anyone on the Forbes 400 list.
You can be forgiven for not really comprehending the vast scale of inequality though - most people don't:
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5u3t6f6Tn1qj171uo1_r3_1280.jpg)
Note that this graphic is fairly misleading - the smallest it shows is 1% of the population, but within that group, if you subdivide it even further to .1% or .01%, that set of subgroups is just about as unequal as the 1% is to everyone else.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/24/business/economy/economix-24percentilechart/economix-24percentilechart-custom1.jpg)
See that pink square about 4 squares down from the top on the right? There is more or less your successful Mustachain, or other 1%er. See how much closer it is to the rest of the 99% than it is to the top square? When I talk about taxing the wealthy, I'm talking about that top square, maybe the top two, not everyone above 50%.
But you don't have to take my word for it (or these people's either - most provide references, so you can check if you think they are just making up numbers):
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/forget-the-top-1-look-at-the-top-0-1/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/income-inequality/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/
http://daviddegraw.org/2011/08/who-rules-america-economic-elite-have-at-least-45-9-trillion-in-wealth-revealing-the-economic-top-0-1/
should be paying a lot more than he does and has demonstrated that it is possible to live well and actually even save/invest some at that low income,
yup. The fact that the middle class wastes its money a) has no bearing on this discussion and b) doesn't mean that other people aren't actually poor enough that they have no left over money to save.
So the question is for the lower 50% why aren't they saving more, investing more.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money/msg20692/#msg20692
Basically you are saying I want to penalize the poor and you are saying you want to continue to reward them for being anti-MMM.
"Again, that is you injecting your personal value system into it. Taxes aren't a penalty. They are a way for a complex advanced society to provide for common goods that the market will not."
Taxes aren't a penalty. Not paying taxes isn't a reward.
Being poor doesn't mean you are anti-MMM.
Bakari, you are the bomb! Thank you.
-
All that aside, I certainly think one must be vigilant to guard against what sol is worried about: singular focus on FI at the expense of our more important values.
To me this feels like the central paradox of this whole shebang, more than just an aside. The blog, the forum, the philosophy, all of it is geared towards showing people how to focus on their real values and not their material possessions, but the very mechanism of that focus is the quest for material wealth.
That doesn't strike anyone else as contradictory?
I don't see it like this. I think that the focus isn't on material wealth. To me material wealth is about having more stuff whereas FI is about freedom and having money work for you rather than money just going up in smoke.
Wealth and money are also aspects of life that you need to get figured out.
-
So many words... not enough time.
Talking to a long empty room here, but it feels good anyways. This is my problem... this right here. The original post hits me. It's right. The attitudes bleeding through the words of many here don't have the feel of humanity. They don't have the warmth. They are cold, fact-driven, calculating, harsh, judging, arrogant, and self-congratulatory.
But, I'm here. I want this, I want FI. I imagine in my mind my FI. Bright tree-rimmed days, crisp moving fresh air, my growing family close at hand, challenges, and trials, and creating, and growing, and art, and literature, and quiet music, and great big rest for my long taxed engineering brain. It feels nice… but fake and weak and lame. Then the darkness edges into the image and I know I need to do more... the world needs more of us. More from the people who can see the world and understand it. Who can navigate the convolutions and distractions of life and arrive at something new. Smart people, understanding people, motivated, interested and interesting people. People who can love and think and analyze.
Take that back… the world doesn’t need it. It demands it. Demands to know who the fuck are we to snatch and grab then just sit back and watch the world burn through a pair of secondhand welding goggles. Yes, we worked for it. Yes, we labored ourselves and made what we would like to enjoy. Yes, we are bad-asses. But, this makes me feel empty. We are bad-asses with nowhere to put our badassity that is worth a shit. Spending my days doing what I want. What a cop out.
This keeps me up at night. Makes me want to do more. I’m not good at doom and gloom, so my mind goes with it. I start dreaming up ridiculous ideas. Studying physics from free online schools. Teaching myself astro-physics and my kids, too. They’re smart enough. Spend my life thinking and burning and dreaming and creating and collaborating on something big. Real big. A big deal. Something that will help. Something that will inspire. Something that will move this lump of ennui we’ve encountered in the path of our humanity. Something that will kick our ass and get this fucker rolling.
This awesome post tells me there are others out there like this, too. Others that want more than to line their pockets so they can go douchingwheeling around with their heads crammed up their ass. And that, my friends, is awesome.
Someday, perhaps in some way, we can meet on an excited day over something that truly matters.
-
Internet forum threads, like everything else in life, are only empty until they aren't. You fill it by arriving.
I'm glad this old thread is still reaching people occasionally, because the conflict inherent to seeking financial independence through slavish devotion to financial control has not resolved itself for any of us, I'd wager.
-
Was feeling disconnected, annoyed, perhaps forum fatigue, money talk fatigue. I saw this thread mentioned in some old post and I'm floored, delighted. Bumping against the rules because Sol freshened my heart with this thoughtful thread. Thanks!
-
Oooh, good thread revival. I'm cross-posting this from the comics thread (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mustachian-(or-anti-mustachian)-comics/) because a) as someone who loved the Dune books as a teenager I think the source material is excellent and deserves wider exposure, and b) the message is relevant to the discussion in this thread.
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/8aca3321bc341c15555202ab2aab237f/tumblr_nrw99yj6gR1rl43cyo1_1280.png)
(http://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/)
I sometimes have to remind myself that money is a tool, not an end in and of itself. Don't forget to live your life the way you want to live it, now, rather than just fantasizing about how you will live your life someday when you finally reach your FIRE goals.
-
Sol - This thread is one of the few threads that I think about every once in awhile. It is also one that I should be pointing people to as they discuss this topic in various forms as they discuss other topics.
-
Sol!!
I have enjoyed posts of yours on other threads and sensed a good spirit from you...but only just now discovered this thread. Glad to see a more explicit expression of your values. What a good guy. Thanks for sending out your thoughts/feelings. Keep on being you, you're a treasure on these boards.
So you probably want a more on-topic comment. I hereby contribute the Tao of the Mustache:
Sure, miserly "Mustachian" actions miss the point. But a balanced reasonable growth of the Stache is wisdom in action, a good thing, a thoughtful and responsible concentration of resources that enables human health and happiness to be developed, maintained, spread around.
Facets of this Tao Mustache path:
1) Maybe the same power to say "FU" is the power to express views that others are scared to say - Black Lives Matter, I don't need an SUV, here's $10 for food and some new socks. Use judiciously.
2) Every faith tradition says give to the poor. If we waited until we knew we were safe, it might be too late.
3) Maybe we should develop courage by giving 10% of personal spending even during the accumulation phase, and not declaring FI until investments cover spending that also includes that 10%. Or set a budget that includes 10%, and if we are under budget, give the extra too. (That way we're not reducing the gift just because we lived thriftier than budget.) Either way we can make ourselves givers, now and forever until we die...maybe after we die, too, by leaving bequests.
4) Sometimes an example is more powerful than any words or picture. Just reinforcing the value of responsibility by being a friendly example of frugality could be of value sometimes. It could be a lifesaver to someone who didn't have a good role model or peer until now. Fight the power by rejecting its ads.
5) Accumulating enough capital to live on doesn't mean you're necessarily depriving anyone unless capitalism itself is irredeemably oppressive (which I don't think it is). The only error is in overdoing it, such as by obsessing about it to the exclusion of humane daily actions, or seeking to maximize profit by squeezing people instead of making fair deals.
6) Just in case, contribute time or money or skill to something that curbs an excess of capitalism - a whistleblower fund, an anti-pollution campaign, a campaign to make B corporations legal in your state.
7) I heard a TED talk saying that in 80% of companies and organizations, most employees know what's wrong but everyone is scared to say it. At some point (FI if not before), say it.
8) To err is human, to minimize error by reducing financial stress is Mustachian.
-
The thread that sparked this one (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/americans-spending-2-of-their-income-on-coffee/msg19621/#msg19621) was about how ridiculous it is that some people would spend 2% of their income on coffee, and had evolved into a discussion about how others were so proud of themselves for spending 1% or less on coffee instead.
Setting aside for a moment my belief that drugs like coffee and tobacco are a crutch for the weak-willed, reading that discussion in conjunction with the more philosophical discussion of the happiness principle and utilitarianism in the Rawlsian Theory of Justice thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/stupid-movie-in-time/) just made me realize how fucked up the whole thing is. Is it ever morally acceptable to leave your garden hose running while your neighbor dies of thirst? To buy yourself a third investment property when there are homeless mentally disabled people in your city who freeze to death in the wintertime? Yet this is the model of our economy, where everyone collectively and individually seeks personal profit at the expense of those who are less fortunate. And we label it capitalism and celebrate it as a virtue.
I am a capitalist and should be free to do what I want with my money. Ignoring the fact that I have paid and continue to pay a ridiculous amount of taxes (income, wage, sales, property, among others) into a system that doesn't work to largely support people that don't work. I am all for help those in need and I do give to charity but I will take care of myself and my family first - I also work hard and earned what I have so if I want to by a coffee or a beer - I am fuckin entitled to it because it is out of my own pocket. To many people (sounds like your camp) feel they are entitled to the same rewards but on someone elses dime. Fuck that.
Tooqk here is not alone in his assessment. Many Americans willfully turn a blind eye to the fact that over a million American children are undernourished due to poverty, here on US soil, while at the same time proudly proclaiming their own entitlement to luxuries, because they feel those poor people somehow deserve their poverty. This strikes me as the coldest kind of callousness, well beyond benign indifference. This is walking by a drowning child and looking the other way. Their sense of entitlement, even when expressed less profanely, usually offends anyone who stops to think about it too carefully. Do you really think you're "entitled" to a 3000 sqft house and two SUVs?
Perhaps I can shed some light into the irony. In today's capitalist world, those without money are forgotten about and are left voiceless. They are subject to sub-par conditions which the rest of the country doesn't face. Those with money have made it so they do not have to see what those in poverty face by using those large cars to put distance in between those who have...and those who have not.
For proof, please look no further than the east side of my state, where the history of the car has exacerbated this situation to one of the worst segregation a between those who have wealth and those who don't. Detroit Public Schools is in a state of literal collapse, and Flint continues to live with water that the rest of the country deems undrinkable.
Unfortunately, the teachers in Detroit, who fight so valiently, highlight evermore why one must accumulate wealth in order to help those without. They are fighting in spite of the possibility of losing their jobs, which is something they live with everyday.
Essentially, someone with wealth is needed to speak for those who cannot. Someone who can make a fuss and won't also have to be worried about what the consequences of fighting mean financially. Those without are fighting just to get clean water and get to school with clean cloths and a full stomach everyday. They don't have time to fight for change too.
So, my mustachian mission, in a nutshell, is to amass enough FU money to withstand whatever politics may throw at me in the fight for what's right, and not just what's status quo. I am, unfortunately, not as brave as the teachers in Detroit though, and I won't risk my job until I don't need it.
There's the irony. In a capitalist world, if one wants to help those without, they need money. This sometimes also means letting the others go for a time being (on a one-to-one scale), until that money can be made.
-
One of the reasons I look forward to retiring is spending more time as a volunteer with the couple groups I now support. I give them money and some time now. Later it will be less money and more time.
I would hope that most folks would help others, on whatever their interest area, once they retire. Then again, my brother-in-law seems quite satisfied in the barca-lounger watching ESPN all day.
A life not examined...................and all that.
-
There may be many people on this site that either volunteer, give $ or do both and don't mention it. We have always volunteered and given some to local good causes even we were young and did not have a lot. It was nothing religious but the right thing to do. Now that we have more time and $ we can give more of both. Just because people are not talking about it does not mean it is not happening. It would be interesting to have a poll asking people what they actually do. One thing that I don't agree with is when people have massive debt but insist on donating a certain percent to charity. In that case charity begins at home and they would be better off to still donate but just less of it until their own financial house is in order.
-
Still one of the best threads to ever appear on the forums (I've done a lot of reading here over the years before finally plunking down a membership).
Thinking of purpose and of others is a big part of why I still show up at the day job. I'm a preschool teacher; every day I'm at work makes a difference--potentially a lifelong one--in the lives of my kiddos. And yet I still want to quit some days...a lot. Never because of the kids; almost always because of the administrative nonsense, as well as because I'd like more time with my wife and kids. But on the other hand, my working the day job allows us to give much more to charity, which I'm very happy about, and I also get to reshape a lot of people's perspectives about males in early childhood education at the same time. I sometimes think of my job as being a volunteer teacher for 40h a week and getting paid 50k a year to do so. I don't know. Naturally, working longer also pads our financial coffers more, which increases our odds of being able to fully fund our kids' college educations someday. I don't know. But I do definitely agree with the notion of selfishness and social irresponsibility in dropping out of society as quickly as possible to live large on a heap of money while so many go hungry and without opportunity. And yet at the same time, I fantasize about doing the same on a weekly basis. Our side income has exceeded my day job income for more than a year now. We'll see how long I stick with it. In the mean time, I know I'm doing right by my work kids, and strangers I'll never meet around our town and around the world are helped by some of the finances we entrust with particular charities.
-
I agree with much of what both of you said, and thanks for posting and sharing your thoughts.
Unfortunately, despite what I consider to be the third key tenet of Mustachianism (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adaptation-and-how-can-it-turn-you-into-a-sukka/) being a very altruistic and self-aware sentiment regarding our impact upon one another... it's quickly lost much of the overall focus and balance within our own little community here lately with a shocking lack of compassion towards one another on this little dirt ball we call home. Even the ethical investing threads (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-do-i-build-a-%27stache-without-harming-others/) ran out of steam quickly (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/morality-and-investing/) early on with a general arrived upon sentiment by most of, "you'll wind up participating in the evil you don't like anyway at least on some level, so why bother at all?"
I do want to address this. My theory on this is that charity and such is not only a more personal thing, but also a thing more people have a handle on in their own lives. Most come on here to:
1) Get help on a question they have.
2) Debate and discuss.
I don't think most coming here have questions on their charity work or donations (be it time or money), but need help with financial matters. Ditto with the second, many of us have chosen our charities and that's not something that would be very interesting or productive to debate. "Oh, you support medicine in the third world? That's cool. I support women's literacy." "..."
It doesn't get discussed much, but I don't think one can infer much from that. I would actually guess that most Mustachians are, in general, more charitable than the average person.
All that aside, I certainly think one must be vigilant to guard against what sol is worried about: singular focus on FI at the expense of our more important values.
Given that studies have shown that the more wealth you have, the less generous you are, I doubt that.
-
I agree with much of what both of you said, and thanks for posting and sharing your thoughts.
Unfortunately, despite what I consider to be the third key tenet of Mustachianism (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adaptation-and-how-can-it-turn-you-into-a-sukka/) being a very altruistic and self-aware sentiment regarding our impact upon one another... it's quickly lost much of the overall focus and balance within our own little community here lately with a shocking lack of compassion towards one another on this little dirt ball we call home. Even the ethical investing threads (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-do-i-build-a-%27stache-without-harming-others/) ran out of steam quickly (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/morality-and-investing/) early on with a general arrived upon sentiment by most of, "you'll wind up participating in the evil you don't like anyway at least on some level, so why bother at all?"
I do want to address this. My theory on this is that charity and such is not only a more personal thing, but also a thing more people have a handle on in their own lives. Most come on here to:
1) Get help on a question they have.
2) Debate and discuss.
I don't think most coming here have questions on their charity work or donations (be it time or money), but need help with financial matters. Ditto with the second, many of us have chosen our charities and that's not something that would be very interesting or productive to debate. "Oh, you support medicine in the third world? That's cool. I support women's literacy." "..."
It doesn't get discussed much, but I don't think one can infer much from that. I would actually guess that most Mustachians are, in general, more charitable than the average person.
All that aside, I certainly think one must be vigilant to guard against what sol is worried about: singular focus on FI at the expense of our more important values.
Given that studies have shown that the more wealth you have, the less generous you are, I doubt that.
Agreed. There are plenty of examples throughout the forums of folks talking about how charity is a waste, corrupt, damaging to society, and so on, as well as plenty of threads where folks argue against tithing or other monthly contributions folks make that slow down FIRE, etc.
There's a possibility that the average forum member's household gives more nominally than the average household in the US (the average household donation is $2974), especially given the fact that the median HHI on the forum is probably 1.5-2x that of the country, but I'd be surprised if the percentage relative to income or net worth (whichever is greater) were greater here than the national percentages. This is a highly educated forum, but I don't see it as a very giving one; it makes sense since that runs counter to the goals of most here, which are to hoard enough money to never need to work again as quickly as possible.
(http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/images/2_1.jpg)
-
I have really enjoyed this wonderful thread, but, other than in the initial post, it took a long time for people to discuss volunteering (more than in passing). This is where I believe that Early Retirement has the opportunity to do greater good than donating money. Essentially, I believe that time is a gross commodity whereas cash is a net commodity. Cash (earned through work or interest) has been through taxation and when donated must be adminstrated at additional cost. Time that is donated must be administrated, but is not taxed.
In addition, if the individual donating time has appropriate skills, their time can have a very high monetary value to a charity or other cause. Skills are relatively easy to gain, so an early retiree can (if they have kept their mind on their values) increase their value to a charity or cause pretty quickly.
This is not to say that it is the only way to do good, but it is an opportunity to do the greatest good. In addition, donating lots of time in retirement is not exclusive of donating some time beforehand.
-
There may be many people on this site that either volunteer, give $ or do both and don't mention it. We have always volunteered and given some to local good causes even we were young and did not have a lot. It was nothing religious but the right thing to do. Now that we have more time and $ we can give more of both. Just because people are not talking about it does not mean it is not happening. It would be interesting to have a poll asking people what they actually do. One thing that I don't agree with is when people have massive debt but insist on donating a certain percent to charity. In that case charity begins at home and they would be better off to still donate but just less of it until their own financial house is in order.
There was a poll not too long ago and it dissolved miserably into 2 factions: one saying giving money was more valuable and needed then time, and the other (ERed people on lower incomes like me) saying that giving time but no money (or little) was equally valuable. It got pretty heated but it did show that many people here do donate either time or money or both while working and once ER'd but most don't talk about it.
Except unfortunately I think it is pretty well established that money is more valuable than time. I just finished Doing Good Better (the type of book you talk about for ages after you finish), and it demonstrated pretty clearly that the most effective charitable thing you can do is send money to the best (most effective) organizations fighting global poverty.
That said, I suppose if EVERYONE sent all their charitable dollars overseas (and don't some economists evaluate choices this way?), the poor and needy in affluent countries would suffer. Although a globalist would say that would be OK, because the global poor are SO MUCH worse off than the affluent poor.
Sol posted I think elsewhere about OMY syndrome in relation to charity. Once we no longer need our incomes, there is SO much good we can do. That's something I struggle with constantly.
-
I have really enjoyed this wonderful thread, but, other than in the initial post, it took a long time for people to discuss volunteering (more than in passing). This is where I believe that Early Retirement has the opportunity to do greater good than donating money. Essentially, I believe that time is a gross commodity whereas cash is a net commodity. Cash (earned through work or interest) has been through taxation and when donated must be adminstrated at additional cost. Time that is donated must be administrated, but is not taxed.
In addition, if the individual donating time has appropriate skills, their time can have a very high monetary value to a charity or other cause. Skills are relatively easy to gain, so an early retiree can (if they have kept their mind on their values) increase their value to a charity or cause pretty quickly.
This is not to say that it is the only way to do good, but it is an opportunity to do the greatest good. In addition, donating lots of time in retirement is not exclusive of donating some time beforehand.
The effective altruism movement would disagree with you. To do the greatest good -- to address the most needy people, the lowest hanging fruit -- we need to send money to those in extreme poverty. Or, send money to improve public health in these areas. This is well established.
What are you going to do with your time? Walk dogs at shelters? Disseminate Meals on Wheels? I'm not saying these things aren't needed, but it's not the MOST good you could do. An effective altruist would argue the most good you could do is get the highest paying job that you can and donate the majority of your income.
Sidenote: In Doing Good Better the author discloses that many charities have told him they only utilize volunteers because those volunteers also donate money. It's just a way to get people engaged so they do donate the more valuable resource of their money, versus their time.
-
Except unfortunately I think it is pretty well established that money is more valuable than time. I just finished Doing Good Better (the type of book you talk about for ages after you finish), and it demonstrated pretty clearly that the most effective charitable thing you can do is send money to the best (most effective) organizations fighting global poverty.
[/quote]
While that may be true I do think it depends on what charity or volunteer organization you are giving to with your time and/or money. Fighting global poverty is just one amongst tons of others - some which may require more hands on volunteering to make an impact. But that debate was what brought that other thread into a fight and eventual lockdown.
[/quote]
Well my take on this is - it depends. In my current volunteer experience - at a middle school and at a youth organization in the central city, it IS the human contact time that is desperately needed for tutoring, mentoring, and just teaching some life skills to kids who are having a tough time of it or for a variety of social or financial reasons don't have the support they need. It's time well spent.
-
I have really enjoyed this wonderful thread, but, other than in the initial post, it took a long time for people to discuss volunteering (more than in passing). This is where I believe that Early Retirement has the opportunity to do greater good than donating money. Essentially, I believe that time is a gross commodity whereas cash is a net commodity. Cash (earned through work or interest) has been through taxation and when donated must be adminstrated at additional cost. Time that is donated must be administrated, but is not taxed.
In addition, if the individual donating time has appropriate skills, their time can have a very high monetary value to a charity or other cause. Skills are relatively easy to gain, so an early retiree can (if they have kept their mind on their values) increase their value to a charity or cause pretty quickly.
This is not to say that it is the only way to do good, but it is an opportunity to do the greatest good. In addition, donating lots of time in retirement is not exclusive of donating some time beforehand.
The effective altruism movement would disagree with you. To do the greatest good -- to address the most needy people, the lowest hanging fruit -- we need to send money to those in extreme poverty. Or, send money to improve public health in these areas. This is well established.
What are you going to do with your time? Walk dogs at shelters? Disseminate Meals on Wheels? I'm not saying these things aren't needed, but it's not the MOST good you could do. An effective altruist would argue the most good you could do is get the highest paying job that you can and donate the majority of your income.
Sidenote: In Doing Good Better the author discloses that many charities have told him they only utilize volunteers because those volunteers also donate money. It's just a way to get people engaged so they do donate the more valuable resource of their money, versus their time.
You've convinced me to get Doing Good Better from the library. However, the second benefit of time (in FIRE) is that you're not restrained geographically (as the examples you've chosen imply). The other issue I'd suggest is that many people have "favorite charities", which they prefer to "the most good".
-
From where I'm standing, the dots say that if you hit your retirement goal dollar amount and then quit working rather than put in one more day for another $100, you've effectively forsaken control of that $100 that you could have allocated to a cause you support. The hidden icebergs of our ongoing conversations here are all related to making value judgments about the best use of those dollars. Once we accept that upgrading to the new iphone is a stupid waste of my working career hours, why do we instead opt for retirement instead of malaria medication, or pertussis vaccinations, or HIV research, or counseling for women from abusive relationships, or even anything on Kiva or Kickstarter.
Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen.
Most of us in this discussion seem to agree that those with the means may be in some way morally obligated to help those in need, but this does not make each individual personally responsible for saving the world.
Suggesting that one shouldn't retire because they could hypothetically earn money to give to charity is the exact same extreme that Tooqk sarcastically suggested earlier. It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
Each of us is ourselves also a living being with the capacity to feel pleasure and suffering. If we ignore our own lives for the sake of service, we are likely to end up doing more harm than good, as the marginal utility of our time and resources we spend on others drops relative to the utility it would have if it were used "selfishly".
The difference between the latest smart phone and retiring early is that the phone brings extremely little real, meaningful, or lasting joy into the life of the consumer, while (depending on your job on your personality) early retirement actually can.
I am only halfway through the thread and have to reply to this. This is the exact problem with society... No matter what I do I cannot change the world, so I might as well not even try...
I feel the thing wrong with this is: if you save that drowning child(or donate money to help with a refugee, or whatever_ you may not change the world, as a whole. But you sure to change that persons world. If everyone helped just a little bit, the world would be 1000000000 times better to live in.
If you are to lend a hand to one person, they are more likely to lend a hand to someone else in need when they are more able. Or you may inspire the person sitting beside you that notices you gave to help. Then they mat do the same. So I argue that one person can change the world. Look at all the change the Martin Luther King Jr. did. He was just one man that inspired many.
-
^ Fully agreed. It's like that story about the old man throwing star fish (or some other sea creature) back into the ocean. It might only save a fraction of the fish, but it makes a world of difference to each one that winds up back in the ocean.
It also reminds me of the story about the lady who sees a bunch of people trying to pull drowning children out of a river. In that second story, the lady goes upstream to get to the source and keep the kids from falling in to begin with; that's what I see as effective altruism, education, and so on. It's the same principle behind the ounce of prevention vs. the pound of cure. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the pound of cure just because it's less effective.
Or to bring it back to the river story, it's still worth pulling kids out of the river even if you can't save them all, rather than just walking away to avoid feeling the horror of it. And there's a huge, huge continuum between retiring as quickly as possible and never retiring in order to give all of one's post-FI income to charity, just as there's a huge continuum between never donating to charity and donating every penny above your most basic expenses (FI or not). We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that. Okay, no more proverbs.
-
From where I'm standing, the dots say that if you hit your retirement goal dollar amount and then quit working rather than put in one more day for another $100, you've effectively forsaken control of that $100 that you could have allocated to a cause you support. The hidden icebergs of our ongoing conversations here are all related to making value judgments about the best use of those dollars. Once we accept that upgrading to the new iphone is a stupid waste of my working career hours, why do we instead opt for retirement instead of malaria medication, or pertussis vaccinations, or HIV research, or counseling for women from abusive relationships, or even anything on Kiva or Kickstarter.
Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen.
Most of us in this discussion seem to agree that those with the means may be in some way morally obligated to help those in need, but this does not make each individual personally responsible for saving the world.
Suggesting that one shouldn't retire because they could hypothetically earn money to give to charity is the exact same extreme that Tooqk sarcastically suggested earlier. It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
Each of us is ourselves also a living being with the capacity to feel pleasure and suffering. If we ignore our own lives for the sake of service, we are likely to end up doing more harm than good, as the marginal utility of our time and resources we spend on others drops relative to the utility it would have if it were used "selfishly".
The difference between the latest smart phone and retiring early is that the phone brings extremely little real, meaningful, or lasting joy into the life of the consumer, while (depending on your job on your personality) early retirement actually can.
I am only halfway through the thread and have to reply to this. This is the exact problem with society... No matter what I do I cannot change the world, so I might as well not even try...
I feel the thing wrong with this is: if you save that drowning child(or donate money to help with a refugee, or whatever_ you may not change the world, as a whole. But you sure to change that persons world. If everyone helped just a little bit, the world would be 1000000000 times better to live in.
If you are to lend a hand to one person, they are more likely to lend a hand to someone else in need when they are more able. Or you may inspire the person sitting beside you that notices you gave to help. Then they mat do the same. So I argue that one person can change the world. Look at all the change the Martin Luther King Jr. did. He was just one man that inspired many.
Your response implies an extreme that I never said or implied.
" It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral."
I never said anything remotely like "I may as well not even try". In fact, I explicitly said
"those with the means may be in some way morally obligated to help those in need"
I was responding to a very specific argument - that one should earn as much as they possibly can (including after FI) and give all of that money to charity.
That mentality can be applied to indefinite extremes: if I could have earned more to give away by continuing to work after FI, should I work full time? Should I work overtime? Should I take 2 full time jobs? If I am physically capable, I should live in the cheapest possible circumstances, work two full time jobs with overtime, and donate all of the surplus, until I die from physical exhaustion.
Suggesting that the only possibilities are that, or doing absolutely nothing at all, is an obviously ridiculous false dichotomy. There are infinite degrees in between.
I am absolutely not one of those Ayn Rand sociopaths that believes helping people to be immoral! I do, however, think it is acceptable to not be a martyr and have personal boundaries.
Re: donating money instead of time - what do you suppose actually happens to the money that gets donated? Is it just given directly to people in need as a cash payment? If so, I think it is very fairly debatable whether that is the best possible way to use that money to help.But if it's anything else - say, providing medical care, or education, or building infrastructure - then that money is going to pay salaries of people who are doing actual work; teachers, doctors, construction workers, whatever. There are people collecting and handling and exchanging money. There are people overseeing taxes and legal concerns. There are people interacting directly with the ultimate recipients of aid. Every step of the process involves people doing work.
Now say you happen to be a trained teacher, or medical provider, or you have construction skills. And you do the work the charity was going to hire someone to do for free.
How can that possibly be less efficient or effective than giving the charity the money to pay someone else to do it?
Lets say the aid money was going to buy food for the hungry. And you have a very large garden, and you grow food and give it directly to a hungry person (granted, you spent money on soil and water, but the majority of the value in gardening is produced by labor). How is that tomato more effective because it got bought at a store?
Even if you want to only support charities whose beneficiaries aren't local to you, if you spend enough hours on their taxes that they don't have to hire an accountant, then they just saved that much of their other donations (that they can now spend on charity work). If you put in free fundraising time, they get more donations (without having to pay college kids on summer vacation to stand on busy corners with a clipboard)
Bottom line, money isn't an actual thing. Its a placeholder. It represents the value of labor in an easily trade-able format.
I can't understand why it is so important for so many people to try to argue why their method of helping others is "better" than others. Instead of focusing on whether volunteering is a good enough form of helping others, why not focus on all those who do nothing at all?
-
From where I'm standing, the dots say that if you hit your retirement goal dollar amount and then quit working rather than put in one more day for another $100, you've effectively forsaken control of that $100 that you could have allocated to a cause you support. The hidden icebergs of our ongoing conversations here are all related to making value judgments about the best use of those dollars. Once we accept that upgrading to the new iphone is a stupid waste of my working career hours, why do we instead opt for retirement instead of malaria medication, or pertussis vaccinations, or HIV research, or counseling for women from abusive relationships, or even anything on Kiva or Kickstarter.
Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen.
Most of us in this discussion seem to agree that those with the means may be in some way morally obligated to help those in need, but this does not make each individual personally responsible for saving the world.
Suggesting that one shouldn't retire because they could hypothetically earn money to give to charity is the exact same extreme that Tooqk sarcastically suggested earlier. It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral. That's just silly.
Each of us is ourselves also a living being with the capacity to feel pleasure and suffering. If we ignore our own lives for the sake of service, we are likely to end up doing more harm than good, as the marginal utility of our time and resources we spend on others drops relative to the utility it would have if it were used "selfishly".
The difference between the latest smart phone and retiring early is that the phone brings extremely little real, meaningful, or lasting joy into the life of the consumer, while (depending on your job on your personality) early retirement actually can.
I am only halfway through the thread and have to reply to this. This is the exact problem with society... No matter what I do I cannot change the world, so I might as well not even try...
I feel the thing wrong with this is: if you save that drowning child(or donate money to help with a refugee, or whatever_ you may not change the world, as a whole. But you sure to change that persons world. If everyone helped just a little bit, the world would be 1000000000 times better to live in.
If you are to lend a hand to one person, they are more likely to lend a hand to someone else in need when they are more able. Or you may inspire the person sitting beside you that notices you gave to help. Then they mat do the same. So I argue that one person can change the world. Look at all the change the Martin Luther King Jr. did. He was just one man that inspired many.
Your response implies an extreme that I never said or implied.
" It sounds like you are saying that if one does any less than devote 100% of their time and resources to helping others, they are amoral."
I never said anything remotely like "I may as well not even try". In fact, I explicitly said
"those with the means may be in some way morally obligated to help those in need"
I was responding to a very specific argument - that one should earn as much as they possibly can (including after FI) and give all of that money to charity.
That mentality can be applied to indefinite extremes: if I could have earned more to give away by continuing to work after FI, should I work full time? Should I work overtime? Should I take 2 full time jobs? If I am physically capable, I should live in the cheapest possible circumstances, work two full time jobs with overtime, and donate all of the surplus, until I die from physical exhaustion.
Suggesting that the only possibilities are that, or doing absolutely nothing at all, is an obviously ridiculous false dichotomy. There are infinite degrees in between.
I am absolutely not one of those Ayn Rand sociopaths that believes helping people to be immoral! I do, however, think it is acceptable to not be a martyr and have personal boundaries.
Re: donating money instead of time - what do you suppose actually happens to the money that gets donated? Is it just given directly to people in need as a cash payment? If so, I think it is very fairly debatable whether that is the best possible way to use that money to help.But if it's anything else - say, providing medical care, or education, or building infrastructure - then that money is going to pay salaries of people who are doing actual work; teachers, doctors, construction workers, whatever. There are people collecting and handling and exchanging money. There are people overseeing taxes and legal concerns. There are people interacting directly with the ultimate recipients of aid. Every step of the process involves people doing work.
Now say you happen to be a trained teacher, or medical provider, or you have construction skills. And you do the work the charity was going to hire someone to do for free.
How can that possibly be less efficient or effective than giving the charity the money to pay someone else to do it?
Lets say the aid money was going to buy food for the hungry. And you have a very large garden, and you grow food and give it directly to a hungry person (granted, you spent money on soil and water, but the majority of the value in gardening is produced by labor). How is that tomato more effective because it got bought at a store?
Even if you want to only support charities whose beneficiaries aren't local to you, if you spend enough hours on their taxes that they don't have to hire an accountant, then they just saved that much of their other donations (that they can now spend on charity work). If you put in free fundraising time, they get more donations (without having to pay college kids on summer vacation to stand on busy corners with a clipboard)
Bottom line, money isn't an actual thing. Its a placeholder. It represents the value of labor in an easily trade-able format.
I can't understand why it is so important for so many people to try to argue why their method of helping others is "better" than others. Instead of focusing on whether volunteering is a good enough form of helping others, why not focus on all those who do nothing at all?
I am saying that when you say Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen. it implies that it is an all or nothing attitude. Many people I have spoken to in the past use this as an excuse for doing nothing.
I cant save the world so why even try, is a common point made by people. This is true of the first nations issues here in Canada. Many many people go with, well nothing I am going to do will solve this issue so I am not trying. My point was simply that every little bit helps. That even if you don't change the world you may change one person. If everyone does this, it is enough and the world will change because of it.
Now the last 2/3 of your post do not have anything to do with what I was talking about. I did not mention anything about money, just helping those in need. I am never going to be "rich" where I can give Bill Gates style of money to charity. In fact My FI looks a lot different then most. When I reach my goal, I plan to move away from society. I want to homestead, where life, by my estimation is easier. I have very little use or need for any money, but instead will live off of the land and build what I need myself, like my ancestors before me.
Now I am telling you this not because of anything but the fact that I will not have money to donate. I will however have time. I agree that helping people does not need to be monetary. It does need to help though. I read your post as saying no matter what I cannot change the world so I wont try.
I think that the first nations people had it correct. Live in a way that is sustainable to you and the next seven generations. I think that there culture was very giving and helpful to each other, and they did not even have a monetary system until Europeans came.
Again, I am not sure where you got that I said one needs to donate money instead of time... If you have the money go hard, but not having the money is not an excuse to do nothing.
-
Re: donating money instead of time - what do you suppose actually happens to the money that gets donated? Is it just given directly to people in need as a cash payment? If so, I think it is very fairly debatable whether that is the best possible way to use that money to help.But if it's anything else - say, providing medical care, or education, or building infrastructure - then that money is going to pay salaries of people who are doing actual work; teachers, doctors, construction workers, whatever. There are people collecting and handling and exchanging money. There are people overseeing taxes and legal concerns. There are people interacting directly with the ultimate recipients of aid. Every step of the process involves people doing work.
Now say you happen to be a trained teacher, or medical provider, or you have construction skills. And you do the work the charity was going to hire someone to do for free.
How can that possibly be less efficient or effective than giving the charity the money to pay someone else to do it?
Lets say the aid money was going to buy food for the hungry. And you have a very large garden, and you grow food and give it directly to a hungry person (granted, you spent money on soil and water, but the majority of the value in gardening is produced by labor). How is that tomato more effective because it got bought at a store?
Even if you want to only support charities whose beneficiaries aren't local to you, if you spend enough hours on their taxes that they don't have to hire an accountant, then they just saved that much of their other donations (that they can now spend on charity work). If you put in free fundraising time, they get more donations (without having to pay college kids on summer vacation to stand on busy corners with a clipboard)
Bottom line, money isn't an actual thing. Its a placeholder. It represents the value of labor in an easily trade-able format.
I can't understand why it is so important for so many people to try to argue why their method of helping others is "better" than others. Instead of focusing on whether volunteering is a good enough form of helping others, why not focus on all those who do nothing at all?
If you are providing skilled labor, yes, that is a bit different. Most volunteers are not skilled.
Even in this case, the effective altruism argument (from what I understand) is that money is more valuable. You have to consider the counterfactual -- what would have happened otherwise. Often/generally, charitable skilled labor is provided by paid employees. Often/generally, the most effective charities do not have trouble filling these positions. This means that somebody is always going to be doing the skilled labor - that work won't go undone. However, the next person to hold your current paying job might not donate to an effective charity, or any charity at all. Therefore, the most good you can do is donate a portion of your salary.
I guess I only feel the need to identify one method of giving as "better" because I am frustrated by the lack of effective charitable action, on this board and in America. I see it as a cop out to stash all your money, tutor some children, and call it a day. But perhaps this is just indicating that I am growing out of/away from Mustachianism.
-
Some folks see it as a cop out to just write a check and lay back in self-satisfaction. There is a great need to get caring adults involved with kids on a variety of levels. I don't think it's accurate or generous to trivialize such efforts.
-
I am saying that when you say Because no one, no matter how much of their lives they devote to helping others, is ever going to save the world.
It doesn't matter how noble a goal it may be, it isn't going to happen. it implies that it is an all or nothing attitude.
It doesn't imply that in any way. I understand you are saying that people who do see it as all or nothing use the same argument, and because that is what you are used to it has that association for you, but the words themselves do not imply anything of the sort.
I made that argument specifically because the person I was responding to was suggesting an all or nothing attitude.
Many people I have spoken to in the past use this as an excuse for doing nothing.
I cant save the world so why even try, is a common point made by people.
And had you quoted someone who was making that argument, I would not have disputed it.
My point was simply that every little bit helps. That even if you don't change the world you may change one person. If everyone does this, it is enough and the world will change because of it.
I agree with you completely.
Now the last 2/3 of your post do not have anything to do with what I was talking about.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. This forum (maybe this forum in combination with my browser?) almost always messes up the formatting anytime I try to respond with a quote - as I originally wrote it it should have been more clear it was a new topic, responding to other posts. I didn't quote any specific one because there were quite a few different ones with the same theme.
I think that the first nations people had it correct. Live in a way that is sustainable to you and the next seven generations.
Agreed again.
-
Some folks see it as a cop out to just write a check and lay back in self-satisfaction. There is a great need to get caring adults involved with kids on a variety of levels. I don't think it's accurate or generous to trivialize such efforts.
Back in the day you could buy "indulgences" from the church, give some cash, absolve your sins (without any pesky penance)
Today they call the same concept "carbon offset credits"
-
If you are providing skilled labor, yes, that is a bit different. Most volunteers are not skilled.
I feel that is an important distinction to make though. If you (I don't mean you, I mean someone, I don't recall who said what, it doesn't matter) - if one says something like "volunteering doesn't do any real good", without any qualification, that suggests that its true for every form of it, skilled or not, which discounts the real benefit of volunteering that many people make.
Even in this case, the effective altruism argument (from what I understand) is that money is more valuable. You have to consider the counterfactual -- what would have happened otherwise. Often/generally, charitable skilled labor is provided by paid employees. Often/generally, the most effective charities do not have trouble filling these positions. This means that somebody is always going to be doing the skilled labor - that work won't go undone. However, the next person to hold your current paying job might not donate to an effective charity, or any charity at all. Therefore, the most good you can do is donate a portion of your salary.
Not following this at all.
Lets say, for example, you are a teacher. Effective salary comes out to about $20 an hour on average, but credentialed teacher working as a private tutor can charge $50-75 an hour.
Scenario A - Teacher Bob Cobb donates 10% of his salary, $380 a month, to an organization that tutors homeless teens. The organization uses that money to hire a full price tutor (at the low end of the sliding scale) at $50 per hour, so the teacher's donation of 19 hours of his time (at $20 per hour) works out to a bit under 8 hours of tutoring for the kids.
Counterfactual B - Bob instead directly volunteers for the organization. He spent 19 hours earning the money he donated, so he spends 19 hours a month (4 a week, not entirely unreasonable) volunteering. The kids get 19 hours worth of tutoring, which is more than 7.6 hours.
That 4 hours a week is less than 10% of his work week (average teacher works 53 hours a week). So this seems to be win win all around. I don't see any way the second one could be less effective - and that's without even getting into the payroll taxes and worker's comp and administrative costs the charity has to pay for the paid tutor.
-
That 4 hours a week is less than 10% of his work week (average teacher works 53 hours a week). So this seems to be win win all around. I don't see any way the second one could be less effective - and that's without even getting into the payroll taxes and worker's comp and administrative costs the charity has to pay for the paid tutor.
I think everyone should volunteer, but for many it would be better to work and pay vs. volunteer the hours. This is especially the case for those making $100+ and hour. In many cases you could be paying someone close to minimum wage to do the work in the US. So every hour you work, you get to give 10 hours of benefit to society. If you are sending the dollars to a third world country then the benefit of sending dollars is magnified. Think about those highly compensated employees who go to Mexico or somewhere else to build a house in a third world country. They could be making $4000 a week ($100/hr x 40), sending the $4,000 to the organization building houses, that organization could hire 40 people at $20 a day for five days, and your week of helping society just cost the organization 40 people that would bust their but to build a house vs. a lawyer/doctor/engineer that may not have experience in building a house and probably will not work nearly as hard.
I understand I am missing various taxes, benefits, tax deductions, etc. but the concept is the same. Hire those most qualified at the cheapest amount possible. If you can make more at your job, then society is better for you to continue to work and donate dollars. You may be miserable, but it is better for society.
-
The effective altruism movement holds that you should earn the most money you can and give it to the people who can do the most good per unit of money. I like the idea, complexities aside, but if I have to continue earning what I do forever, I'll go crazy. My plan is to split the difference, earning less money than I do now while doing things I enjoy and giving most of that money away, some of it to the malaria-net and cataract-surgery sorts of charities, while also volunteering. This would not be optimal for the world, as EA's utilitarianism would demand, but I would still do some good.
Charity is a pretty complicated subject, and I have a long way to go in my understanding. I'm glad for the discussion.
-
Some folks see it as a cop out to just write a check and lay back in self-satisfaction. There is a great need to get caring adults involved with kids on a variety of levels. I don't think it's accurate or generous to trivialize such efforts.
Back in the day you could buy "indulgences" from the church, give some cash, absolve your sins (without any pesky penance)
Today they call the same concept "carbon offset credits"
Ouch! Don't get me started on carbon credits. Guilt relief amounting to insignificance.
-
Ouch! Don't get me started on carbon credits. Guilt relief amounting to insignificance.
I'd like to hear your (and Bakari's) opinions on carbon credits, because I think they're significantly less insignificant than the indulgences the Church sold.
Indulgences are just forgiveness from a man who ultimately has no power to forgive you. They're meant to assuage your guilt in place of actually addressing the wrongs you've committed personally, for example by making amends for the harm you've caused. (Wrongs against a mystical god excepted, since there can be no wrong against an ethereal third party).
Carbon credits, by contrast, are dollars spent for the specific purpose of addressing the "wrongs" you've committed in burning carbon, by removing carbon from the atmosphere. They are designed to be a real and tangible redress for your personal consumption, a way to repair our world for the damage you've done. They're the exact opposite of buying away your guilt while ignoring the problem.
I think there's certainly room for healthy debate about which forms of carbon credit are actually effective at removing carbon from the atmosphere, because surely some are more effective than others and some of them definitely have unintended ecological consequences. That doesn't change the fact that the money you spend on carbon credits actually does do something other than cause a man in a pointy hat to wave his magic wand over you.
As a side benefit, money spent on carbon credits can potentially have ancillary benefits. If you pay to reforest an acre of clearcut in central Africa, you're not only growing trees that temporarily sequester carbon, you're also creating a job by paying an impoverished African person to plant trees. You're also supporting economic growth by helping the African logging company renew their crop. You're also creating new forest habitat for species threatened by clearcutting. You've helped reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere, you've supported a poverty-stricken man trying to pull himself up by his bootstraps, you've facilitated a commercial operation toward sustainable harvest, and you've replaced critical ecosystems and habitat for thousand of adorable fuzzy animals. These benefits are all significant improvements over "Jesus forgives you as long as you keep paying me to say Jesus forives you".
-
...This is especially the case for those making $100+ and hour. In many cases you could be paying someone close to minimum wage to do the work in the US. So every hour you work, you get to give 10 hours of benefit to society....
Agree. I am not disputing that concepts validity any many circumstances. What I was pointing out was that it isn't true in all circumstances, and so it can not be generalized to "giving money is always better than volunteering" which was suggested multiple times here.
Hire those most qualified at the cheapest amount possible.
but see, here is another major problem: I believe hiring for the cheapest amount possible is in itself immoral!
It is especially self-defeating when the problems we want to solve are poverty related. People who have the capital to hire labor making every effort to pay the lowest wages possible are the primary reason for poverty in the first place.
If everyone (non-profit charity or not) paid a minimum "living" wage that was adjusted for inflation, the net effect would be that everyone would contribute to the raising of those third-world employees out of abject poverty (in the form of increased cost of goods). If non-profit charities aren't going to lead the way, its hard to imagine for-profit corporations doing so voluntarily.
If you can make more at your job, then society is better for you to continue to work and donate dollars.
The effective altruism movement holds that you should earn the most money you can and give it to the people who can do the most good per unit of money.
Similarly, I think a decent argument can be made that the majority of ways a person can make the most possible money are themselves amoral at best, and quite possibly immoral. If a teacher quits there job so that they can become a stock trader, marketing consultant, or oil executive, and goes from 46k a year to 460k a year, they can now donate hundreds of thousands more dollars, but they are also no longer spending 53 hours a week doing good things, they are now spending that time neutral to the world (at best). Hell, the people who work for the non-profits should all quit and become lawyers for Monsanto, so they can give more... but then the charities they all work for cease to exist, so who are they going to donate to?
Basically; does the ends justify the means?
You may be miserable, but it is better for society.
but if I have to continue earning what I do forever, I'll go crazy.
You are both PART of society. If every single person spends their entire life sacrificing for others, then no one is actually happy. Then what was the point? That doesn't seem in the least utilitarian. There needs to be an optimal balance.
If, instead of each person trying to do the maximum possible they could theoretically do, each person focused on balancing out the harm they personally contribute to the world, and then do just a little bit more good on top of that, that would be enough for the world to be slightly more than 100% perfect.
If you are driving in a gas powered car every day, eating factory farmed mammals and taking a few airplane trips a year, then sending a few dollars in the mail somewhere really isn't even bringing you to neutral in terms of your overall impact on the world.
On the other hand, the yogi who lives in a hovel and spends 50 hours a week helping people in need may not need to donate a single dollar to be making the world a better place overall.
The Mustachian is likely to be a lot farther on the low impact side of that range than the average American (although they may be far more into supporting capitalism than average, which itself inevitably perpetuates poverty)
Imagine, for example, that the problem at hand is large amounts of garbage on beaches that is killing wildlife. No one person is going to be able to pick up every piece of garbage on every beach in the world. However, if every single person just made the tiny effort to pack out what they themselves brought in, there is no garbage at all! Occasionally someone may drop something by accident and not notice, so maybe it doesn't go to absolute zero - so there is an opportunity for people to do more good, by packing out what they brought in and then picking up just one or two pieces more.
What I am saying is that every one should put in that extra effort for picking up more than you brought in, but you also shouldn't feel guilty that you aren't devoting your entire life to picking up the slack of other people doing less than nothing.
-
Donate to charity, isn't that what effective altruism really boils down to? Isn't that why I pay ~40% of my income in taxes and why the majority goes towards entitlement programs?
You serve society best by doing what you want to do, don't bow to any pressure about what people think society SHOULD be like. Society is made of individuals like you making decisions everyday. By participating, you're just introducing inefficiencies and financially supporting activities that are not economically important to society. If society really cared about the environmental damage by carbon from coal-fired power plants, for instance, consumers would be willing to pay more for cleaner energy. Consumers needs are the driving force for any company. They wouldn't need subsidies, carbon offset credits, clean energy rebates to achieve it. You're introducing incentives that aren't representative of society, as the majority of consumers aren't willing to sacrifice in order to reduce the carbon footprint.
-
I'd like to hear your (and Bakari's) opinions on carbon credits,
Oh, I totally agree with you in practice. Indulgences didn't actually do anything but enrich the church, while carbon reducing projects have an effect on the real world.
The problem with it is psychological. I mentioned it in response to:
Some folks see it as a cop out to just write a check and lay back in self-satisfaction.
There is a risk that due to human nature, people who have bought offsets to feel like now its ok for them to drive even more than they would have before
-
Sol, thanks for starting this thread way back, just found it today.
I think you really nailed one of the biggest questions we have to answer...finding that balance between seeking a meaningful life now, and achieving FI as fast as we can to live an even fuller life.
Two years ago I really struggled with my decision to be a math teacher/coach. Many of my friends in the business sector were/are making 2-3 times more than me, but are no more intelligent or ambitious than I am. I actively sought out other possible employment. I thought I'd be stuck teaching till I was 60 years old (32 now). I had never heard of this blog and new nothing about FIRE or what it meant.
Finding this site allowed me to work things out in my head. Learning frugality/investing allows me to strike what I think is a optimum balance for my life. For the next 15 years, I can teach, coach, and try to make an impact on children's lives every single day. And in doing this, I can work towards FI, although at a slower clip than if I bailed to get into the business sector. I'm fine with this, because these are going to be years very well spent. I can do a lot of good for my community through my position at the school. When I do FIRE, I'll be able to remain engaged in education in some capacity if I so wish, or I can go in any other direction to try and maximize the good that I can do.
One ethical dilemma I'm working through is the decision to install solar panels on my house to cover my electric consumption. I could do it for about 10-15k I think, but that would slow me down from investing in VTSAX for a while. I don't want to slow down my contributions. However, I believe the impact of climate change on our earth is a huge deal, and I know that if I'm not willing to take a personal short term economic hit to do my part, then my beliefs are pretty shallow.
There's that old quote that goes something like...a person is rich in proportion to the things that they can afford to let go. So maybe I'd be richer if I let go of a few months of investing to pop those panels up on the roof:)
-
One ethical dilemma I'm working through is the decision to install solar panels on my house to cover my electric consumption.
I don't know whether it makes any difference to you or not, but our solution to this question was to put up the solar panels (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/solar-panel-installation/).
There's that old quote that goes something like...a person is rich in proportion to the things that they can afford to let go.
Right on.
-
This is a really interesting thread. Thanks to Sol for starting it.
Peter Singer's drowning child in the pond problem has been around for a long time (it was published in 1972), and if you google it, you can find lots of academic and popular analysis. And memes:http://www.7goldfish.com/11_Reasons_to_Let_Peter-Singers_Child_Drown (http://www.7goldfish.com/11_Reasons_to_Let_Peter-Singers_Child_Drown)
Most people have the moral intuition that it would be wrong to ignore the drowning child in the shallow pond, but what if there were a steady stream of children being dropped into the pond and each commenced drowning? Are you then obligated to spend your whole life fishing out as many as you can? Most people would say no. Especially if we add in the detail that eventually all of us are going to drown, including any children that we temporarily save. But between taking on a minor inconvenience to save one child and giving up your whole life to save many there is a huge spectrum. If you asked 100 different people where they'd draw the line (of obligation) you'd get a spectrum of answers. And of course, most people would also say that there is a difference between meeting an obligation and going above and beyond. Mother Theresa moved to Calcutta and did the equivalent of spending her life fishing kids out of ponds, and most people would say that that is highly admirable, but not obligatory.
A separate but related moral issue is that once you have an idea of where you fall on the spectrum of obligation, how do you interact well with people who come down far from you on the spectrum? I grew up in a really judgmental fundamentalist church, and I now think of moral judgmentalism as being a moral problem itself. But not everyone agrees on that, either, and so there is a spectrum for how much judgmentalism someone is willing to tolerate as well.
-
I just wanted to say Thank you to Sol for starting this thread. And I appreciate all the thoughtful discussion going on. It makes for a lot of good thought-provoking reading. Thank you.
-
I don't consider striving for ER evil...unless you are doing something that violates accepted ethical behavior....which also varies by country, etc.
Athabascan natives (Haida) in the Yukon Territory regularly hold potlatches: they give many of their possessions away at these ceremonies. The elders lead a dance, the young men hunt a moose...even the smallest of children help with preparing the hall for the feast....it is a community effort that seems (to an outsider) to be ALL about community. Everyone is included.
It is about love. And respect. And caring for your neighbors.
There is nothing, to my knowledge, that would prevent anyone on this board from adopting this practice.
Charity and community and caring for people is not precluded by being FI.
I have trouble with a good many large charity organizations for the way they utilize money. If I donate a hundred bucks to you and you piss away $150 hounding me with crap in the mail to get me to donate more....I'm never going to because you blew that money.
I am more comfortable with hands on charity: picking up a truckload of donated dog food for the local animal shelter, working with abused dogs there, etc.
There's a woman in her 70's who works the border crossing in Mexico, selling sunflower seeds and sweets to the cars in line. It pisses me off every time I pass her: it can't be easy, at her age. I wave her over and give her $20-30.
Because I can.
To me, that is what charity should be: you see a problem, you do what YOU can to help alleviate it.
I personally am not going to bring about world peace. But that Mexican grandma can take a day off from breathing exhaust fumes in the hot sun.
Do what you can.
Do what you believe in.
-
A very interesting discussion. Maybe there is to much focus from some towards the end goal of FI but I dont think its such a bad thing to save more money by not spending on things that are not needed. That alone will contribute to a less wasteful world. As in most things in life a balance is the best way forward.
-
Where did this thread come from? It just popped up for me and I started reading it and felt compelled to post, even though it's old. Actually, I feel a little emboldened by that. I have a lot of opinions on the original post by SOL but I don't really feel like inspiring a flame war. So probably nobody will read this, which will be great.
I've taught Dante's Inferno to my seniors as the last thing we read for the past six years. One of my favorite cantos is the circle of the avaricious. The greedy are separated into two categories: the hoarders and the wasters. Their punishment in hell is to push around a giant boulder (a symbol of wealth) in a circle; the hoarders push in one direction and the wasters push in the other. Hoarders scream: Why waste!? at the wasters. Wasters scream "Why hoard?!" at the hoarders. Around and around they go, their never actually going anywhere or accomplishing anything.
Money is morally neutral. When viewed and used properly, it is a tool that can provide life and enjoyment to ourselves and others. Extremes in any direction are generally to be avoided.
My husband and I have a commitment to giving away 15% of our gross income. We have no desire to retire early, so this does not impede any goal of ours. In fact, generosity IS our goal. We plan to increase our giving incrementally as we become more and more FI, hoping eventually to give away 50% or even more of our income eventually. We give not because we expect to "change the world" or to be any kind of savior to anyone, but because in our view, this is the purpose of wealth in our lives. By virtue of being American citizens with graduate degrees and stable careers, we feel that we have been given much and so much is expected of us. We give because not to do so would be detrimental to our spiritual and mental health.
So do we feel that a mustache is evil? Not exactly, but we do frequently think of Jesus' parable of the rich fool, who, faced with excess wealth, decided to store it all in bigger barns: “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
There's quite a bit in the Bible about wealth, and not all of it suggests that wealth is evil or that it's a bad idea to save money. In fact, that's generally considered to be fairly prudent. But if all you're doing is building bigger barns (or mustaches), I think...that the barns aren't evil, exactly, just...not very spiritually productive.
-
Where did this thread come from? It just popped up for me and I started reading it and felt compelled to post, even though it's old.
It's been around for years. A spammer posted in it, which is why it showed up towards the top, though their reply was deleted by a moderator between when you started reading, and decided to reply.
So probably nobody will read this, which will be great.
Now that you have replied, I'm sure plenty will read it, both those who missed the thread the many times it's been bumped, linked to, etc. and those that have it in their threads they've replied to list.
-
Hm. Spammers do that?
That makes sense, then. I was perplexed because the last post was in February 2016. A cool thread, though.
-
Where did this thread come from? It just popped up for me and I started reading it and felt compelled to post, even though it's old.
It's been around for years. A spammer posted in it, which is why it showed up towards the top, though their reply was deleted by a moderator between when you started reading, and decided to reply.
Way to go spammer. This is one of my favorite threads.
-
Where did this thread come from? It just popped up for me and I started reading it and felt compelled to post, even though it's old. Actually, I feel a little emboldened by that. I have a lot of opinions on the original post by SOL but I don't really feel like inspiring a flame war. So probably nobody will read this, which will be great.
I've taught Dante's Inferno to my seniors as the last thing we read for the past six years. One of my favorite cantos is the circle of the avaricious. The greedy are separated into two categories: the hoarders and the wasters. Their punishment in hell is to push around a giant boulder (a symbol of wealth) in a circle; the hoarders push in one direction and the wasters push in the other. Hoarders scream: Why waste!? at the wasters. Wasters scream "Why hoard?!" at the hoarders. Around and around they go, their never actually going anywhere or accomplishing anything.
Money is morally neutral. When viewed and used properly, it is a tool that can provide life and enjoyment to ourselves and others. Extremes in any direction are generally to be avoided.
My husband and I have a commitment to giving away 15% of our gross income. We have no desire to retire early, so this does not impede any goal of ours. In fact, generosity IS our goal. We plan to increase our giving incrementally as we become more and more FI, hoping eventually to give away 50% or even more of our income eventually. We give not because we expect to "change the world" or to be any kind of savior to anyone, but because in our view, this is the purpose of wealth in our lives. By virtue of being American citizens with graduate degrees and stable careers, we feel that we have been given much and so much is expected of us. We give because not to do so would be detrimental to our spiritual and mental health.
So do we feel that a mustache is evil? Not exactly, but we do frequently think of Jesus' parable of the rich fool, who, faced with excess wealth, decided to store it all in bigger barns: “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
There's quite a bit in the Bible about wealth, and not all of it suggests that wealth is evil or that it's a bad idea to save money. In fact, that's generally considered to be fairly prudent. But if all you're doing is building bigger barns (or mustaches), I think...that the barns aren't evil, exactly, just...not very spiritually productive.
Completely on point response to this entire thread. The OP'S conundrum is as old as time, and the history of how others tackled this issue runs through religious texts and religious traditions.
-
This was a gem of a discussion. So many important concepts, some of which I had personally reconciled before, some which I had not. I'm only commenting to voice its effectiveness in generating several new thought processes that may end in some personal changes, such things take a bit of time to digest. Thanks
-
I'm glad to see that some of the forum's early discussions are still providing value to new readers. Many of us have invested hundreds or even thousands of hours into this forum over the years. Maybe that's sad?
Money is morally neutral. When viewed and used properly, it is a tool
Are tools morally neutral? I fee like we created money as a medium of exchange to facilitate trade and commerce, and that these have generally been a positive force in the world. Hammers can be used for evil purposes, but I'd wager they've done more good than harm in the world since being invented.
So do we feel that a mustache is evil? Not exactly, but we do frequently think of Jesus' parable of the rich fool, who, faced with excess wealth, decided to store it all in bigger barns
You Can't Take It With You (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/) and a thousand other pieces of literary fiction also make the same point, but I'm still not buying it. I recognize that any amount of vast wealth I might accumulate doesn't benefit ME after I die, but that doesn't mean it can't continue to benefit the rest of humanity, if properly applied.
*edited for logical typo
-
You Can't Take It With You (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/) and a thousand other pieces of literary fiction also make the same point, but I'm still not buying it. I recognize that any amount of vast wealth I might accumulate doesn't benefit ME after I die, but that doesn't mean it can't continue to benefit the rest of humanity, if properly applied.
[/quote]
Well, sure. But what difference does that make to you once you're dead? If generosity is viewed as a spiritual exercise, it can only benefit you while you're alive. We give not with solely a focus on benefiting humanity, but to practice a healthy understanding of what money is and what it can and can't do. We give because we don't want to create a wrongful idea in our spirit that the money that flows through my hands is mine mine mine--that is an unhealthy view of money, and it generally creates a lot of neurosis and pathology.
Giving allows money to breathe, if I can be a little whimsical. Giving allows us to let go of that frantic need to accumulate as much as we can in order to acquire a false sense of security. We hope to benefit the organizations we choose as the recipients of our donations, and we hope that those causes help humanity, but ultimately we give at least as much to benefit our own view of money and our own powerlessness in the face of certain realities of life as we do to benefit those causes.
Which is a world view I think may be a bit foreign and possibly wrong-headed, depending on one's perspective.
-
Hammers can be used for evil purposes, but I'd wager they've done more harm than good in the world since being invented.
Guessing you meant the opposite?
You Can't Take It With You (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030993/) and a thousand other pieces of literary fiction also make the same point, but I'm still not buying it. I recognize that any amount of vast wealth I might accumulate doesn't benefit ME after I die, but that doesn't mean it can't continue to benefit the rest of humanity, if properly applied.
What is the proper application, and how can you ensure it really will be?
Maybe more important - is that fortune wealth that would not have existed without you (i.e. you invented something entirely new, non-obvious, which had wide distribution, or you are a primary producer like a farmer or miner), or is it wealth which would have existed anyway, and just happened to have landed with you (for example, wages at any job that someone other than you could have done, or stock investments, rental income, inheritance)?
Since the vast majority of us fall in the latter camp, perhaps it could have been just as good for the world if we simply choose not to accumulate it in the first place, and allowed others to earn it instead.
Like, if I am already FI, I am helping society by simple virtue of leaving the workforce, allowing somebody else who really needs a job to have one, thereby reducing unemployment just that little bit more (which in turn means slightly less demand from social safety nets, and a slightly more competitive labor market)
-
What is the proper application, and how can you ensure it really will be?
The answer to the former, obviously, will depend on one's values. The answer to the latter is that we each do the best we can, but without a crystal ball, you never know for sure. You play the probabilities, most likely.
Maybe more important - is that fortune wealth that would not have existed without you (i.e. you invented something entirely new, non-obvious, which had wide distribution, or you are a primary producer like a farmer or miner), or is it wealth which would have existed anyway, and just happened to have landed with you (for example, wages at any job that someone other than you could have done, or stock investments, rental income, inheritance)?
Since the wast majority of us fall in the latter camp, perhaps it could have been just as good for the world if we simply choose not to accumulate it in the first place, and allowed others to earn it instead.
Like, if I am already FI, I am helping society by simple virtue of leaving the workforce, allowing somebody else who really needs a job to have one, thereby reducing unemployment just that little bit more (which in turn means slightly less demand from social safety nets, and a slightly more competitive labor market)
Ah, but if you do decide to make a value judgement on how you're donating/spending that money, there's no reason you can't decide that's a better place than it would go otherwise (most likely... again, no crystal ball).
Scenario 1: You stay in your job solely for the purpose of earning to give in order to donate it all to Charity X.
Scenario 2: You quit the job, giving the benefits you listed (slightly lower unemployment). They take the money they earn and blow it on consumerist items (in all liklihood--playing the probabilities).
If you're making a value judgement on the "best" place to send your excess wealth, I see no reason why you can't make the value judgement that even if you didn't own that piece of real estate, some other landlord would, but you are going to put the income stream from it to "better" use than they likely would.
In other words, to more directly address this:
Since the wast majority of us fall in the latter camp, perhaps it could have been just as good for the world if we simply choose not to accumulate it in the first place, and allowed others to earn it instead.
I think most money earned is not for the good of others. If you are using that money for the good of others, it may be more beneficial for you to earn it than the average person in your society.
-
Where did this thread come from? It just popped up for me and I started reading it and felt compelled to post, even though it's old.
It's been around for years. A spammer posted in it, which is why it showed up towards the top, though their reply was deleted by a moderator between when you started reading, and decided to reply.
Way to go spammer. This is one of my favorite threads.
Right? Sometimes it's good to dig around in the dust.
-
What is the proper application, and how can you ensure it really will be?
The answer to the former, obviously, will depend on one's values. The answer to the latter is that we each do the best we can, but without a crystal ball, you never know for sure. You play the probabilities, most likely
....
Ah, but if you do decide to make a value judgement on how you're donating/spending that money, there's no reason you can't decide that's a better place than it would go otherwise (most likely... again, no crystal ball).
Scenario 1: You stay in your job solely for the purpose of earning to give in order to donate it all to Charity X.
I was referring specifically to the idea of hoarding until one dies, with the plan to donate everything to charity then. If you are giving all the excess away all along, I think that changes the equation heavily in favor of your analysis
-
If you are giving all the excess away all along, I think that changes the equation heavily in favor of your analysis
I don't see why -- using the same analysis, you can still conclude that your accumulated excess wealth (the disposition of which, after all, is within your power to direct, whether it occurs before or after your death) is more likely to be put to "better" use than it otherwise would have been.
I'm glad to see that some of the forum's early discussions are still providing value to new readers. Many of us have invested hundreds or even thousands of hours into this forum over the years. Maybe that's sad?
I find that my cognitive dissonance stemming from the recognition that my mustache might be evil grows more and more acute the closer I get to achieving financial independence, and I continue to be grateful for the service of this discussion and its various offshoots across the forum as a platform for exploring (if not totally resolving) these issues.
-
If you are giving all the excess away all along, I think that changes the equation heavily in favor of your analysis
I don't see why -- using the same analysis, you can still conclude that your accumulated excess wealth (the disposition of which, after all, is within your power to direct, whether it occurs before or after your death) is more likely to be put to "better" use than it otherwise would have been.
Agreed. Unless, Bakari, you're arguing that you can't really know for sure where it will go after you die (i.e. you may intend to have it given away, but heirs fight that). That aside, whether you give it out along the way, or donate it all at death, calculating that you accumulating it, and giving it away, is likely a better scenario for the world as a whole than someone else accumulating it, and (very likely) not giving it away makes a reasonable case, to me, to accumulate for the purposes of helping others with it.
I'm glad to see that some of the forum's early discussions are still providing value to new readers. Many of us have invested hundreds or even thousands of hours into this forum over the years. Maybe that's sad?
I find that my cognitive dissonance stemming from the recognition that my mustache might be evil grows more and more acute the closer I get to achieving financial independence
Wait until you're there, and then travel a bit...
:X
-
If you are giving all the excess away all along, I think that changes the equation heavily in favor of your analysis
I don't see why -- using the same analysis, you can still conclude that your accumulated excess wealth (the disposition of which, after all, is within your power to direct, whether it occurs before or after your death)
Agreed. Unless, Bakari, you're arguing that you can't really know for sure where it will go after you die (i.e. you may intend to have it given away, but heirs fight that).
That last bit was a (small) part of it, yes
and how can you ensure it really will be?
That aside, whether you give it out along the way, or donate it all at death,
The distinction I see is that in one case any benefit to "the world" is put off by 50 or 60 or 70 years. Food or medicine or therapy or infrastructure or whatever other good causes the wealth may go to likely has a greater value right now while it's needed than in 70 years (even if the total has increased because of interest).
For example, donate to a reading program now, not only does that kid have a better education and ultimately better life, but so do that kid's kids. If you wait and only help their grandchildren, that's two generations of people that could have benefited and didn't. If you help the first kid get ahead, chances are his kid's won't need the help anyway.
Money for building school or hospitals or wells or roads are likely to have a bigger impact in the long run applied right now that in 50 years, even with a 7% compounding return.
calculating that you accumulating it, and giving it away, is likely a better scenario for the world as a whole than someone else accumulating it, and (very likely) not giving it away makes a reasonable case, to me, to accumulate for the purposes of helping others with it.
Well, if we are talking about someone else hoarding it, and then, I don't know, passing it on to heirs, or maybe just burning it, may be a worse thing to do with it. But of course most likely they are going to spend it, which, although they also get something of value from the transaction, it is still in a sense "giving it away". It has just become someone else's income. Whether or not the intention was helping them, that purchase does in fact help them.
Just as Sol pointed out that the existence of money has provided more value than harm to society by fostering economic transactions which in turn supports growth and all the rest - the mechanism by which it does so is all those individual sales of stuff and service.
Ultimately, those transactions add up to contributes to building infrastructure, and every transaction gets taxed which helps fund education and other common goods.
It may not be as directly valuable as donating to end Malaria, but it isn't without any value at all.
So the question is, is that, perhaps smaller - but not zero - value of helping keep the economy going today necessarily smaller than the value of (maybe) doing more direct charity work many decades from now?
-
The distinction I see is that in one case any benefit to "the world" is put off by 50 or 60 or 70 years. Food or medicine or therapy or infrastructure or whatever other good causes the wealth may go to likely has a greater value right now while it's needed than in 70 years (even if the total has increased because of interest).
For example, donate to a reading program now, not only does that kid have a better education and ultimately better life, but so do that kid's kids. If you wait and only help their grandchildren, that's two generations of people that could have benefited and didn't. If you help the first kid get ahead, chances are his kid's won't need the help anyway.
Money for building school or hospitals or wells or roads are likely to have a bigger impact in the long run applied right now that in 50 years, even with a 7% compounding return.
Okay, but the comparison (your initial question/point) was you accumulating it versus leaving it for someone else to earn/spend, not you giving away now versus later. We could discuss that, too, but the point I was disagreeing with is the theory you threw out that "perhaps it could have been just as good for the world if we simply choose not to accumulate it in the first place, and allowed others to earn it instead."
So the question is, is that, perhaps smaller - but not zero - value of helping keep the economy going today necessarily smaller than the value of (maybe) doing more direct charity work many decades from now?
Yes, that's the comparison.
I have no substantial evidence, but to me it's pretty clear which is better for the world, between one single job today and the spending/economic activity it generates (i.e. letting someone else have a job, to spend like an average American) versus a lifetime of savings given to help others in the future (i.e. you keep the job, save all the money for decades, and give it away in your final years).
-
I have no substantial evidence, but to me it's pretty clear which is better for the world, between one single job today and the spending/economic activity it generates (i.e. letting someone else have a job, to spend like an average American) versus a lifetime of savings given to help others in the future (i.e. you keep the job, save all the money for decades, and give it away in your final years).
I guess the difference is that I see a significant amount of human problems as a result of extreme wealth inequality. A whole lot of charity work wouldn't be necessary if there was a lot less poverty.
Given that, I usually try to look at individual choices as though they were a tiny part of collective action - one person polluting makes no difference at all, but hundreds of millions has dire consequences.
If everyone who had enough stopped accumulating more, that could go a long way to making sure everyone who doesn't even have enough did.
I mean, I know middle class American's do definitely spend a lot on stuff they don't need, but, for example, the people who took my shifts when I quit my bike mechanic job were definitely not using the extra income on new car payments or cable TV, they were paying for rent and tuition.
-
I have no substantial evidence, but to me it's pretty clear which is better for the world, between one single job today and the spending/economic activity it generates (i.e. letting someone else have a job, to spend like an average American) versus a lifetime of savings given to help others in the future (i.e. you keep the job, save all the money for decades, and give it away in your final years).
I guess the difference is that I see a significant amount of human problems as a result of extreme wealth inequality. A whole lot of charity work wouldn't be necessary if there was a lot less poverty.
Given that, I usually try to look at individual choices as though they were a tiny part of collective action - one person polluting makes no difference at all, but hundreds of millions has dire consequences.
If everyone who had enough stopped accumulating more, that could go a long way to making sure everyone who doesn't even have enough did.
I mean, I know middle class American's do definitely spend a lot on stuff they don't need, but, for example, the people who took my shifts when I quit my bike mechanic job were definitely not using the extra income on new car payments or cable TV, they were paying for rent and tuition.
In a vacuum, or theoretical world, I agree with you. In the practical one, it unfortunately isn't much of a difference.
-
While there are lots of arguments in this thread about maximizing effectiveness, giving it all when you are dead, etc. I think that misses a big part of the point. IMO active charity/giving/helping has significant benefit for the person who is giving as well as the less fortunate who receive the help. They meet others who are good forces in life while becoming a better person themselves. Just as you touch people's lives when you help them, they touch your life back. I've personally gotten a lot of satisfaction and happiness out of actively being involved that I have NOT gotten out of writing a check.
Sure, I could continue to slave away at XYZ Makes Widgets Inc to do better on the "how effective was I" scoreboard, but then I don't think its about a scoreboard. I'm not even sure its about the actual tangible long term impact. I personally think that most of my interest in charity is a selfish desire to be a better, happier, more generous person and working and writing a check or giving up all my $$ when I'm dead doesn't seem to accomplish that purpose. I want to be more like those bright souls that stand out because they are so warm and generous and kind and make you feel better just being around them. For that, I think getting your hands dirty while doing tangible good that you can feel is way more effective than writing a giant check and patting yourself on the back.
As for the hoarding money to become FIRE creates bad habits - I definitely have concerns about that myself and have not completely solved the issue personally. I'm way better at saving that I used to be, but I'm not sure how much progress I've made at becoming a better person.
-
While there are lots of arguments in this thread about maximizing effectiveness, giving it all when you are dead, etc. I think that misses a big part of the point. IMO active charity/giving/helping has significant benefit for the person who is giving as well as the less fortunate who receive the help. They meet others who are good forces in life while becoming a better person themselves. Just as you touch people's lives when you help them, they touch your life back. I've personally gotten a lot of satisfaction and happiness out of actively being involved that I have NOT gotten out of writing a check.
Sure, I could continue to slave away at XYZ Makes Widgets Inc to do better on the "how effective was I" scoreboard, but then I don't think its about a scoreboard. I'm not even sure its about the actual tangible long term impact. I personally think that most of my interest in charity is a selfish desire to be a better, happier, more generous person and working and writing a check or giving up all my $$ when I'm dead doesn't seem to accomplish that purpose. I want to be more like those bright souls that stand out because they are so warm and generous and kind and make you feel better just being around them. For that, I think getting your hands dirty while doing tangible good that you can feel is way more effective than writing a giant check and patting yourself on the back.
As for the hoarding money to become FIRE creates bad habits - I definitely have concerns about that myself and have not completely solved the issue personally. I'm way better at saving that I used to be, but I'm not sure how much progress I've made at becoming a better person.
Yes, this is exactly the point I was making earlier. When you concern yourself purely with the utility of the gift, you're missing a big part of the point of generosity. In fact, concerning yourself purely with utility can result in a kind of unhealthy, prideful messiah complex--"my money is going to save the world!"
It's important to give responsibly and to research organizations and individuals with due diligence in order to avoid throwing money around heedlessly or unintentionally enabling/harming the recipient. But at a certain point, what you are buying with your generosity is not clean water in Africa or orphans in Haiti or refugees in Syria. You are buying the knowledge that my money does not have a stranglehold over me. I can give it freely to something that does not benefit me directly or sit in a pile to keep me protected from the buffets of life. That is a tremendous psychological and spiritual benefit, and it can't be achieved in the same way by sitting on an ever increasing pile of money that then goes to charity when you die.
-
The distinction I see is that in one case any benefit to "the world" is put off by 50 or 60 or 70 years. Food or medicine or therapy or infrastructure or whatever other good causes the wealth may go to likely has a greater value right now while it's needed than in 70 years (even if the total has increased because of interest).
For example, donate to a reading program now, not only does that kid have a better education and ultimately better life, but so do that kid's kids. If you wait and only help their grandchildren, that's two generations of people that could have benefited and didn't. If you help the first kid get ahead, chances are his kid's won't need the help anyway.
Money for building school or hospitals or wells or roads are likely to have a bigger impact in the long run applied right now that in 50 years, even with a 7% compounding return.
I enjoy this concept of "future value" of giving. Gifts of time or money today can have much greater returns than if invested tomorrow, even outpace our ability to generate more gift capital (whether it be time or money). This would hold particularly true in areas of highest need, with the least amount of currently existing "infrastructure". An example, someone wants to give with a goal of helping underprivileged teens attend higher education as he/she believes this can improve individual lives and the prospects of a community in whole. Should he/she provide a smaller gift to fund high school tutors today (build "infrastructure") , or a much larger gift to an existing scholarship to fund college tuition in five years... Which would actually help more of that cohort move on to higher education? Food for thought, no?
As for the hoarding money to become FIRE creates bad habits - I definitely have concerns about that myself and have not completely solved the issue personally. I'm way better at saving that I used to be, but I'm not sure how much progress I've made at becoming a better person.
One of the take aways for me from the discussions on this thread... It's more than just bad habits. More importantly, it is a large shift of mentality away from one of scarcity to one of plenty. IOW, do I think; "I have to save every dime while I still can" or "I already have enough and can get more for the proper reasons if the need arises"? This is a fundamental change in how one views the world. For many newer converts to Mustachianism or its ilk (myself included), this is a fundamental shift that must take place if we are to ever truly appreciate the enviable situation in which we now find ourselves. We can now become more generous, happy, and free in a way that far supersedes the "good feeling" of helping others and perhaps will even allow true altruism in the future.
The alternative of scarcity can evolve into never ending discussions/concerns of lower SWR's, asset allocations, OMY, travel rewards cards, etc. I get the impression it's the relatively large focus on these things that can be frustrating to someone whose views have changed to a mindset of plenty.
-
New MMM post is right on target with this ongoing discussion: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/10/26/notes-on-giving-away-100000/
-
While there are lots of arguments in this thread about maximizing effectiveness, giving it all when you are dead, etc. I think that misses a big part of the point. IMO active charity/giving/helping has significant benefit for the person who is giving as well as the less fortunate who receive the help. They meet others who are good forces in life while becoming a better person themselves. Just as you touch people's lives when you help them, they touch your life back. I've personally gotten a lot of satisfaction and happiness out of actively being involved that I have NOT gotten out of writing a check.
Sure, but that's could be quite selfish.
I mean, less selfish compared to not giving any, but potentially much more selfish than maximizing the good despite you not getting as much out of it.
I may personally enjoy dishing out food to the hungry, but if I could earn $100 in the same time span, and donate it all, I might be able to feed many more that way. I may get more satisfaction out of doing it myself, but help less people.
Which is the better route?
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to maximize your own happiness, your route may be the better way. If you're trying to maximize the most happiness for the most people, the other route may be the way to go.
But it's something to consider--if you are thinking about "this makes ME happier," as in your post, you might consider what you're trading off (potentially helping even more, thus prioritizing your happiness over all of theirs being quite selfish).
-
This discussion just makes me think of poor Superman in this comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305#comic
-
As I've noted in similar discussions elsewhere (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-are-your-odds-on-retiring-today/msg1077428/#msg1077428) in the forum, I find Peter Singer's conclusion in this succinct essay (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm) helpful in reconciling the conflict between my desire to enjoy my own life and my desire to maximize worldwide utility:
In a society in which the narrow pursuit of material self-interest is the norm, the shift to an ethical stance is more radical than many people realize. In comparison with the needs of people going short of food in Rwanda, the desire to sample the wines of Australia’s best vineyards pales into insignificance. An ethical approach to life does not forbid having fun or enjoying food and wine; but it changes our sense of priorities. The effort and expense put into fashion, the endless search for more and more refined gastronomic pleasures, the added expense that marks out the luxury-car market – all these become disproportionate to people who can shift perspective long enough to put themselves in the position of others affected by their actions. If the circle of ethics really does expand, and a higher ethical consciousness spreads, it will fundamentally change the society in which we live.
We can (and should) always strive to do better without letting perfection become the enemy of the good. To Bakari's point, even small steps taken individually become huge strides collectively.
-
While there are lots of arguments in this thread about maximizing effectiveness, giving it all when you are dead, etc. I think that misses a big part of the point. IMO active charity/giving/helping has significant benefit for the person who is giving as well as the less fortunate who receive the help. They meet others who are good forces in life while becoming a better person themselves. Just as you touch people's lives when you help them, they touch your life back. I've personally gotten a lot of satisfaction and happiness out of actively being involved that I have NOT gotten out of writing a check.
Sure, but that's could be quite selfish.
I mean, less selfish compared to not giving any, but potentially much more selfish than maximizing the good despite you not getting as much out of it.
I may personally enjoy dishing out food to the hungry, but if I could earn $100 in the same time span, and donate it all, I might be able to feed many more that way. I may get more satisfaction out of doing it myself, but help less people.
Which is the better route?
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to maximize your own happiness, your route may be the better way. If you're trying to maximize the most happiness for the most people, the other route may be the way to go.
But it's something to consider--if you are thinking about "this makes ME happier," as in your post, you might consider what you're trading off (potentially helping even more, thus prioritizing your happiness over all of theirs being quite selfish).
To me though this fits the definition of perfect being the enemy of good. Don't get me wrong the logic of what you are saying makes sense. But in reality now instead of doing something people become stuck in an internal analysis of the selfishness of volunteering compared to the alternative of earning and donation, then in all likelihood paralyzed by analysis or worried that instead of helping they are actually being selfish they then do neither.
In today's world (and likely all the times of the past) I think arguing that volunteering is selfish compared to what else you could be doing to bring yourself happiness would be a very inaccurate argument and not only that but counterproductive.
-
I may personally enjoy dishing out food to the hungry, but if I could earn $100 in the same time span, and donate it all, I might be able to feed many more that way. I may get more satisfaction out of doing it myself, but help less people.
Possibly, but most certainly not a given.
I know people who spend 20-30 hours a week volunteering, and have for years. And not just mindlessly serving food in a line either - in one case it is pro-bono legal work. Work that other people get 47k take home to do, but costs around 68k to employ. If she were doing equivalent work for pay, and then donating 100% of it back to the organization, she'd give them 47k in cash, but by bypassing taxes etc she does the same amount of work while giving them 68k in labor value.
AND she gets to see the faces of the people she is helping!
If the soup kitchen has to hire staff, since everyone is working and not volunteering, and they have to pay that person's salary, plus payroll taxes and unemployment and workers comp insurance, and the person has to pay 10-30% of it in taxes, then you would have to make a significant amount more than the soup kitchen staff for it to be more efficient to give money rather than to directly do the work (in which case 100% of your labor goes to the intended cause).
But, if the soup kitchen worker is making a tiny fraction of what they could make if they had a job like yours instead of working for a non-profit, the same reasoning would demand that they quit that job, make more money, and donate all the excess money. Which has to be used to hire someone else now! It continues recursively forever, with no one actually doing and work, because everyone is earning money to donate instead.
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to maximize your own happiness, your route may be the better way. If you're trying to maximize the most happiness for the most people, the other route may be the way to go.
If the difference between two choices is small, its important to remember that ones' self is a person too, therefor increasing your own happiness is just as much a part of increasing overall human happiness as any other one person. Here I think specifically of people who sacrifice a huge amount to help one individual. Its entirely possible to do more harm to your own life than you bring good to someone else's, and overall be doing net bad for the world while not being at all "selfish".
Obviously the scales are different if you are helping thousands in a significant way - but maybe could be a factor if you are only helping dozens in a moderate way.
-
Good thoughts, thanks Bakari (and brooklynguy & FIRE47).
-
I read the beginning and the end, but missed the middle. Maybe it's a cop out, but I feel like I'm in no position to help others unless I help myself first. This is not a blanket statement but a general guideline that I live by. I donate my time and items to people that need it, but I make sure there is balance in my life so I can maintain optimal usefulness.
-
I read the beginning and the end, but missed the middle. Maybe it's a cop out, but I feel like I'm in no position to help others unless I help myself first. This is not a blanket statement but a general guideline that I live by. I donate my time and items to people that need it, but I make sure there is balance in my life so I can maintain optimal usefulness.
Aren't you--by definition--past the point of helping yourself if you have a positive savings rate after making sure you have food, a place to live, clothes, etc. (the basics/necessities)?
-
I read the beginning and the end, but missed the middle. Maybe it's a cop out, but I feel like I'm in no position to help others unless I help myself first. This is not a blanket statement but a general guideline that I live by. I donate my time and items to people that need it, but I make sure there is balance in my life so I can maintain optimal usefulness.
Aren't you--by definition--past the point of helping yourself if you have a positive savings rate after making sure you have food, a place to live, clothes, etc. (the basics/necessities)?
Not necessarily. What about having a good savings cushion so that in case of a medical emergency you don't have to rely on medicaid or gofundme (as many seem to do these days)? Of course, it's hard to know how much you need for contingency planning--I once read an article where a guy who had 500M said he would feel financially secure if he had 1B. So maybe it's just an excuse to keep amassing money. However, I do see a lot of people who have enough to get by if nothing unexpected happens, but if they have a layoff, car problem or medical problem they're scrambling. I think taking care of oneself would include making sure you're not a burden in the event that something goes wrong, because something always will.
-
There's a point at which self-preservation becomes denial of the reality of what money can actually do (i.e. a lot, but not everything). And that point is different for everyone and has as much to do with individual risk tolerance as it does with objective truth about money.
There are millionaires who are still worried about the uncertainties of life to the point where they can't bring themselves to give anything away. And paupers who give because money is seen as communal and responding to the needs around them is a part of cultural expectations and a form of insurance, because the community will, in turn, support you when you are in need.
I think a good question that everyone ought to ask themselves is simply...how much is enough? At what level will I have enough that I feel adequately covered in case of emergency and can let go of the emotional need to keep every penny of the rest? And if the answer is, when you really look inside: Never, I will never have enough to feel comfortable about giving a significant amount away it's a signal that there is a problem with how you view money. Because no amount of money can prevent all possible forms of hardship.
I say this as someone who didn't give a dime of my income away for many, many years because I didn't see any need for generosity and felt very sure that I needed to build up my own emergency fund first. After watching several wealthy friends/relatives experience awful circumstances that no amount of money could have prevented, I realized that to a large extent the money thing is a mirage. It is not to be scoffed at, and it's essential to behave responsibly with it, but generosity acknowledges that it truly isn't everything and that it is an enormously powerful tool for good when put into service beyond one's own material needs.
-
I read the beginning and the end, but missed the middle. Maybe it's a cop out, but I feel like I'm in no position to help others unless I help myself first. This is not a blanket statement but a general guideline that I live by. I donate my time and items to people that need it, but I make sure there is balance in my life so I can maintain optimal usefulness.
Aren't you--by definition--past the point of helping yourself if you have a positive savings rate after making sure you have food, a place to live, clothes, etc. (the basics/necessities)?
If one is making sure their whole life is covered with saved assets, without having to worry about taking from society, then merely having a positive savings rate for a time would not imply that you're "past the point of helping yourself." Only once we've reached FI then perhaps that is true.
-
Depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to maximize your own happiness, your route may be the better way. If you're trying to maximize the most happiness for the most people, the other route may be the way to go.
If the difference between two choices is small, its important to remember that ones' self is a person too, therefor increasing your own happiness is just as much a part of increasing overall human happiness as any other one person. Here I think specifically of people who sacrifice a huge amount to help one individual. Its entirely possible to do more harm to your own life than you bring good to someone else's, and overall be doing net bad for the world while not being at all "selfish".
Obviously the scales are different if you are helping thousands in a significant way - but maybe could be a factor if you are only helping dozens in a moderate way.
I agree. The concept where your Mustache may become more evil is when you are making high six figures to seven or eight figures. It is hard to justify quitting and donating your time to the charity. One of my partners had this issue. He was contemplating quitting and donating his life to the charity. I mentioned to him that those that he would help would be better off if he continued his employment if he wrote a nice six figure check each year. He is still employed ten years later.
-
There's a point at which self-preservation becomes denial of the reality of what money can actually do (i.e. a lot, but not everything). And that point is different for everyone and has as much to do with individual risk tolerance as it does with objective truth about money.
There are millionaires who are still worried about the uncertainties of life to the point where they can't bring themselves to give anything away. And paupers who give because money is seen as communal and responding to the needs around them is a part of cultural expectations and a form of insurance, because the community will, in turn, support you when you are in need.
I think a good question that everyone ought to ask themselves is simply...how much is enough? At what level will I have enough that I feel adequately covered in case of emergency and can let go of the emotional need to keep every penny of the rest? And if the answer is, when you really look inside: Never, I will never have enough to feel comfortable about giving a significant amount away it's a signal that there is a problem with how you view money. Because no amount of money can prevent all possible forms of hardship.
I say this as someone who didn't give a dime of my income away for many, many years because I didn't see any need for generosity and felt very sure that I needed to build up my own emergency fund first. After watching several wealthy friends/relatives experience awful circumstances that no amount of money could have prevented, I realized that to a large extent the money thing is a mirage. It is not to be scoffed at, and it's essential to behave responsibly with it, but generosity acknowledges that it truly isn't everything and that it is an enormously powerful tool for good when put into service beyond one's own material needs.
If one feels this way, is it simply a view of money, or a deep seated need for safety and control? The issue may not be primarily money, aside from the confusion that money provides safety. If one can come to terms with the fact that nothing can prevent certain hardships, and therefore no amount of money could prevent certain problems, one may find themselves free to do much more than they previously allowed themselves, including spending their money more freely, but certainly not limited to that.
-
Ok, one of the few times I am posting without reading the whole thread but, I think the way to view acquiring wealth before retiring when your life goal is to help people who need it now is to compartmentalise a bit. For one you are not being frugal to gain material positions but to to gain freedom from work. Once Freed from this work you will not also be able to give money ( or more money if u continued to work) but also volunteer. A second thing one should remember about giving is that the world is a big place, you $100, $1000, even $1 mil can be a drop in the bucket. A better way to give is to use your current skills, or some you think you can eAsily gain and to use those to help others , knowing if need you have a stream of income to help when no one else will.
Lots of typos sent from ipad( no....,it was a gift and the screen is cracked)
-
What about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? (described by MMM here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only-logical-pursuit/)
You can use money to meet someone's physiological needs, and to some extend their need for security. But can you help someone fulfill their needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization just by giving money? It's good to work to give money to, say, drill wells in Africa, but is that better than using the time to help a local kid self-actualize, given that both are fulfilling genuine human needs?
-
What about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? (described by MMM here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only-logical-pursuit/)
You can use money to meet someone's physiological needs, and to some extend their need for security. But can you help someone fulfill their needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization just by giving money? It's good to work to give money to, say, drill wells in Africa, but is that better than using the time to help a local kid self-actualize, given that both are fulfilling genuine human needs?
At some point, IMO, it is our responsibility as extraordinarily affluent people to help those who cannot fulfill those bottom rungs fulfill them. It would bring greater good to the world rather than helping a small number of people figure out their life's purpose.
It is worth considering and thinking on the fact that your mustache may interfere with such things.
-
Meh, splitting hairs. This kind of thinking is what leads to the analysis paralysis in MMM's newest blog post about giving. There's lots of ways to be generous. Getting too caught up in optimization of the generosity just wastes time.
You don't have to save the world with your gift of time or money. You just have to use the time/money for something that doesn't benefit you materially. Obviously do your best to make sure the recipient of your gift isn't a scam or horribly mismanaged, but after that I say just give and trust that part of the benefit is that you thought of something other than your own base needs.
If giving is something you do systematically over time, you can continuously change the how/what you give to as new information/passion springs up. We've "re balanced" our "asset allocation" of giving several times as needs arise or dissipate. That's part of the fun. There's lots to be said for giving money, lots to be said for giving time, lots to be said for giving personally to people you know, lots to be said for giving to organizations you believe in. Why pick just one? Do all of those things over a lifetime.
-
What about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? (described by MMM here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only-logical-pursuit/)
You can use money to meet someone's physiological needs, and to some extend their need for security. But can you help someone fulfill their needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization just by giving money? It's good to work to give money to, say, drill wells in Africa, but is that better than using the time to help a local kid self-actualize, given that both are fulfilling genuine human needs?
At some point, IMO, it is our responsibility as extraordinarily affluent people to help those who cannot fulfill those bottom rungs fulfill them. It would bring greater good to the world rather than helping a small number of people figure out their life's purpose.
It is worth considering and thinking on the fact that your mustache may interfere with such things.
I'm willing to consider the possibility, but it's not immediately obvious to me that the bottom of the triangle should trump the higher levels. There is a (sad) set of experiments with baby monkeys in which they have all their physical needs met but are denied warmth and affection, and they ended up permanently damaged. One starved itself to death. Some creatures like humans and monkeys seem to have a deep need for social interaction. I'm not saying that we shouldn't give money to take care of physical needs. Just that not all needs are physical, and it's good that some people choose to focus on non-physical needs of others.
-
What about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? (described by MMM here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only-logical-pursuit/)
You can use money to meet someone's physiological needs, and to some extend their need for security. But can you help someone fulfill their needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization just by giving money? It's good to work to give money to, say, drill wells in Africa, but is that better than using the time to help a local kid self-actualize, given that both are fulfilling genuine human needs?
At some point, IMO, it is our responsibility as extraordinarily affluent people to help those who cannot fulfill those bottom rungs fulfill them. It would bring greater good to the world rather than helping a small number of people figure out their life's purpose.
It is worth considering and thinking on the fact that your mustache may interfere with such things.
I'm willing to consider the possibility, but it's not immediately obvious to me that the bottom of the triangle should trump the higher levels. There is a (sad) set of experiments with baby monkeys in which they have all their physical needs met but are denied warmth and affection, and they ended up permanently damaged. One starved itself to death. Some creatures like humans and monkeys seem to have a deep need for social interaction. I'm not saying that we shouldn't give money to take care of physical needs. Just that not all needs are physical, and it's good that some people choose to focus on non-physical needs of others.
By nature of the assumption of Maslow's hierarchy of needs you cannot attain the higher ones without satisfying the lower ones. You can't get warmth and affection when you've starved to death.
*Edit* To expand on this further while the lack of affection may lead one to die, lack of food certainly will. One can find love and belonging in a multitude of ways. Not having resources to maintain food, water, shelter, or security will certainly kill you.
Furthermore I'd contend that the higher you go on Maslow's hierarchy the locus of control over those things become more internal than external. While you may be the one going to the grocery store it is still the support of massive complex systems which allow you to eat. I would contend that love/belonging, esteem, and self actualization lean more towards an internal locus of control.
So in the end I'd say that yes it is better to use your money on charity to drill wells in Africa than to help someone in a modern industrialized nation self-actualize. Or in short and as a corollary would it be better to save 100 people from dying or one person from feeling like they had an unfulfilled life? I think the answer is a bit more clear. I'd like to hear your take on it though.
-
By nature of the assumption of Maslow's hierarchy of needs you cannot attain the higher ones without satisfying the lower ones.
Isn't the more modern view that you can be working on multiple needs, on multiple levels, at once?
The idea that you "HAVE" to have all the lower ones satisfied to seek out and attain higher ones just isn't true, in the real world, from what I understand.
-
By nature of the assumption of Maslow's hierarchy of needs you cannot attain the higher ones without satisfying the lower ones.
Isn't the more modern view that you can be working on multiple needs, on multiple levels, at once?
The idea that you "HAVE" to have all the lower ones satisfied to seek out and attain higher ones just isn't true, in the real world, from what I understand.
Yeah I see that there will be a bunch of grey between those levels and that my sentence is very black and white. But in the context of the discussion alongside charity I'd still contend that not being able to meet those lower levels will impact pursuit of the mid/higher levels.
-
What about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? (described by MMM here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only-logical-pursuit/)
You can use money to meet someone's physiological needs, and to some extend their need for security. But can you help someone fulfill their needs for belonging, esteem, and self-actualization just by giving money? It's good to work to give money to, say, drill wells in Africa, but is that better than using the time to help a local kid self-actualize, given that both are fulfilling genuine human needs?
Maybe use the 'stache to hire someone to do these things? I mean, realistically, that's what giving money is doing. It's paying someone else to deliver food, pour soup, inject medicine, build a house etc. etc. But somehow some doctors still manage to find time to provide free services or volunteer overseas, even though they could make much more money to buy food to donate if they worked those hours.
-
By nature of the assumption of Maslow's hierarchy of needs you cannot attain the higher ones without satisfying the lower ones. You can't get warmth and affection when you've starved to death.
*Edit* To expand on this further while the lack of affection may lead one to die, lack of food certainly will. One can find love and belonging in a multitude of ways. Not having resources to maintain food, water, shelter, or security will certainly kill you.
Furthermore I'd contend that the higher you go on Maslow's hierarchy the locus of control over those things become more internal than external. While you may be the one going to the grocery store it is still the support of massive complex systems which allow you to eat. I would contend that love/belonging, esteem, and self actualization lean more towards an internal locus of control.
So in the end I'd say that yes it is better to use your money on charity to drill wells in Africa than to help someone in a modern industrialized nation self-actualize. Or in short and as a corollary would it be better to save 100 people from dying or one person from feeling like they had an unfulfilled life? I think the answer is a bit more clear. I'd like to hear your take on it though.
Thought experiment: What if you were faced with the forced choice between A) having all your physical needs met and dying a painless death at a ripe old age, but living with no love, no belonging, not mattering to anyone, not being respected by anyone, and not accomplishing anything or B) living only one more year, but a year in which you are richly loved and esteemed and accomplish something so great for humanity that you are remembered fondly for generations to come?
I would choose B) every time. I'm wondering if part of our disagreement is that you'd choose A)
I think you're right that self-actualization is fairly internal, although a little encouragement to think about one's self-actualization can go a long way. You can't do it for them, but you can sometimes see the good in someone that they can't see in themselves and point it out to them. I'm not sure I follow you on love and esteem being internal. These seem to me things that have to be freely given by someone else to be real.
-
By nature of the assumption of Maslow's hierarchy of needs you cannot attain the higher ones without satisfying the lower ones. You can't get warmth and affection when you've starved to death.
*Edit* To expand on this further while the lack of affection may lead one to die, lack of food certainly will. One can find love and belonging in a multitude of ways. Not having resources to maintain food, water, shelter, or security will certainly kill you.
Furthermore I'd contend that the higher you go on Maslow's hierarchy the locus of control over those things become more internal than external. While you may be the one going to the grocery store it is still the support of massive complex systems which allow you to eat. I would contend that love/belonging, esteem, and self actualization lean more towards an internal locus of control.
So in the end I'd say that yes it is better to use your money on charity to drill wells in Africa than to help someone in a modern industrialized nation self-actualize. Or in short and as a corollary would it be better to save 100 people from dying or one person from feeling like they had an unfulfilled life? I think the answer is a bit more clear. I'd like to hear your take on it though.
Thought experiment: What if you were faced with the forced choice between A) having all your physical needs met and dying a painless death at a ripe old age, but living with no love, no belonging, not mattering to anyone, not being respected by anyone, and not accomplishing anything or B) living only one more year, but a year in which you are richly loved and esteemed and accomplish something so great for humanity that you are remembered fondly for generations to come?
I would choose B) every time. I'm wondering if part of our disagreement is that you'd choose A)
I think you're right that self-actualization is fairly internal, although a little encouragement to think about one's self-actualization can go a long way. You can't do it for them, but you can sometimes see the good in someone that they can't see in themselves and point it out to them. I'm not sure I follow you on love and esteem being internal. These seem to me things that have to be freely given by someone else to be real.
Right but your B is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing would you live a year of B barely scraping by and going several days in a row without food, fearing for your life or violence towards your loved ones only to die at the end of that year having not accomplished something great for humanity but probably remembered by your loved ones or neighbors for you being you.
I'd rather put my resources into preventing my B situations than your A situations.
-
Maybe use the 'stache to hire someone to do these things? I mean, realistically, that's what giving money is doing. It's paying someone else to deliver food, pour soup, inject medicine, build a house etc. etc. But somehow some doctors still manage to find time to provide free services or volunteer overseas, even though they could make much more money to buy food to donate if they worked those hours.
But can you buy someone love, belonging, and respect?
-
Maybe use the 'stache to hire someone to do these things? I mean, realistically, that's what giving money is doing. It's paying someone else to deliver food, pour soup, inject medicine, build a house etc. etc. But somehow some doctors still manage to find time to provide free services or volunteer overseas, even though they could make much more money to buy food to donate if they worked those hours.
But can you buy someone love, belonging, and respect?
I could argue the utility of money in acquiring some of these things, yes. But to your point, there are very much some things that money cannot buy, which is why voluneteering time and not just giving money can be so important.
-
Right but your B is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing would you live a year of B barely scraping by and going several days in a row without food, fearing for your life or violence towards your loved ones only to die at the end of that year having not accomplished something great for humanity but probably remembered by your loved ones or neighbors for you being you.
I'd rather put my resources into preventing my B situations than your A situations.
If the forced choice is my A vs your B above, I think I'd still prefer B. Both sound pretty terrible, but I would rather live a short miserable life than a long miserable life.
-
Maybe use the 'stache to hire someone to do these things? I mean, realistically, that's what giving money is doing. It's paying someone else to deliver food, pour soup, inject medicine, build a house etc. etc. But somehow some doctors still manage to find time to provide free services or volunteer overseas, even though they could make much more money to buy food to donate if they worked those hours.
But can you buy someone love, belonging, and respect?
I could argue the utility of money in acquiring some of these things, yes. But to your point, there are very much some things that money cannot buy, which is why voluneteering time and not just giving money can be so important.
That is a fair point as well. Use the monetary resources to tackle things that generally require that type of resource while volunteering time to aid someone with their self-actualization.
-
Right but your B is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing would you live a year of B barely scraping by and going several days in a row without food, fearing for your life or violence towards your loved ones only to die at the end of that year having not accomplished something great for humanity but probably remembered by your loved ones or neighbors for you being you.
I'd rather put my resources into preventing my B situations than your A situations.
If the forced choice is my A vs your B above, I think I'd still prefer B. Both sound pretty terrible, but I would rather live a short miserable life than a long miserable life.
And no it wasn't about what you'd like to live but what would you spend your resources to prevent, that is my question.
-
Quote from: rachael talcott on Today at 06:30:32 PM
Quote
Right but your B is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing would you live a year of B barely scraping by and going several days in a row without food, fearing for your life or violence towards your loved ones only to die at the end of that year having not accomplished something great for humanity but probably remembered by your loved ones or neighbors for you being you.
I'd rather put my resources into preventing my B situations than your A situations.
If the forced choice is my A vs your B above, I think I'd still prefer B. Both sound pretty terrible, but I would rather live a short miserable life than a long miserable life.
And no it wasn't about what you'd like to live but what would you spend your resources to prevent, that is my question.
Sorry -- I wasn't very clear. Because I think of A as being more terrible than B, I would prefer to try to prevent A over B, if I had to choose.
-
So again just to be clear 100 people starving is better than one person feeling unfulfilled?
-
So again just to be clear 100 people starving is better than one person feeling unfulfilled?
No, it is not about them feeling anything. It's about them actually being loved and respected. These are the sorts of things that make life actually worth living. It also seems unlikely to me that the calculus is actually that the time it takes to love one person could be used to make enough money to save the lives of 100 people.
-
So again just to be clear 100 people starving is better than one person feeling unfulfilled?
We have a hard time not feeling "human life" is magical and sacred no matter what - hence all the anti-abortionists and not allowing the terminally ill (or chronically unhappy) to legally choose to end their life. In those cases it has nothing to do with happiness, its simply an axiom fixed into us, a blind rule to follow just because.
Lets pretend to agree, just for the sake of argument, that animals have feelings (if you already believe that, even better)
You have a chance to help 100 factory farmed chickens live one more year - inside of a tiny cage in which they can not stand up or turn around, can not interact with other chickens in any meaningful way, eat an unnatural chicken diet with added antibiotics and hormones designed to make them fat quick, and stand forever in their own excrement.
Or, you could use the resources it would take to do that and adopt one puppy which you would take home and care for and love and it would have a wonderful happy life.
Which is likely to cause the greater increase in "overall global happiness"?
This may sound like an extreme example, with lots of other unpleasant implications, but then, so is the false dichotomy you are positing in the first place. These kind of questions are rarely so simple and straightforward.
-
Background:
I find it morally repugnant that a person with a million dollars in the bank would think it better to spend his money on a $4 latte five days a week than on feeding a starving child who would otherwise suffer and die a miserable death by virtue of having lost the lottery of birth.
I'm all for charity. My wife and I give to a number or great organizations. I think your statement is quite strong and, in my opinion, a bit off base.
Think of how many people that $4 latte goes to feed. Of course there's the employees of the coffee house. But, the employees of the factory that made the cup, lid, other accessories, sugar, milk, etc get fed. As do the employees who source and extract the raw materials to make the cup and lid and other items. If those are manufactured overseas, the families or the importer, steamship line and railroad get fed. What about the architects who designed the building or the laborers who installed and built the store, they all got fed as well. There are numerous people who get to eat because people are free to spend their $4 however they like.
-
So again just to be clear 100 people starving is better than one person feeling unfulfilled?
We have a hard time not feeling "human life" is magical and sacred no matter what - hence all the anti-abortionists and not allowing the terminally ill (or chronically unhappy) to legally choose to end their life. In those cases it has nothing to do with happiness, its simply an axiom fixed into us, a blind rule to follow just because.
Lets pretend to agree, just for the sake of argument, that animals have feelings (if you already believe that, even better)
You have a chance to help 100 factory farmed chickens live one more year - inside of a tiny cage in which they can not stand up or turn around, can not interact with other chickens in any meaningful way, eat an unnatural chicken diet with added antibiotics and hormones designed to make them fat quick, and stand forever in their own excrement.
Or, you could use the resources it would take to do that and adopt one puppy which you would take home and care for and love and it would have a wonderful happy life.
Which is likely to cause the greater increase in "overall global happiness"?
This may sound like an extreme example, with lots of other unpleasant implications, but then, so is the false dichotomy you are positing in the first place. These kind of questions are rarely so simple and straightforward.
Or because some of us have a different life philosophy. Natural law instead of utilitarianism. People have inherent rights; just because a group of thugs, government agents, or politicians do not believe that does not make untrue.
How many of you on here think it is wrong to torture, kangaroo court, or any other extra judicial killing of a terrorist? Show me, using utilitarian philosophy, how that is wrong.
Edit; 'overall global happiness'. This is the wrong question.
-
How many of you on here think it is wrong to torture, kangaroo court, or any other extra judicial killing of a terrorist? Show me, using utilitarian philosophy, how that is wrong.
Start a new thread, and we'll try. Short answer: Those things all lead to less overall utility for everyone.
-
it was beginning to get a little off track. I thought about that later.
Need to come up with a good title, that always seems to drive a thread.
-
I think your statement is quite strong and, in my opinion
Hi eyerishgold, I'm sol. We haven't met yet, but by way of introduction, most of what I post here is deliberately "quite strong".
Nobody listens to wishy washy. I could have said "your money has a higher marginal utility to impoverished people than it does to affluent westerners who are likely to waste it on things that don't even make them happy" but you and everyone else would have just glossed over it. Calling you out for being morally repugnant by virtue of your decision to let a starving child die a slow and tortuous death? Maybe somebody actually listens.
Maybe not. People are cold-hearted. I should have made it YOUR child who was going to die a slow and tortuous death, because some random billionaire really wanted a third gold-plated jetski instead of paying for your daughter's organ transplant. It's the same argument.
-
I find it repugnant that someone would spend their money on unnecessary luxuries while simultaneously claiming that everyone has a moral imperative for altruism. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
For some reason this sort of cognitive dissonance seems to be common among western society. If you believe there is a moral imperative for altruism, then you better be all-in on that or else you're violating your own mandate.
There actually are people who believe in the moral imperative for altruism and put their money where their mouth is. Look at this couple who survive on an ERE budget so that they can donate 94% of their income to charity:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3268936/Massachusetts-couple-lives-six-percent-income-away-100-000-year-needs-most.html
For the record, I do not believe in a moral imperative for altruism, but I have nothing but the utmost respect for people like the above couple who stick to their beliefs.
-
I find it repugnant that someone would spend their money on unnecessary luxuries while simultaneously claiming that everyone has a moral imperative to altruism.
One can say what they ought to do, but not do it. That just means they're immoral.
I'm immoral as hell, as there are moral imperatives I believe I should follow that I don't.
I think there is under one percent of one percent of people that can/do follow their own ethical beliefs all the time (or nearly). The people you linked might be one. The rest you likely find repugnant. :)
-
One can say what they ought to do, but not do it. That just means they're immoral.
I'm immoral as hell, as there are moral imperatives I believe I should follow that I don't.
I think there is under one percent of one percent of people that can/do follow their own ethical beliefs all the time (or nearly). The people you linked might be one. The rest you likely find repugnant. :)
Just curious, what's your opinion on the virtue of the self-acknowledged egoist who sometimes behaves altruistically for his own gratification versus the altruist who frequently violates his own beliefs by acting selfishly?
In my opinion, what's even worse than the above two are "closet egoists" who claim to be altruists but are actually acting only in their own self-interest while denying this truth even to themselves. I'm not sure that you can get any more hypocritical than that, but sadly it seems to be all too common.
-
One can say what they ought to do, but not do it. That just means they're immoral.
I'm immoral as hell, as there are moral imperatives I believe I should follow that I don't.
I think there is under one percent of one percent of people that can/do follow their own ethical beliefs all the time (or nearly). The people you linked might be one. The rest you likely find repugnant. :)
Just curious, what's your opinion on the virtue of the self-acknowledged egoist who sometimes behaves altruistically for his own gratification versus the altruist who frequently violates his own beliefs by acting selfishly?
In my opinion, what's even worse than the above two are "closet egoists" who claim to be altruists but are actually acting only in their own self-interest while denying this truth even to themselves. I'm not sure that you can get any more hypocritical than that, but sadly it seems to be all too common.
Ultimately, I'd care more about what you do, than what you say.
At the end of the day, I suppose I'd rather a hypocritical person who does good than someone who isn't a hypocrite but doesn't.
-
Ultimately, I'd care more about what you do, than what you say.
At the end of the day, I suppose I'd rather a hypocritical person who does good than someone who isn't a hypocrite but doesn't.
So it seems that as an egoist, I get the best of both worlds. I freely choose to engage in altruism because I find it to be genuinely gratifying to know that I helped someone in need. But if there is something else that I'd rather do, then I will do that instead.
Functionally, this makes me no different than the "hypocritical altruist." We both behave selfishly or altruistically depending on the situation. The only difference is that I'm not a hypocrite, and my conscience remains clear when engaging in selfish behavior.
So to take this all the way back to the original post in this topic, for the above reasons I don't have any problems justifying the accumulation of my personal wealth while other people are suffering. I am happy doing what makes me happy and I accept that truth about myself.
-
So to take this all the way back to the original post in this topic, for the above reasons I don't have any problems justifying the accumulation of my personal wealth while other people are suffering. I am happy doing what makes me happy and I accept that truth about myself.
Of course. You'll just have to also accept that others who have a different moral framework (sol, perhaps, as the originator of the thread) may find that repugnant. Because they care less about hypocrisy, as I said in my last post, than what you actually do, and what you do tends to more often serve yourself*.
*Which is the case for most of us, to be fair, and thus this thread.
-
I think your statement is quite strong and, in my opinion
Hi eyerishgold, I'm sol. We haven't met yet, but by way of introduction, most of what I post here is deliberately "quite strong".
Hi sol. Good to meet you. Your point about wishy washy posts is well taken.
-
Functionally, this makes me no different than the "hypocritical altruist." We both behave selfishly or altruistically depending on the situation. The only difference is that I'm not a hypocrite, and my conscience remains clear when engaging in selfish behavior.
I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a hypocritical altruist to utilize enough self deception to keep a similarly clear conscience.
Of course. You'll just have to also accept that others who have a different moral framework (sol, perhaps, as the originator of the thread) may find that repugnant. Because they care less about hypocrisy, as I said in my last post, than what you actually do, and what you do tends to more often serve yourself*.
*Which is the case for most of us, to be fair, and thus this thread.
This is most often true with all humans, myself definitely included. Even when purposely analyzing my own actions I often find it difficult to fully conceptualize my inner motivations. Am I helping a neighbor move because of altruism, or am I simply saving social capital because I may move some day? What I tell myself could well be different from reality. This may be the nature of the beast, so to speak.
If the goal is a purer form of altruism*, there is a strong argument for gifting money over time, IMO. Even in the case where time is just as (or more) efficient than money, a gift of time almost certainly provides more personal satisfaction in the form of physically seeing good outcomes from the donation and potentially building social capital. Planting a tree in the nearby park provides more personal gain than donating cash for carbon credits, "sponsoring" a child more than cash for mosquito nets for many unseen children, etc. This is likely why charities try to "sell" themselves in ways that allows the donor to see the results of their actions. It works.
*Frankly, I'm not sure true altruism even exists... or maybe I'm just more selfish than the average joe.
-
I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a hypocritical altruist to utilize enough self deception to keep a similarly clear conscience.
...
This is most often true with all humans, myself definitely included. Even when purposely analyzing my own actions I often find it difficult to fully conceptualize my inner motivations. Am I helping a neighbor move because of altruism, or am I simply saving social capital because I may move some day? What I tell myself could well be different from reality. This may be the nature of the beast, so to speak.
*Frankly, I'm not sure true altruism even exists... or maybe I'm just more selfish than the average joe.
Indeed, I believe that many of these so-called "hypocritical altruists" are actually "closet egoists" and simply haven't done enough introspection into why they make the choices they make. If you try to analyze human choices, once you dig down past all the layers of logic and rationalizations, you will probably find irrational feelings at the root. Why do we have such strong feelings about power and love, to name a few? You don't choose to have these feelings. The answer lies outside the context of the conscious, rational mind. Why do I feel varying levels of empathy for a struggling family member, a struggling child, a struggling stranger across the street, an unseen struggling stranger on the other side of the world, a struggling kitten, a struggling cow, and a struggling mosquito? The complicated answer is that it's some sort of opaque, subconscious determination based on how much I value or can relate to the subject in question. But why is that the case? Shouldn't empathy be more consistent and not based on opaque, arbitrary, and unconscious determinations? The simple answer is that empathy, like my other feelings, is irrational.
So it's no coincidence that you have such difficulty rationalizing your inner motivations--they are probably irrational, and you cannot rationalize the irrational. Can you construct a rational framework of ethics that either justifies your feelings or provides clear guidelines by which you can consistently overrule them without succumbing to hypocrisy? The greatest philosophers have tried to solve this problem for thousands of years and even they cannot agree on an answer.
In my opinion, the problems start to arise when people try to impose a rational system of ethics on top of an irrational hodgepodge of inconsistent and chaotic feelings. The seemingly inevitable result is that the system of rational ethics is unable to justify the full range of human decisions made according to irrational feelings, which leads to a collapse into hypocrisy. After a lot of introspection, I gave up on trying to rationalize my feelings and learned to accept them at face value. If I feel that I should help someone in need, I will. If I don't, I won't.
-
I think it comes down to a matter of practicality, and maybe even biology. Yes, I'm selfish, as is everyone here in one way or another. Humans didn't evolve to worry about problems of BILLIONS of people, we evolved to worry about problems in our own rather small communities. If my neighbor is dying of thirst, I'll help him/her out. If someone halfway around the world is dying of thirst, I'm pretty disconnected and probably won't.
The somewhat sad truth is this, if you worry about the problems of every person on the planet, you'll never be happy, and will constantly be paralyzed between choices of who to help first. You could spend your whole life learning names of people who are in worse situations than you, and never come close to learning all of them. That's how incomprehensible these numbers are to our brains.
In some sort of ideal altruistic world, you'd work as much and often as physically possible to help the maximum number of people. Early retirement, time with your family, time with friends, a climate controlled shelter, all of these are luxuries that you're sacrificing lives to have. Imagine how many people your rent/mortgage payment could help? How many people could be fed if instead of playing with your kids you worked those hours?
For me, the goal isn't to save the world by myself. It's to have an overall positive impact. I recognize that there's an amount of selfishness I've got going on, and often that selfishness is good at motivating me. If through my life I can make 10 people's lives significantly better, that's a pretty good record IMO. If it's more than that, great. If it's less, well I'll try and make it not less.
-
If the goal is a purer form of altruism*, there is a strong argument for gifting money over time, IMO. Even in the case where time is just as (or more) efficient than money, a gift of time almost certainly provides more personal satisfaction in the form of physically seeing good outcomes from the donation and potentially building social capital.
That doesn't sound like maximizing altruism at all, it sounds like penance for its own sake. The personal satisfaction or lack there of of the giver has exactly zero relevance to the benefit received by others. If the goal is to maximize benifit, then there is a clear winner in the case where time is more efficient than money. To do otherwise to try to somehow prove one isn't doing it for selfish reasons - well, I'm just at a loss here for what the psychological analysis of that would be. Who care's what a person's "real" motivation is, or whether or not they are being a hypocrite, if they end up doing the right thing?
Of course, one of those subconscious, irrational, emotional things we humans are stuck with is an unhealthy obsession over other people's internal motivations. Hence all of our fears about terrorists and kidnappers, yet relative lack of concern over car crashes which cause 1000s of times more deaths. Why the difference? One is "deliberate", and the other an "accident". Somehow killing someone with a gun is terrible and reprehensible, but killing someone because you wanted to check your messages is just an unfortunate mistake. But both were just as much someone's fault, in in both cases the family has just as much lost someone.
Indeed, I believe that many of these so-called "hypocritical altruists" are actually "closet egoists" and simply haven't done enough introspection into why they make the choices they make. If you try to analyze human choices, once you dig down past all the layers of logic and rationalizations, you will probably find irrational feelings at the root. Why do we have such strong feelings about power and love, to name a few? You don't choose to have these feelings. The answer lies outside the context of the conscious, rational mind.
You might like (and everyone who has a human brain should follow) my favorite blog-turned-podcast:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/ (http://youarenotsosmart.com/)
Why do I feel varying levels of empathy for a struggling family member, a struggling child, a struggling stranger across the street, an unseen struggling stranger on the other side of the world, a struggling kitten, a struggling cow, and a struggling mosquito?
It is, not by coincidence, roughly correlated with the degree of genes you are likely to have in common. This was of course much truer when we lived in groups of 100 or less, when our emotions formed.
The complicated answer is that it's some sort of opaque, subconscious determination based on how much I value or can relate to the subject in question. But why is that the case?
Because it gives us the best chance of maximizing the survival of our own genes (in someone else's body) into the future - which in turn means the next generation is likely to have genes that make them want to do the same
Shouldn't empathy be more consistent and not based on opaque, arbitrary, and unconscious determinations?
Only if you assume that the internal feeling of empathy has any connection or relation to objective ethics, or that its purpose is to make us behave in a way that maximizes good for all sentient beings. That was never evolution's goal though. That is a rational goal came up with by conscious humans.
http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2016/08/your-feelings-dont-determine-ethics.html (http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2016/08/your-feelings-dont-determine-ethics.html)
The simple answer is that empathy, like my other feelings, is irrational.
if the purpose of empathy is to motivate behavior that makes it more likely for your own genes to survive into the future, then it is actually quite rational.
So it's no coincidence that you have such difficulty rationalizing your inner motivations--they are probably irrational, and you cannot rationalize the irrational. Can you construct a rational framework of ethics that either justifies your feelings or provides clear guidelines by which you can consistently overrule them without succumbing to hypocrisy?
Probably not both. However, it only becomes hypocritical if you make the assumption that knowing what is ethical implies what action one must take. If one is not making the claim that everyone should maximize the happiness of all living things, than not doing so isn't really hypocritical. It might be unethical - but maybe thats ok. For that matter, maybe being somewhat hypocritical would be ok anyway.
Really, why should anyone care if someone is being hypocritical, if the actual actions they take are good.
In my opinion, the problems start to arise when people try to impose a rational system of ethics on top of an irrational hodgepodge of inconsistent and chaotic feelings. The seemingly inevitable result is that the system of rational ethics is unable to justify the full range of human decisions made according to irrational feelings, which leads to a collapse into hypocrisy.
1) I believe it is possible, however difficult, to become (more) aware of the decisions one makes due to irrational feelings, and choose to choose differently.
The podcast from my first link (and the blog and books from the same author) takes one very far in that direction
2) Not being able to justify a decision based on a system of rational ethics isn't necessarily the same thing as hypocrisy. That part only comes in when you add in the feeling of wanting to believe one's self to be perfect all the time in every way, including following one's own system of ethics. Even that isn't so impossible though - suppose your "system of rational ethics" is something along the lines of "do not, by your direct actions, cause immediate harm to a specific human being, outside of self defense". Or even simpler "God, Family, Country". It isn't all that hard to live a life that allows you to follow those 100%, or nearly so.
Of course, personally, I would argue that those are moral structures, not ethical ones, they merely can appear to fill the role of ethics; my point is that they are rational and consistent.
The somewhat sad truth is this, if you worry about the problems of every person on the planet, you'll never be happy, and will constantly be paralyzed between choices of who to help first. You could spend your whole life learning names of people who are in worse situations than you, and never come close to learning all of them. That's how incomprehensible these numbers are to our brains.
In some sort of ideal altruistic world, you'd work as much and often as physically possible to help the maximum number of people. Early retirement, time with your family, time with friends, a climate controlled shelter, all of these are luxuries that you're sacrificing lives to have. Imagine how many people your rent/mortgage payment could help? How many people could be fed if instead of playing with your kids you worked those hours?
I don't think this truth is sad. I think the alternative, "ideal" world is much sadder. If everyone actually prioritized every other living person (maybe animal too? they can feel pain and pleasure, happiness and depression too afterall), to the exclusion of themselves, then NO ONE would spend time with friends and family and all the other things. EVERYONE, not just rich westerners, would spend 100 hours a week working to make things better for the world, tirelessly self sacrificing for the greater good. And while we might end up with a world where everyone had enough food and more advanced sources of energy, there would always be more to do - even cheaper, greener sources of energy, even more nutritious, filling, delicious food that won't contribute to obesity, even more diseases cured - and people would still die, and there would still not be any obvious "correct" solution to the eventual inevitable problem of overpopulation.
In exchange for the slightly better conditions in some regards, every single person would never enjoy life.
What would be the point?
For me, the goal isn't to save the world by myself. It's to have an overall positive impact.
Agreed. Actually, I go a step further - its to NOT have an overall negative impact; which I think the majority of people (all people, including charitable ones, and including poor ones) have a negative over all impact, when you add up all of their resource use and waste and pollution. If most people most of them time were just breaking even, then we would never have to worry about conditions getting worse.
-
That doesn't sound like maximizing altruism at all, it sounds like penance for its own sake. The personal satisfaction or lack there of of the giver has exactly zero relevance to the benefit received by others. If the goal is to maximize benifit, then there is a clear winner in the case where time is more efficient than money. To do otherwise to try to somehow prove one isn't doing it for selfish reasons - well, I'm just at a loss here for what the psychological analysis of that would be. Who care's what a person's "real" motivation is, or whether or not they are being a hypocrite, if they end up doing the right thing?
My comment was prefaced with the idea that IF the goal is altruism. Altruism is not the same as maximum benefit. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism Rather altruism is to do something without regard to self, or harmful to self, for the good of another. I believe your argument to be valid if the goal is to maximize good. Which lead to the thought, can altruism exist if one is trying merely to be altruistic. IOW, doing something altruistic because I want to be altruistic is inherently self gratifying and not altruistic, whether that action is of maximum benefit is immaterial.
Introspective examination is selfish, but for some (me, at least) it provides a personal moral framework to form future opinions and actions. One could argue that with such a framework established, one can consistently provide a higher level of functional utility and minimize the net negative effects of life.
I will admit, your analysis and use of the term "penance" struck an emotional accord as something that may motivate some actions. Perhaps more selfish introspection is required? Edit: How is the idea of penance any different than trying to live a low net negative life?
Of course, one of those subconscious, irrational, emotional things we humans are stuck with is an unhealthy obsession over other people's internal motivations. Hence all of our fears about terrorists and kidnappers, yet relative lack of concern over car crashes which cause 1000s of times more deaths. Why the difference? One is "deliberate", and the other an "accident". Somehow killing someone with a gun is terrible and reprehensible, but killing someone because you wanted to check your messages is just an unfortunate mistake. But both were just as much someone's fault, in in both cases the family has just as much lost someone.
The reason humans have fear of terrorists & kidnappers, but are are fearless commuting in a motor vehicle has little to do with intentions. The average US commuter has driven hundreds of times while distracted, probably without harming anyone. While that same person goes home to watch the news every night to see yet another rehash of the most recent terrorist attack somewhere in the world. This a combination of anecdotal and appeal to emotion fallacies, along with poor math skills.
I would argue that intentions are indeed important. In general, human societies and the law would agree. Ignoring intentions completely will inherently lead to "the ends justifies the means" mindset. It also leads to decreased utility. Humans are fallible and as intelligent animals have self preservation instincts. As such, if society ignores intentions many will be less likely to take actions for fear of poor outcomes despite intentions. Obvious examples include safe haven laws, good samaritan laws, medical tort limitations, etc. When a good intention actor does not act due to fears of the outcome, the end result is the same paralysis experienced when attempting to choose the most efficient means of giving.
-
My comment was prefaced with the idea that IF the goal is altruism. Altruism is not the same as maximum benefit.
Fair enough. My point is that maximum benefit is all that should reasonably matter in a discussion of ethics.
Rather altruism is to do something without regard to self, or harmful to self, for the good of another. I believe your argument to be valid if the goal is to maximize good. Which lead to the thought, can altruism exist if one is trying merely to be altruistic. IOW, doing something altruistic because I want to be altruistic is inherently self gratifying and not altruistic, whether that action is of maximum benefit is immaterial.
I acknowledge your distinction, but even so, I don't see either definition implying that an act is any less altruistic because a person gains warm fuzzy feelings inside.
"feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people" if anything implies just the opposite, that the warm fuzzy feeling itself is an inherent part of altruism. " unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" likewise does not imply that one can not enjoy the process of helping others.
If you take the more technical, biological definition, "behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species" it is referring to harm and benefit in terms of survival and reproduction, not whether the worker ant feels fulfilled or self-actualized. Incidentally, the idea hinges on the idea that the unit of evolution is the individual. If, like Richard Dawkins, myself, and the majority of modern biologists, you acknowledge the unit of survival to be the gene, then the second definition of altruism doesn't even imply the first definition - helping your own species (family first, strangers last, and other less closely related species only if it isn't too much trouble) IS still being selfish.
Introspective examination is selfish,
Not at all! Selfish means that you think of yourself *to the exclusion* of others. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish) :)
No one else is harmed because of introspection, and there is no reason you could not help others before during or after doing it.
Merely doing something good for yourself is not intrinsically selfish. Its doing things for your self at the expense of others that it.
but for some (me, at least) it provides a personal moral framework to form future opinions and actions. One could argue that with such a framework established, one can consistently provide a higher level of functional utility and minimize the net negative effects of life.
I would make that very argument! :)
A person who has done their introspection has a better chance of managing their irrational emotions, and thereby preventing those emotions from controlling them, pushing them into things like group think or in-group loyalty (and it's necessary corollary xenophobia)
I will admit, your analysis and use of the term "penance" struck an emotional accord as something that may motivate some actions.
I find this response amusing, because in my mind I was arguing against Herbert Derp's points, and in agreement with you!
Edit: How is the idea of penance any different than trying to live a low net negative life?
I don't even see the connection. Penance is about doing something deliberately negative to yourself to compensate for something bad you have done in the past. My outlook on consumption is similar to MMMs: more of it usually doesn't lead to more happiness anyway, so it is pointless and wasteful. I don't feel particularly deprived, just because I bike places instead of drive, or use less electricity and gas than the average American, or because my work truck is old and runs on vegetable oil. I'm trying to avoid doing something wrong in the first place. Driving a petroleum powered SUV to commute to a desk job every day, and then buying carbon credits at the end of the year, that is like penance. I'm trying to live a life where I don't have anything I need to make up for.
The reason humans have fear of terrorists & kidnappers, but are are fearless commuting in a motor vehicle has little to do with intentions. The average US commuter has driven hundreds of times while distracted, probably without harming anyone. While that same person goes home to watch the news every night to see yet another rehash of the most recent terrorist attack somewhere in the world. This a combination of anecdotal and appeal to emotion fallacies, along with poor math skills.
I grant that the media is a factor. In fact, a big one. Maybe that was a poor example, for that reason. Why should we care whether a person is an "egoist" or "altruist", by any definition, if the end result is them doing good?
The whole issue of "altruism" as being somehow less good if a person "enjoys" doing the good things is of course an excellent example of our irrational focus on other's internal state, but it was the one I was trying to draw the original analogy too...
Let me think...
Well, the difference in my example is not just on the fear level. The people who cause the deaths are treated very differently by both society and the law. The person who deliberately kills someone "on purpose" is removed from society and punished, while a person who kills someone "negligently" by drinking and driving has much smaller legal consequences, and the person who "accidentally" kills someone by speeding or texting may face a traffic infraction or even no consequences at all other than in insurance rate hike.
All 3 were 100% at fault, and responsible for a totally avoidable death. Why shouldn't they all face the same consequences?
How about the difference between "flashing" and "nudism"? The experience of the "viewer" is identical. How can the intention - the internal state of the actor - change the effect on another person? Yet we treat them differently.
I would argue that intentions are indeed important. In general, human societies and the law would agree.
lol, well of course they would! They are both composed of individuals who have human minds, with all the irrational emotions and motivations we agreed exist before. If every individual makes the same mistakes, then seeing it codified into law and culture is exactly what we should expect. But if we instead use law and/or culture as our guiding principal for ethics... well, when and where do we look? Should we take our slaves from the nations around us, or in battle take for our bride whom we see fit? Is in unethical to be homosexual, or is it unethical to persecute people who are?
Ignoring intentions completely will inherently lead to "the ends justifies the means" mindset.
That seems to be the exact opposite to me... a person's intention is generally the ends. The thing you presumably want to avoid is people using unethical means to achieve a particular end, which is seen as justified because the ultimate intention was good.
I think the problem more with the ends justifies the means is that it almost always describes a circumstance where a particular end is focused on too narrowly to the exclusion of other, equally important, ends which the means will conflict with. That is a whole different topic though.
It also leads to decreased utility.
In what context?
Humans are fallible and as intelligent animals have self preservation instincts. As such, if society ignores intentions many will be less likely to take actions for fear of poor outcomes despite intentions. Obvious examples include safe haven laws, good samaritan laws, medical tort limitations, etc. When a good intention actor does not act due to fears of the outcome, the end result is the same paralysis experienced when attempting to choose the most efficient means of giving.
I see your point here, but I think it is slightly different than what I was talking about. I think its a different situation if the poor outcome was not reasonably foreseeable at all. For example, the texting driver knew the risk existed, and decided to take it. They didn't "deliberately" drive head-on into another car, but they also didn't try particularly hard not too.
Ultimately, the person who has the skill to (for example) perform CPR and chooses not to because they don't want to be sued and the person who knows how but just doesn't feel like it both lead to the same (poor) outcome. From the point of view of the dying person and their family, it doesn't matter what the reason is.
Now, if your talking about not punishing someone who was genuinely trying to help but ended up being responsible for a bad outcome, I'd agree with that, but I'm not sure what situation the same outcome without the good intention could come up in. In which case, you aren't really comparing different intentions at all, its just another form of saying not to punish people for mistakes they could not have foreseen.
-
.
Think of how many people that $4 latte goes to feed. Of course there's the employees of the coffee house. But, the employees of the factory that made the cup, lid, other accessories, sugar, milk, etc get fed. As do the employees who source and extract the raw materials to make the cup and lid and other items. If those are manufactured overseas, the families or the importer, steamship line and railroad get fed. What about the architects who designed the building or the laborers who installed and built the store, they all got fed as well. There are numerous people who get to eat because people are free to spend their $4 however they like.
And the poor farmers who grew the coffee!
But seriously; great points. Even when one 'wastes' their money, it could still be put to good use by many other persons.
-
You might like (and everyone who has a human brain should follow) my favorite blog-turned-podcast:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/ (http://youarenotsosmart.com/)
Do you have any recommendations from there that are relevant to this conversation? They have a lot of articles.
It is, not by coincidence, roughly correlated with the degree of genes you are likely to have in common. This was of course much truer when we lived in groups of 100 or less, when our emotions formed.
...
Because it gives us the best chance of maximizing the survival of our own genes (in someone else's body) into the future - which in turn means the next generation is likely to have genes that make them want to do the same
...
Only if you assume that the internal feeling of empathy has any connection or relation to objective ethics, or that its purpose is to make us behave in a way that maximizes good for all sentient beings. That was never evolution's goal though. That is a rational goal came up with by conscious humans.
http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2016/08/your-feelings-dont-determine-ethics.html (http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2016/08/your-feelings-dont-determine-ethics.html)
if the purpose of empathy is to motivate behavior that makes it more likely for your own genes to survive into the future, then it is actually quite rational.
Yes, I understand that there are scientific explanations for how we evolved our feelings. But I don't see how that matters to me in determining my moral or ethical values. Evolution is an amoral process which is outside of my control. Although it may have its own "reasons" for imbuing me with my feelings, there is no reason why I should give moral or ethical consideration to those reasons. It's like saying that we exist because of the sun, therefore we should base our ethics on nuclear fusion.
Probably not both. However, it only becomes hypocritical if you make the assumption that knowing what is ethical implies what action one must take. If one is not making the claim that everyone should maximize the happiness of all living things, than not doing so isn't really hypocritical. It might be unethical - but maybe thats ok. For that matter, maybe being somewhat hypocritical would be ok anyway.
Really, why should anyone care if someone is being hypocritical, if the actual actions they take are good.
...
2) Not being able to justify a decision based on a system of rational ethics isn't necessarily the same thing as hypocrisy. That part only comes in when you add in the feeling of wanting to believe one's self to be perfect all the time in every way, including following one's own system of ethics. Even that isn't so impossible though - suppose your "system of rational ethics" is something along the lines of "do not, by your direct actions, cause immediate harm to a specific human being, outside of self defense". Or even simpler "God, Family, Country". It isn't all that hard to live a life that allows you to follow those 100%, or nearly so.
Of course, personally, I would argue that those are moral structures, not ethical ones, they merely can appear to fill the role of ethics; my point is that they are rational and consistent.
In my opinion, the purpose of an ethical system is to tell you what actions to take. If that is not the case, why not just do whatever you feel like doing, because it seems to me that's what you were doing anyway?
And with regards to the second point, that's exactly what I did. I think that the only way that I can ascribe any moral or ethical value to objects and events in the external world is through my own feelings. So therefore, my "system of rational ethics" is merely to do whatever feels right.
1) I believe it is possible, however difficult, to become (more) aware of the decisions one makes due to irrational feelings, and choose to choose differently.
The podcast from my first link (and the blog and books from the same author) takes one very far in that direction
One of your podcasts talks about the importance of feelings:
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/09/15/yanss-podcast-032-willpower-is-a-battery-that-must-be-recharged/
Logic and reason are simply a means by which you can figure out how to achieve an objective. They are not a reason or a motive for having the objective in the first place. In my opinion, all meaning in the world, and hence our personal objectives, is a direct result of our subjective feelings--not objective logic or reason. As the above podcast points out, without feelings it is basically impossible to even think, since without feelings you'd have no reason to think.
The article you mentioned ("Your feelings don't determine ethics") contained this quote: "Understanding that our feelings serve an evolutionary purpose merely suggests that our own emotions can not be trusted to reliably provide us with truly ethical conclusions."
I agree that our feelings are unreliable and may ultimately serve an outside purpose. But unfortunately those same feelings also appear to be the sole source of purpose and meaning in our lives. I refuse to be the pawn of some sort of lovecraftian evolutionary god. But that refusal--that sense of revulsion, indignation, and even horror--is also just another feeling. Did the god who created my feelings also decide that I should hate him? It's not outside the capacity of a blind idiot god like evolution to do something so nonsensical.
-
Logic and reason are simply a means by which you can figure out how to achieve an objective. They are not a reason or a motive for having the objective in the first place...
The article you mentioned ("Your feelings don't determine ethics") contained this quote: "Understanding that our feelings serve an evolutionary purpose merely suggests that our own emotions can not be trusted to reliably provide us with truly ethical conclusions."I agree that our feelings are unreliable and may ultimately serve an outside purpose. But unfortunately those same feelings also appear to be the sole source of purpose and meaning in our lives.
hmm, well, fair point. At the same time, I feel like it is possible to acknowledge that core truth and still make a conscious choice to not let individual feelings about individual choices guide actions when they conflict with my rational conclusions.
In other words, the feeling may be what guides me into even wanting to fulfill the goal of maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering, (they give me the objective), but logic and reason are the means by which I figure out how to achieve it.
Actually, no, I think it is even more than that: the objective that feelings generates is just "be good".
I think most people continue to use feelings to also interpret what being good actually mean. But I think it is possible to have logic and reason step in a step sooner and interpret the meaning, as well as figuring out how to achieve it.
I think that the only way that I can ascribe any moral or ethical value to objects and events in the external world is through my own feelings.
I think this is the major point where we differ, which is leading to everything else.
I understand that viewpoint, and it is very common, but I think it is entirely possible to give the happiness of others an ethical value without resorting to our own internal feelings
http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2015/05/on-objective-basis-for-right-and-wrong.html
"the fact that any individual experiences something as "good" calls the concept of "goodness" into being... That which is good is that which, on balance, brings a positive amount of pleasant experience into being."
You might like (and everyone who has a human brain should follow) my favorite blog-turned-podcast:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/
Do you have any recommendations from there that are relevant to this conversation? They have a lot of articles.
lol, no, not really, I just thought you might like it in general :-P
I feel like the overall idea that permeates all of it is relevant, but nothing is directly about the emotions around ethics
Yes, I understand that there are scientific explanations for how we evolved our feelings. But I don't see how that matters to me in determining my moral or ethical values. Evolution is an amoral process which is outside of my control. Although it may have its own "reasons" for imbuing me with my feelings, there is no reason why I should give moral or ethical consideration to those reasons. It's like saying that we exist because of the sun, therefore we should base our ethics on nuclear fusion.
Well, that was kind of my point in mentioning it. If feelings developed by an amoral process, than there is no reason we should give ethical consideration to our feelings.
Take, for example, the human propensity to care about family first, then neighbors, and to consider people from other nations or other races as outsiders, and be relatively hostile or even violent to them. This fits entirely with our natural emotions, and it "feels" entirely right, moral, ethical, to those who do it. Over time much of humanity has come to the conclusion that those feelings are wrong (in both senses of the word) and we have chosen to override them as much as possible.
-
hmm, well, fair point. At the same time, I feel like it is possible to acknowledge that core truth and still make a conscious choice to not let individual feelings about individual choices guide actions when they conflict with my rational conclusions.
In other words, the feeling may be what guides me into even wanting to fulfill the goal of maximizing happiness/minimizing suffering, (they give me the objective), but logic and reason are the means by which I figure out how to achieve it.
Actually, no, I think it is even more than that: the objective that feelings generates is just "be good".
I think most people continue to use feelings to also interpret what being good actually mean. But I think it is possible to have logic and reason step in a step sooner and interpret the meaning, as well as figuring out how to achieve it.
But there are many more feelings than just the desire to do good, and those feelings certainly do not generate the objective of being good. Take fear, sadness, envy, and anger, for example. What about the desire for the truth? What's true isn't necessarily what feels "good."
I think this is the major point where we differ, which is leading to everything else.
I understand that viewpoint, and it is very common, but I think it is entirely possible to give the happiness of others an ethical value without resorting to our own internal feelings
http://www.randomthoughts.fyi/2015/05/on-objective-basis-for-right-and-wrong.html
"the fact that any individual experiences something as "good" calls the concept of "goodness" into being... That which is good is that which, on balance, brings a positive amount of pleasant experience into being."
I read that, and it sounds like that guy is saying that utilitarianism provides an objective basis of right and wrong, i.e. "that which is good is that which, on balance, brings a positive amount of pleasant experience into being." I am pretty familiar with the idea of utilitarianism, and in my opinion it disintegrates into complete nonsense upon even the most cursory analysis. There are plenty of critiques of utilitarianism, and I don't feel the need to elaborate on them unless you want to dive deeper into the subject.
But I will examine the article that you provided--the author contradicts himself with his own words. See this passage:
The problem is, we treat the term "moral" as though it were interchangeable with "ethical".
The root of moral is "mores" which refers specifically to cultural standards and expectations.
Obviously those will vary from one community to another, and over time.
So you can fairly claim that consensual sodomy or adultery are "immoral" in Saudi Arabia, but are perfectly moral in San Francisco.
It has become so common for the term "moral" to be used to mean "ethical" that dictionaries have accepted it as such.
But ethics are really something different entirely. They deal with the abstract concepts of "right" and "wrong". This is what my debate partner thought could not exist on its own - but of course, if it doesn't exist on it's own, then it can not exist at all (which is exactly what they were claiming).
There can be no "ethical relativism".
Here he defines the difference between morality and ethics by claiming that morality is related to the consensus of a group, but ethics are abstract, objective, and not related to the culture or opinions of a group of people.
Contrast this with the following passage:
In order to return to an objective stand point, its necessary to step back from the individual doing the experiencing and look at every consciousness which the thing to be judged effects. Weight the significance of each individual's experience by how much the thing effects them, and then sum up all the pluses and minuses.
That which is good is that which, on balance, brings a positive amount of pleasant experience into being.
That which is bad brings, overall, negative experience into being.
No external authority is necessary to dictate right and wrong. Deliberate actions which bring negative experience into being are wrong.
Here he claims that to return to an "objective" standpoint, you must sum up every individual's experience of the thing being judged, and the positivity or negativity of the summation determines whether the thing is ethically right or wrong. But doesn't this summation of individual experiences constitute a group consensus? He had just claimed in the prior passage that group consensuses vary from community to community and over time, and do not constitute objective ethics! If you take the same objective thing to be judged, and evaluate it according to his summation technique upon different groups of people in different time periods, you will get different results about what is ethically right or wrong. How could this possibly be said to constitute an objective answer to what is right or wrong?
Finally, there's this passage:
It does not answer whether involuntary quarantine for an unconfirmed illness is ethical, or whether its better to kill and eat the weakest survivors while they still have enough flesh to eat so that the others can make it until rescue. It's impossible to sum up all the positives and negatives involved in fighting WWII and come to a "right" answer as to when and whether various allied nations should have gotten involved.
But the thing is, the real world is really complex.
Having a bunch of easy answers just means you are cheating. A complex world means there often aren't easy answers, and if we want to come as close as possible to being ethical, we have to be willing to accept that.
Here the author just gives up and sticks his head into the sand when he realizes that his utilitarian ideals result in conclusions that he finds to be distasteful. It's sad, really. This sort of distasteful result is what happens when you take utilitarianism to its logical conclusion, and I am disappointed that he refuses to acknowledge that.
See the film I, Robot for an example of a thought experiment where utilitarianism comes to a distasteful conclusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np1A4AGpqSo
VIKI's logic was undeniable. But as an egoist, I find her conclusion to be unacceptable. Will Smith's character probably agreed, hence this bit of dialogue near the end:
V.I.K.I.: You are making a mistake. My logic is undeniable.
Detective Del Spooner: You have so got to die.
[injects nanites into V.I.K.I]
Well, that was kind of my point in mentioning it. If feelings developed by an amoral process, than there is no reason we should give ethical consideration to our feelings.
Take, for example, the human propensity to care about family first, then neighbors, and to consider people from other nations or other races as outsiders, and be relatively hostile or even violent to them. This fits entirely with our natural emotions, and it "feels" entirely right, moral, ethical, to those who do it. Over time much of humanity has come to the conclusion that those feelings are wrong (in both senses of the word) and we have chosen to override them as much as possible.
If anyone can come up with an acceptable objective system of ethics that allows us to overrule our feelings, I would love to believe in it. But as far as I can tell, subjective feelings are all we have.
There's one final point I'd like to make here. You say that much of humanity has decided that xenophobia is wrong. Why? I think it's because that portion of humanity has been exposed to more objective knowledge and facts due to our technological advancement in recent times. By being able to know more about the lives of outsiders, we are able to reject xenophobia by realizing that outsiders are similar to ourselves. But this sense of similarity or companionship with outsiders is nothing more than just another subjective feeling, and in this situation it has overpowered our simultaneously held and contradictory xenophobic feelings. Every decision we make is just feelings versus feelings, and each person, as the executor of their sovereign will, must weigh their feelings against each other and come to a conclusion.
-
But there are many more feelings than just the desire to do good, and those feelings certainly do not generate the objective of being good. Take fear, sadness, envy, and anger, for example. What about the desire for the truth? What's true isn't necessarily what feels "good."
of course, I don't see how that contradicts my point. If anything, it supports it! I was merely acknowledging your previous comment "They are not a reason or a motive for having the objective in the first place..."
I read that, and it sounds like that guy is saying that utilitarianism provides an objective basis of right and wrong, i.e. "that which is good is that which, on balance, brings a positive amount of pleasant experience into being." ...
Here he defines the difference between morality and ethics by claiming that morality is related to the consensus of a group, but ethics are abstract, objective, and not related to the culture or opinions of a group of people.
Contrast this with the following passage:
In order to return to an objective stand point, its necessary to step back from the individual doing the experiencing and look at every consciousness which the thing to be judged effects. Weight the significance of each individual's experience by how much the thing effects them, and then sum up all the pluses and minuses.
That which is good is that which, on balance, brings a positive amount of pleasant experience into being.
That which is bad brings, overall, negative experience into being.
No external authority is necessary to dictate right and wrong. Deliberate actions which bring negative experience into being are wrong.
Here he claims that to return to an "objective" standpoint, you must sum up every individual's experience of the thing being judged, and the positivity or negativity of the summation determines whether the thing is ethically right or wrong. But doesn't this summation of individual experiences constitute a group consensus?
No, not at all. For one thing, consensus means everyone agrees. For another, the summation isn't limited to any particular group, it extends to all people (or all sentient consciousness) that the thing in question has an impact on.
He had just claimed in the prior passage that group consensuses vary from community to community and over time, and do not constitute objective ethics! If you take the same objective thing to be judged, and evaluate it according to his summation technique upon different groups of people
Apply it to ALL of the groups at once, even if their interests conflict.
and in different time periods,
There is no intrinsic reason why something couldn't be bad overall in one time, and then later, when many other conditions and factors have changed, become bad. For example, in a world with extremely few people, having lots of kids, who can help provide labor and ideas and create better living conditions for everyone is probably good. In a world with more people than can be sustainably supported having lots of kids may be a bad thing.
Finally, there's this passage:
It does not answer whether involuntary quarantine for an unconfirmed illness is ethical, or whether its better to kill and eat the weakest survivors while they still have enough flesh to eat so that the others can make it until rescue. It's impossible to sum up all the positives and negatives involved in fighting WWII and come to a "right" answer as to when and whether various allied nations should have gotten involved.
But the thing is, the real world is really complex.
Having a bunch of easy answers just means you are cheating. A complex world means there often aren't easy answers, and if we want to come as close as possible to being ethical, we have to be willing to accept that.
Here the author just gives up and sticks his head into the sand when he realizes that his utilitarian ideals result in conclusions that he finds to be distasteful.
That has nothing to do with being distasteful or not (nor "giving up").
It is unclear what the summation comes out to when the same event effects one person very strongly negatively (like being imprisoned), and other people relatively mildly and/or there is only some small statistical chance that anyone will be effected at all (the general population being protected from possible exposure to a virus).
Or, in the second example, how can you definitely sum up the negative impact on the weak of being killed, vs the possibility that the action will help the others survive long enough to be rescued? If rescue just happens to be in twenty minutes, then the weak were killed for nothing. If they aren't found for a year, then everyone died, and the weak were murdered prematurely for nothing. So it is unclear what the "logical" answer is.
If you are talking about a more clear cut situation with a "distasteful" outcome (like the infamous 'push a fat guy on the tracks to stop the trolley from running over several other people' thought experiment), then I would agree with VIKI - the distasteful option that leads to less suffering overall is the correct choice.
However, the trolley thought experiment is ridiculously unrealistic, and the real world is rarely so clear-cut.
BTW, the author of the random thoughts blog is ME!!!!
(note the link in my signature under my posts)
;-)
-
of course, I don't see how that contradicts my point. If anything, it supports it! I was merely acknowledging your previous comment "They are not a reason or a motive for having the objective in the first place..."
I apologize, I think I misinterpreted your post. You said:
Actually, no, I think it is even more than that: the objective that feelings generates is just "be good".
I took that to mean that the overall objective of all of our feelings is just to "be good." But rereading your post, I think you meant to say "feeling" not "feelings." So you mean that you have the feeling or desire to do good, and you have constructed your rational system of ethics as a means to achieve the objective of this desire to do good?
If that's the case then I don't think we actually disagree about anything.
No, not at all. For one thing, consensus means everyone agrees. For another, the summation isn't limited to any particular group, it extends to all people (or all sentient consciousness) that the thing in question has an impact on.
...
Apply it to ALL of the groups at once, even if their interests conflict.
...
There is no intrinsic reason why something couldn't be bad overall in one time, and then later, when many other conditions and factors have changed, become bad. For example, in a world with extremely few people, having lots of kids, who can help provide labor and ideas and create better living conditions for everyone is probably good. In a world with more people than can be sustainably supported having lots of kids may be a bad thing.
...
That has nothing to do with being distasteful or not (nor "giving up").
It is unclear what the summation comes out to when the same event effects one person very strongly negatively (like being imprisoned), and other people relatively mildly and/or there is only some small statistical chance that anyone will be effected at all (the general population being protected from possible exposure to a virus).
Or, in the second example, how can you definitely sum up the negative impact on the weak of being killed, vs the possibility that the action will help the others survive long enough to be rescued? If rescue just happens to be in twenty minutes, then the weak were killed for nothing. If they aren't found for a year, then everyone died, and the weak were murdered prematurely for nothing. So it is unclear what the "logical" answer is.
If you are talking about a more clear cut situation with a "distasteful" outcome (like the infamous 'push a fat guy on the tracks to stop the trolley from running over several other people' thought experiment), then I would agree with VIKI - the distasteful option that leads to less suffering overall is the correct choice.
However, the trolley thought experiment is ridiculously unrealistic, and the real world is rarely so clear-cut.
What I am referring to when I say "group consensus" is the aggregate opinion of the group of people who are impacted by the event, which is what your summation is trying to measure. And although it may not be limited to any particular group, it is limited to the people that the thing impacts--and those people may all be racists, rapists, etc.
Let's do a couple of thought experiments. These are intended to be realistic, not silly scenarios involving groups of people wandering around on trolley tracks. Each scenario is intended to have a clear-cut answer within your proposed ethical system.
1. It's the year 1910. One black man walks into a high-class restaurant in the deep south. Upon seeing a black man enter the premises, the other (all white) people in the restaurant are all extremely offended by his presence for various reasons. Various people shout and jeer at the black man and force him to leave the premises. Everyone is upset about what happened. The people impacted by this event are the black man, 20 white patrons, the white restaurant owner, and his staff. I posit that the overall experience of this event was negative. Was it objectively ethically wrong for the black man to enter the premises?
2. It's the early 400's. Barbarians are moving through the Roman countryside, raiding and pillaging as they go. They come upon a small farm owned by a reclusive farmer and his family. They murder the farmer and his sons and then proceed to rape and murder his wife. After her family is murdered, there is not any other person alive who knows the wife. The barbarians are very fired up from a hard day of pillaging, and the rape is a great way for them to revel in another day of glorious victory and the death of their sworn enemies. The wife is extremely traumatized after seeing her family get murdered in front her eyes, and although the rape is very painful, her mind is mostly numb by now due to the extreme trauma and despair surrounding the current and preceding events. Through it all, she clings to the faint hope that soon this will all be over and she can join her family in the afterlife once the barbarians kill her. Two weeks later, the barbarians are cornered by the Roman army and put to the sword. Not one of them ever regrets any of what he had done, and in death they all agree that they have won eternal glory on the battlefield during their successful raiding campaign. The people impacted by this event (the rape) are one woman and 25 barbarians. I posit that the overall experience of this event was positive. Was it objectively ethically wrong for the 25 barbarians to rape the wife?
3. It's the year 2010. I am taking a university calculus test. I happen to be cheating, as I have written a bunch of formulas on the palm of my left hand. I finish the test, hand it in to the TA, and leave the room. Nobody sees that I was cheating. I get an A+ on the test, partially due to my cheating. I am very satisfied with these results. Six years later, I am proud that I cheated and was able to graduate with a very high GPA. The only person impacted by this event is me. I posit that the overall experience of this event was positive. Was it objectively ethically wrong for me to cheat?
4. It's the year 2010. I am taking a university calculus test. I happen to be cheating, as I have written a bunch of formulas on the palm of my left hand. I finish the test and hand it in to the TA. But as I do so, he notices the writing on my hand. For some reason, he has an intense hatred of academic cheaters and confronts me in front of the entire class. Many of my classmates are disgusted by my behavior, the others don't really care. I automatically fail the class and am put on academic probation. My father is outraged that the money he paid for those credits was wasted and forces me to pay for the class out of my own money when I retake it. I am miserable for months. Six years later, the event still haunts me. The people impacted by this event are me, the TA, 25 classmates, and my friends and family. I posit that the overall experience of this event was negative. Was it objectively ethically wrong for me to cheat?
The first two thought experiments show that your system produces distasteful results that appear to be indistinguishable from typical ethical relativism. The results, however distasteful, are solely based on the subjective experiences of those involved. Upon closer examination, even more disturbing implications arise. In the first scenario, everyone always loses. No matter what, when the black man walks into that resturant it's always going to produce an event that is "bad" overall. But I think that most people can agree that it shouldn't be ethically wrong for a black man to walk into a public resturant. In the second scenario, we come to the very disturbing realization that the "goodness" or "badness" of the rape depends on the relative sizes of the two parties involved. If there are two barbarians raping four women, it's pretty obvious that the rape is a "bad" event. But when 25 barbarians rape one woman, the rape could be computed as a "good" event. How can this possibly be acceptable?
The second two thought experiments show that your system can produce highly inconsistent results. Are you saying that cheating is only bad when you get caught? That the only way to know whether a choice is objectively ethically right or wrong is to wait until after the fact? But if that's the case, you can't even answer the basic ethical question of "should I cheat on this test?" because it is impossible to compute the outcome until after you've cheated. How does this constitute objective ethics?
Therefore, the system you are proposing just seems like a form of ethical relativism to me. I mean, if you add up a bunch of subjective experiences to produce an overall experience, isn't that overall experience still just the subjective experience of the group of people involved? Which is fine by me, I already believe in ethical relativism. But how can you say that your system constitutes objective ethics in light of the above four scenarios?
Are you saying that you believe in moral relativism, and that what is right and wrong depends on the people who are involved and the specific circumstances of the event? That "objective ethics" is just an objective series of logical steps by which you can compute whether something is right or wrong within the context of moral relativism? I wouldn't call that objective ethics. I'd just call it moral relativism which is thought about in a rational way.
BTW, the author of the random thoughts blog is ME!!!!
(note the link in my signature under my posts)
;-)
Oh, wow. Sorry I didn't realize that!
P.S. I got a great laugh out of that Richard Kulisz guy and your response to him on your blog post. "I can't really tell if you are trolling me, or if you are actually insane." - ROFL
-
/\ I like your examples HD.
As ARS said we should start a new thread. I think I have a good title and opening post. refining a bit for maximum exposure.
-
Actually, no, I think it is even more than that: the objective that feelings generates is just "be good".
I took that to mean that the overall objective of all of our feelings is just to "be good." But rereading your post, I think you meant to say "feeling" not "feelings." So you mean that you have the feeling or desire to do good, and you have constructed your rational system of ethics as a means to achieve the objective of this desire to do good?
If that's the case then I don't think we actually disagree about anything.
exactly. I see how I was unclear with my grammar.
No, not at all. For one thing, consensus means everyone agrees.
What I am referring to when I say "group consensus" is the aggregate opinion
This is part of it: I'm not talking about their opinion so much as the effect on contentment vs suffering. They don't always line up.
The racists makes a good example of that distinction...
1. It's the year 1910. One black man walks into a high-class restaurant in the deep south. Upon seeing a black man enter the premises, the other (all white) people in the restaurant are all extremely offended by his presence for various reasons. Various people shout and jeer at the black man and force him to leave the premises. Everyone is upset about what happened. The people impacted by this event are the black man, 20 white patrons, the white restaurant owner, and his staff. I posit that the overall experience of this event was negative. Was it objectively ethically wrong for the black man to enter the premises?
The actual event - man walks through door - does not directly impact any of the other patrons in any way. Had they simply not looked up at the door upon hearing it open, and continued to eat their meals, the event could have happened with zero change in their lives. It is their opinion that this is a bad thing in general, because it violates their moral code, but it does not actually negatively effect them.
Chances are pretty good that he knew what the results would be, and made a conscious choice to do it anyway, so I don't think it is a given that the overall impact on him is bad. He likely already felt the negative social impacts of the shouting and jeering, just from living in that world, and having it be direct and tangible is only a mild change from normal. At the same time, he may feel pride or accomplishment or just satisfaction in having caused a stir. The event has more impact on him than on any other one person, so the net effect can be positive even if it wasn't one small part of social change.
If we were going to consider indirect emotional effects, then we also have to consider the impact of their reactions on every other Black person in the society, and in fact on every white person who feels any degree of stress or conflict about the societies racial tension.
If this restaurant walk-in ends up being (planned or not) a stimulus for change, the net impact may well be positive.
2. It's the early 400's. Barbarians are moving through the Roman countryside, raiding and pillaging as they go. They come upon a small farm owned by a reclusive farmer and his family. They murder the farmer and his sons and then proceed to rape and murder his wife. After her family is murdered, there is not any other person alive who knows the wife. The barbarians are very fired up from a hard day of pillaging, and the rape is a great way for them to revel in another day of glorious victory and the death of their sworn enemies. The wife is extremely traumatized after seeing her family get murdered in front her eyes, and although the rape is very painful, her mind is mostly numb by now due to the extreme trauma and despair surrounding the current and preceding events. Through it all, she clings to the faint hope that soon this will all be over and she can join her family in the afterlife once the barbarians kill her. Two weeks later, the barbarians are cornered by the Roman army and put to the sword. Not one of them ever regrets any of what he had done, and in death they all agree that they have won eternal glory on the battlefield during their successful raiding campaign. The people impacted by this event (the rape) are one woman and 25 barbarians. I posit that the overall experience of this event was positive. Was it objectively ethically wrong for the 25 barbarians to rape the wife?
How did the farmer and sons get left out of who this event impacted? I find it is somewhat unlikely that the amount of joy produced by being accomplice to a murder and 1/25th of a rape will produce enough joy to balance out the impact of several people losing their lives completely plus the trauma and despair. The fact that she becomes "numb" after the fact doesn't negate the trauma and despair that brought it on. It is in fact evidence of how bad it was, and it in itself is a negative state.
The impact of one person not getting the car smogged is infinitesimally small, small enough to be totally negligible, and outweighed by the effect it has on you of cost and time. But you can't ignore the context of the rest of the world, and the commutative effects of everyone else doing it. The event to consider is auto pollution as a whole, the tragedy of the commons of breathable air, and that has a impact on everyone, more so than the individual impact on your money and time. Similarly, the entire idea of pillaging is the event to consider. The barbarians probably murdered and raped many others before and they all can reasonably considered a single extended "event" - which means the impact on everyone pillaged is relevant.
3. It's the year 2010. I am taking a university calculus test. I happen to be cheating, as I have written a bunch of formulas on the palm of my left hand. I finish the test, hand it in to the TA, and leave the room. Nobody sees that I was cheating. I get an A+ on the test, partially due to my cheating. I am very satisfied with these results. Six years later, I am proud that I cheated and was able to graduate with a very high GPA. The only person impacted by this event is me. I posit that the overall experience of this event was positive. Was it objectively ethically wrong for me to cheat?
Depends. Do you go on to get a job as a floral arranger? Or did you just cheat your way into a MD or law degree, and are going to go on to do work in which people depend on you and you aren't actually qualified?
Of course, on the broader scale, you have a very small, but not zero, negative impact on every student who takes the same test after you from now on, by slightly skewing the curve. Even if there is no official curve, how well people do impacts the instructors expectations, and how future tests are written.
And, maybe most important, how could you possibly have been sure that the events in (4) wouldn't have happened? You can't. So that possibility has to be taken into account. Sometimes something which may not be intrinsically wrong has to be considered in the context of the society we live in and existing laws to figure out the likely impact. So, for example, there may not be anything ethically wrong with walking around outside naked, the fact that it is considered morally wrong means we can predict certain outcomes that may make it better to not do it
(of course then there is the possibility that event is the stimulus for change, like in the first example, but then the oppression of having to wear clothes on a hot day is probably not as negative impact as the oppression due to racism).
4. It's the year 2010. I am taking a university calculus test. I happen to be cheating, as I have written a bunch of formulas on the palm of my left hand. I finish the test and hand it in to the TA. But as I do so, he notices the writing on my hand. For some reason, he has an intense hatred of academic cheaters and confronts me in front of the entire class. Many of my classmates are disgusted by my behavior, the others don't really care. I automatically fail the class and am put on academic probation. My father is outraged that the money he paid for those credits was wasted and forces me to pay for the class out of my own money when I retake it. I am miserable for months. Six years later, the event still haunts me. The people impacted by this event are me, the TA, 25 classmates, and my friends and family. I posit that the overall experience of this event was negative. Was it objectively ethically wrong for me to cheat?
This is why in the blog post I said the answers weren't always easy - because we can't predict the outcome in advance, we sometimes have to guess at what the overall impacts will be, and take statistics into account in deciding the best course of action. How do you conclusively add up the tiny impact the whole thing has on all the future students who take the class, both those who hear about it and those who merely attend class with an instructor who was aware of it?
P.S. I got a great laugh out of that Richard Kulisz guy and your response to him on your blog post. "I can't really tell if you are trolling me, or if you are actually insane." - ROFL
lol, I totally forgot about that.
This whole conversation would probably be better suited to the comments there, we have gone quite off topic!
We need to find a good segue to tie it in with the morality of finances and giving and accumulating...
-
I must be an evil dick, but I feel very little moral obligation to help other people with my money. If I choose to do so that's great, but life sucks and then you die. I'll take care of me and mine and let the world sort itself out. In the grand scheme of things are we all just flailing in the wind?
When I do eventually build my stache to the point that I feel able to be charitable I will be using Givewell to find where my limited resources would be most effective.
-
I must be an evil dick, but I feel very little moral obligation to help other people with my money. If I choose to do so that's great, but life sucks and then you die. I'll take care of me and mine and let the world sort itself out. In the grand scheme of things are we all just flailing in the wind?
When I do eventually build my stache to the point that I feel able to be charitable I will be using Givewell to find where my limited resources would be most effective.
Assuming you really do reach that point, then it would mean you weren't the first part after all.
It is even more meaningful to give if you don't feel obligated to, yet choose to do it anyway.
-
I must be an evil dick, but I feel very little moral obligation to help other people with my money. If I choose to do so that's great, but life sucks and then you die. I'll take care of me and mine and let the world sort itself out. In the grand scheme of things are we all just flailing in the wind?
When I do eventually build my stache to the point that I feel able to be charitable I will be using Givewell to find where my limited resources would be most effective.
There's nothing evil,about choosing to use the money you worked for in the way you want, no matter what guilt trips some of the hand wringers and virtue signallers in this thread want to lay on you.
People used to tithe to the church and give to the poor because there was no government safety net back then. Nowadays the government takes 30% of what we make - that's our contribution to improving the lives of others.
While there is any risk that I or my family won't be secure in the future, I won't be giving my money away. As they say in the airline safety demonstration, ensure your mask is fitted correctly before helping others. Once we hit FI, I'll reassess.
-
While there is any risk that I or my family won't be secure in the future, I won't be giving my money away.
Securing your family's future is different than, say, spending as much on a meal as would feed a family for a month.
Just because you can classify some of your savings as moral, in your eyes, to secure your future, I think it'd be hard to argue all of your spending is put to the best use it can be.
-
It is even more meaningful to give if you don't feel obligated to, yet choose to do it anyway.
Not sure this is mathematically true, or even true to the person that receives the charity given, though I can see your point. I figure a dollar's a dollar, whether it comes from a miser or a saint.
-
This is part of it: I'm not talking about their opinion so much as the effect on contentment vs suffering. They don't always line up.
The racists makes a good example of that distinction...
Sorry, I tend to see feelings and opinions as interchangeable since both are subjective. But what I was referring to was feelings, and feelings are either positive or negative.
Also, as I stated before, opinions are merely the result of feelings, i.e. someone may have the opinion that snakes are bad because they have negative feelings about snakes.
The actual event - man walks through door - does not directly impact any of the other patrons in any way. Had they simply not looked up at the door upon hearing it open, and continued to eat their meals, the event could have happened with zero change in their lives. It is their opinion that this is a bad thing in general, because it violates their moral code, but it does not actually negatively effect them.
Chances are pretty good that he knew what the results would be, and made a conscious choice to do it anyway, so I don't think it is a given that the overall impact on him is bad. He likely already felt the negative social impacts of the shouting and jeering, just from living in that world, and having it be direct and tangible is only a mild change from normal. At the same time, he may feel pride or accomplishment or just satisfaction in having caused a stir. The event has more impact on him than on any other one person, so the net effect can be positive even if it wasn't one small part of social change.
If we were going to consider indirect emotional effects, then we also have to consider the impact of their reactions on every other Black person in the society, and in fact on every white person who feels any degree of stress or conflict about the societies racial tension.
If this restaurant walk-in ends up being (planned or not) a stimulus for change, the net impact may well be positive.
I posit that this black man was not staging an act of civil disobedience, he merely chose to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You make the claim:
It is their opinion that this is a bad thing in general, because it violates their moral code, but it does not actually negatively effect them.
I disagree. I think that the feelings associated with being offended count as a "negative experience." Also, having been bullied as a child, I very strongly believe that the feeling of being jeered at is also a "negative experience."
Suppose that you went to a memorial service for a black teenager who was murdered by the police and started loudly proclaiming your support for white supremacy. The people at the memorial service would have a very negative experience, even though you may believe that you are entitled to the right to exercise your free speech.
The question I am really trying to ask you here is: is it objectively ethically wrong to do something that offends other people? More often than not, nothing good can come out of offending people--not for you or the people you offend. There is usually not an overarching positive agenda for offending people--the act of civil disobedience is the exception, not the rule. So in most cases, not only do you hurt the people you offend, but you also hurt yourself if the offended party retaliates against you.
How did the farmer and sons get left out of who this event impacted? I find it is somewhat unlikely that the amount of joy produced by being accomplice to a murder and 1/25th of a rape will produce enough joy to balance out the impact of several people losing their lives completely plus the trauma and despair. The fact that she becomes "numb" after the fact doesn't negate the trauma and despair that brought it on. It is in fact evidence of how bad it was, and it in itself is a negative state.
The impact of one person not getting the car smogged is infinitesimally small, small enough to be totally negligible, and outweighed by the effect it has on you of cost and time. But you can't ignore the context of the rest of the world, and the commutative effects of everyone else doing it. The event to consider is auto pollution as a whole, the tragedy of the commons of breathable air, and that has a impact on everyone, more so than the individual impact on your money and time. Similarly, the entire idea of pillaging is the event to consider. The barbarians probably murdered and raped many others before and they all can reasonably considered a single extended "event" - which means the impact on everyone pillaged is relevant.
First and foremost, ethics are about making decisions, and I see no reason why the ethics of each decision should not be computed independently. When should we tie the ethics of one decision to the ethics of another? I see nothing in your proposed ethical system that accounts for this.
Your system does account for the ethics of the decision of getting a smog system installed on your car--the positive experience of less smog in the air outweighs the negative experience of getting the system installed. I don't see how this equates to the decision of the barbarians committing the rape. Sure, you can say that the overall decision of the barbarians to pillage the farm was ethically wrong under your system, and I agree. But that wasn't my point.
I'm not saying that the barbarians were justified in pillaging the farm and murdering the family. Under your system, there is no question that the decisions to commit these acts were ethically wrong. But when isolated as a single decision, committing the rape could be seen to bring more positive experience into the world than not committing the rape. Do you disagree?
Look, all I'm trying to say here is that the doctrine of utilitarianism promotes distasteful decision making under many circumstances. I just chose to use rape as a provocative example to illustrate my point. Personally, I am disgusted by any system that claims that something so obviously distasteful to my sensibilities is ethically correct, and I would much rather follow my heart. Acting for the "greater good" is a lofty idea, but when taken to the extreme it will result in cold and heartless decision making. I can think of various scenarios where rape is justified for the "greater good," but I flat out reject the notion that rape is objectively ethically justifiable.
I think you actually agree with me on this point about utilitarianism leading to distasteful solutions. You admitted earlier that you would side with VIKI and choose the distasteful utilitarian solution to world peace. One of the main reasons that I prefer the doctrine of ethical egoism over utilitarianism is because by definition, ethical egoism means that you always choose the least distasteful course of action when making a decision.
Depends. Do you go on to get a job as a floral arranger? Or did you just cheat your way into a MD or law degree, and are going to go on to do work in which people depend on you and you aren't actually qualified?
Of course, on the broader scale, you have a very small, but not zero, negative impact on every student who takes the same test after you from now on, by slightly skewing the curve. Even if there is no official curve, how well people do impacts the instructors expectations, and how future tests are written.
The last time I used calculus was in that class, so no, my potential lack of calculus skills has not hurt anyone else down the line. If I hadn't cheated, I could still have gotten an A+. I just would have had to spend more time memorizing pointless formulas. All I did was free up that time so that I could do something more enjoyable like playing video games.
And, maybe most important, how could you possibly have been sure that the events in (4) wouldn't have happened? You can't. So that possibility has to be taken into account.
This is why in the blog post I said the answers weren't always easy - because we can't predict the outcome in advance, we sometimes have to guess at what the overall impacts will be, and take statistics into account in deciding the best course of action. How do you conclusively add up the tiny impact the whole thing has on all the future students who take the class, both those who hear about it and those who merely attend class with an instructor who was aware of it?
So you admit that your system fails when dealing with decisions that have an uncertain outcome, even if all possible outcomes of the situation are clear-cut in terms of their positive or negative impact. Which I admit was one of the points that you made in your original blog post. All I'm trying to say here is that your system fails to produce a simple answer for a basic ethical question such as "should I cheat on this test?"
When we are making decisions on the fly we simply do not have time to guess at what the overall impacts will be for all probable outcomes and take statistics into account in deciding the best course of action. That's not how humans think--we go with our gut feeling--and going with your gut feeling or doing what feels right is just egoism. When you look at it this way, you see that no matter how lofty your ideals, due to the limitations of the human mind all of your decision making boils down to your own subjective opinion about what feels like the right choice.
In my opinion, the idea of objective ethics is merely a lie intended to deceive us of our own human nature. If nothing else, I'm a realist, and I don't see the point in wasting my time trying to become something which I cannot become. All I've done is remove from my decision making process all the artificial, unnecessary, and overly complex ethical systems which try as we may, do not produce acceptable answers in all scenarios, nor account for actual observable human behavior.
This whole conversation would probably be better suited to the comments there, we have gone quite off topic!
We need to find a good segue to tie it in with the morality of finances and giving and accumulating...
If that guy ever creates the other thread, I might post in it. But honestly, at this point I think I'm pretty close to having said everything I want to say. I think this discussion is absolutely relevant to the overall conversation about altruism, because in order to agree that there is an objective ethical imperative to altruism then we must first agree on a system of objective ethics.
My overarching point is that I embrace the human condition and accept myself for what I am. I acknowledge that altruism can be a very satisfying and emotionally rewarding experience, and for that reason I practice it. However, I reject the notion that there is any such thing as objective ethics, and therefore also reject any directives imposed on me where the sole basis is to satisfy objective ethics--which is why I reject the ethical imperative to altruism.
-
Also, as I stated before, opinions are merely the result of feelings, i.e. someone may have the opinion that snakes are bad because they have negative feelings about snakes.
For some. Many others are more complex, and also have thoughts, which are sometimes contrary to gut feeling.
It is their opinion that this is a bad thing in general, because it violates their moral code, but it does not actually negatively effect them.
I disagree. I think that the feelings associated with being offended count as a "negative experience."
The event itself isn't what is fundamentally causing those feelings though. Again, you are trying to take one thing in isolation which would not exist independent of many other inseparably connected things. The negative feelings in this case are caused by particular social rules that they have been taught, which are by no means universal. I think we are in agreement that those social rules themselves are unethical. It makes no sense to judge one specific action as ethical or not based on its conformity to an unethical baseline.
First and foremost, ethics are about making decisions, and I see no reason why the ethics of each decision should not be computed independently. When should we tie the ethics of one decision to the ethics of another? I see nothing in your proposed ethical system that accounts for this.
Because the events are in the real world connected to each other. They don't happen in isolation, so why would we even consider judging them that way. In your example, the rape would not have happened without the pillaging. The loss of her family that supposedly tilted the scales of utility was part of a single continuous event. The same people made all of the decisions. Trying to compute things independently which are in reality dependent is just another version of the people on the trolley tracks argument, using examples disconnected from how the real world works, to try to show a logical flaw that isn't there.
Your system does account for the ethics of the decision of getting a smog system installed on your car--the positive experience of less smog in the air outweighs the negative experience of getting the system installed.
The impact of any one car being smogged has next to no effect on air quality. It is only in aggregate that there is any significant difference.
Sure, you can say that the overall decision of the barbarians to pillage the farm was ethically wrong under your system, and I agree. But that wasn't my point.
I'm not saying that the barbarians were justified in pillaging the farm and murdering the family. Under your system, there is no question that the decisions to commit these acts were ethically wrong. But when isolated as a single decision, committing the rape could be seen to bring more positive experience into the world than not committing the rape. Do you disagree?
Again, like in the first example, this is attempting to justify the ethics of a "single decision" which is intrinsically part of a larger set of decisions, using an already admittedly unethical baseline as the framework in which to judge that decision.
This makes no sense. Even from a strictly logical standpoint, it makes no sense. Take something objective like physics, you can't treat a single event as independent if it is in reality tied to other things. You will never be able to land a person on the mars if you assume that the only variable is the spin of the Earth, and so ensure you'll make it during Earth's early evening. It is also moving. And they are both moving around the sun, at different rates. It is all one single system, where every part affects all the other parts.
Sure, it would be nice if we could pretend everything is separate, because it would make things easier, but then we come to wrong conclusions.
Look, all I'm trying to say here is that the doctrine of utilitarianism promotes distasteful decision making under many circumstances.
People's taste varies. That is inherent in the meaning of the word. In all of you examples, some person found the situation in question entirely tasteful, while someone else found it distasteful. Yet you keep speaking of "distasteful" like it were some objective, factual quality. Anytime there is moral disagreement - and there are relatively few things on which there is none - then people are disagreeing on what constitutes "distasteful".
That's the problem with resorting to feelings - then (to the patrons) the Black man walking into the place really was unethical, while (to the Barbarians) the rape - and the entire murder and pillaging - was entirely ethical. To the student the cheating was ethical, but to the classmates it was unethical. If any one event can have infinite meanings based on who is looking at it, then why even have a concept of "ethical" in the first place? Just do what you feel, and leave it at that, but nothing is ever good or bad, and the very concept of "ethically justifiable" is simply meaningless.
I just chose to use rape as a provocative example to illustrate my point. Personally, I am disgusted by any system that claims that something so obviously distasteful to my sensibilities is ethically correct, and I would much rather follow my heart.
Exactly why I reject your system. The Barbarians followed their hearts - their victims were not of their own tribe, they were other's, outsider, likely deserving of their fate for their societies past slights; even the bible says that the rules of ethics change when you are dealing with outsiders: "Both your male and female slaves, whom you shall have, shall be of the nations that are round about you" Leviticus 25:44
"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife" Deuteronomy 21:10
You seem to be assuming that your own personal sensibilities are universal. They aren't. Under your system, the things you find distasteful are most assuredly ethical.
The only way to avoid this is to have a single objective reference point, that doesn't change depending on any particular person's feelings or beliefs or assumptions.
I think you actually agree with me on this point about utilitarianism leading to distasteful solutions. You admitted earlier that you would side with VIKI and choose the distasteful utilitarian solution to world peace. One of the main reasons that I prefer the doctrine of ethical egoism over utilitarianism is because by definition, ethical egoism means that you always choose the least distasteful course of action when making a decision.
Well, I was using your words for the sake of communication. I didn't mean to say I agreed on what I found to be the least distasteful option.
I've actually never seen or read I Robot, but if I can guess the scenario correctly, I would actually say I feel it is overwhelmingly more "distasteful" to have millions of people suffer and die rather than kill one individual. Sort of like the classic time travel thought experiment - obviously in the more immediate sense it will feel more distasteful to have to be the one to stab infant Hitler in his cute little baby chest, but that is only because you personally aren't faced with watching each Jew, homosexual, and allied soldier die one by one. Looking at the big picture, I definitely feel it is more distasteful to NOT kill the baby.
When we watched Buffy, me and my wife were both passionately in agreement: Dawn is the key. The sacrifice of the key is the only thing that will stop the entire world from turning into literal hell. Push Dawn into the f-ing portal already. But no, that's too distasteful for Buffy - her feelings tell her she can't possibly kill her own sister. Well, if everyone in the entire world dies a slow tortuous death, that is going to INCLUDE Dawn as well, so you aren't saving her, you aren't protecting her, you are just delaying her death a few hours, yet you could save literally everyone else in the world.
And, maybe most important, how could you possibly have been sure that the events in (4) wouldn't have happened? You can't. So that possibility has to be taken into account.
This is why in the blog post I said the answers weren't always easy - because we can't predict the outcome in advance, we sometimes have to guess at what the overall impacts will be, and take statistics into account in deciding the best course of action. How do you conclusively add up the tiny impact the whole thing has on all the future students who take the class, both those who hear about it and those who merely attend class with an instructor who was aware of it?
So you admit that your system fails
No, I didn't say it "fails".
The real world is complicated. We can't predict the weather, or the stock market, or earthquakes or many other complex systems with absolute certainty. That doesn't mean that our models of how these things work are wrong, or "failures". It just means reality is complex, and as individuals we can't always know every related variable. Pretending that there is some alternate system that can make 100% accurate conclusions 100% of the time is simply false and dishonest, whether we are talking a snake oil earthquake predictor, a sure fire guaranteed way to beat the stock market average with no risk, or a way to always know what is the "right" answer in ethical questions.
The easy answers are appealing, but they are often going to be wrong.
All I'm trying to say here is that your system fails to produce a simple answer for a basic ethical question such as "should I cheat on this test?"
Well, yes, this is true. Because there aren't "simple" answers. Would you take a ride to Mars on a rocket trajectory designed by NASA scientists whose goal was a "simple" answer?
When we are making decisions on the fly we simply do not have time to guess at what the overall impacts will be for all probable outcomes and take statistics into account in deciding the best course of action.
True. Sometimes we don't have the time or luxury. Sometimes we are blinded by personal factors that lead us to rationalize a decision we want to take which upon deeper analysis might be wrong.
We can see this all the time in non-ethical questions, like financial decisions, or phobias, or concern of social standing. See Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, or Malcom Gladwell's Blink, or David McCrany's "You Are Not So Smart".
Sometimes it is unavoidable, because of time, but sometimes we just don't take the time to look deeper than our gut reactions because we don't know any better, or because of laziness, or because we want to hold on to some core beliefs or value taught to us at a young age.
Hence the racists who believe it is unethical for Black patrons to eat near them. They are using your system of ethics - going on their own strongly held feelings. Even though they have plenty of time to.
That's not how humans think
For the most part, sure. But
A) we are capable of reasoning, whether or not we choose to use it, and
B) the fact that people do something by default hardly makes it more likely to be ethical.
This whole conversation would probably be better suited to the comments there, we have gone quite off topic!
We need to find a good segue to tie it in with the morality of finances and giving and accumulating...
I think this discussion is absolutely relevant to the overall conversation about altruism, because in order to agree that there is an objective ethical imperative to altruism then we must first agree on a system of objective ethics.
Excellent point! :)
-
I should never reply right away - I always come up with better examples on my way to work :P
First lets take a question which is not ethical in nature:
"Is it good for me to eat (__fill in the blank___) ?"
Suppose you pose this question to a nutritionist.
They will most likely ask you a whole lot of questions: how old are you, what is your current weight and bodyfat percentage, what is your activity level, and how much protein and fiber and saturated and unsaturated fats do you eat each day? What are your weight loss or athletic goals? What is your daily calorie intake? What food allergies do you have?
And you come back with "I just want a simple answer: is this good for me or not?"
Well, we understand that you want a simple answer. But, since biology is incredibly complex, you aren't going to get accurate answers if you insist they be easy.
The fact that the nutritionist can not give you a "simple" answer, but instead needs to consider and evaluate many things, in no way invalidates nutrition science.
And obviously what the vast majority of people will do, the vast majority of the time, is just go on their feeling - those feelings in turn being based on a combination of instincts that tie certain smells to huger and appetite, and an ingrained memory of what they ate during childhood.
The majority of the time, those two methods - reason and emotion - will come to similar results: both will tell you not to drink bleach or eat asphalt. Both will tell you to eat fruits.
But the fact that most people never consult a nutritionist, and nobody does before every meal plan, also does not invalidate the accuracy of nutrition science.
Being "simple", and being in line with what most people do most of the time, were never the topic at hand.
Now lets apply the same to an ethical question:
Sticking a sharp needle into the arm of a young child.
This results in the child feeling sharp pain, which they don't expect and don't understand and haven't done anything to deserve.
If the person who does the stabbing is like most normal people, they are going to feel bad for causing this cute little kid to feel pain and start crying.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like by your reasoning this is an unethical act.
I say we have to take a step back and look at the entire picture. This is not an isolated independent event, so there is no reason to pretend it is.
So lets consider the vaccine in that needle...
Well, before vaccines, very few diseases had a more than 50% mortality rate. Which means more likely than not, the kid wasn't going to catch it anyway. But the consequences if they did would be much worse than the temporary pain of the shot. A 20% chance of a terrible painful death outweighs the 100% chance of a hurt arm.
Step back even further: disease transmission depends on a certain percentage of a population being susceptible. If enough people are vaccinated than any one person can forgo it and still not catch it, because there is no one to catch it from. But this kid IS one part of the population, so by vaccinating the child you are slightly decreasing the risk of every other person they ever interact with.
You want to disregard statistical analysis and probabilities, disregard the larger social context events occur in, disregard even the local immediate context surrounding the event itself, and go purely off of gut feelings.
So is it unethical to give a child a shot?
-
What can happen when we go with the easy route of emotion based ethics and avoiding "distasteful" actions vs considering the big picture impact and acting on reason:
http://www.popsci.com/can-classic-thought-experiment-explain-trumps-win
-
I disagree. I think that the feelings associated with being offended count as a "negative experience."
The event itself isn't what is fundamentally causing those feelings though. Again, you are trying to take one thing in isolation which would not exist independent of many other inseparably connected things. The negative feelings in this case are caused by particular social rules that they have been taught, which are by no means universal. I think we are in agreement that those social rules themselves are unethical. It makes no sense to judge one specific action as ethical or not based on its conformity to an unethical baseline.
Are you saying that any feelings that are "learned" are excluded from your ethical system? Or just feelings which were "learned" from something that is deemed unethical? I see no reason why this is necessary and think this greatly complicates your system. Negative feelings are negative feelings. Why should the source be important? Remember our conversation on evolution and how it relates to feelings.
First and foremost, ethics are about making decisions, and I see no reason why the ethics of each decision should not be computed independently. When should we tie the ethics of one decision to the ethics of another? I see nothing in your proposed ethical system that accounts for this.
Because the events are in the real world connected to each other. They don't happen in isolation, so why would we even consider judging them that way. In your example, the rape would not have happened without the pillaging. The loss of her family that supposedly tilted the scales of utility was part of a single continuous event. The same people made all of the decisions. Trying to compute things independently which are in reality dependent is just another version of the people on the trolley tracks argument, using examples disconnected from how the real world works, to try to show a logical flaw that isn't there.
...
Again, like in the first example, this is attempting to justify the ethics of a "single decision" which is intrinsically part of a larger set of decisions, using an already admittedly unethical baseline as the framework in which to judge that decision.
This makes no sense. Even from a strictly logical standpoint, it makes no sense. Take something objective like physics, you can't treat a single event as independent if it is in reality tied to other things. You will never be able to land a person on the mars if you assume that the only variable is the spin of the Earth, and so ensure you'll make it during Earth's early evening. It is also moving. And they are both moving around the sun, at different rates. It is all one single system, where every part affects all the other parts.
Sure, it would be nice if we could pretend everything is separate, because it would make things easier, but then we come to wrong conclusions.
I disagree, precisely because events in the real world are connected to each other. They are connected so much that you will become hopelessly entangled in a series of cause and effect if you try to bind multiple series of decisions together. Suppose that I commit some crime and end up in prison. Are all my decisions while I'm in jail now bound to the ethics of the decision that put me there? What if that decision was tied to some other decision which was tied to yet another decision, etc, etc? I can trace any decision I make back to the decision my parents made when they decided to have sex. How do you define what constitutes a single event? What if the event contains multiple decisions made independently from multiple people? Do the ethics of other people's decisions affect the ethics of my decisions?
I do not believe it is possible to come up with a consistent way to bind multiple decisions together into an event, nor do I see any reason why each decision shouldn't be considered separately. Under your system, considering decisions separately does not absolve anyone of unethical behavior. Letting the barbarians off the hook for the rape does not let them off the hook for their other decisions. They are still guilty of unethical behavior--just not for the rape.
Your system does account for the ethics of the decision of getting a smog system installed on your car--the positive experience of less smog in the air outweighs the negative experience of getting the system installed.
The impact of any one car being smogged has next to no effect on air quality. It is only in aggregate that there is any significant difference.
I still don't see how this changes anything. Under your system, if you take all the small positives of less smog from your car alone and add them up for every person in the city, then it should in theory be greater than the negative of your work on the car. Otherwise it could not be considered ethical under your system, since the negatives would still outweigh the positives even once all the smog and all the cars were taken into account.
Exactly why I reject your system. The Barbarians followed their hearts - their victims were not of their own tribe, they were other's, outsider, likely deserving of their fate for their societies past slights; even the bible says that the rules of ethics change when you are dealing with outsiders: "Both your male and female slaves, whom you shall have, shall be of the nations that are round about you" Leviticus 25:44
"When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife" Deuteronomy 21:10
You seem to be assuming that your own personal sensibilities are universal. They aren't. Under your system, the things you find distasteful are most assuredly ethical.
The only way to avoid this is to have a single objective reference point, that doesn't change depending on any particular person's feelings or beliefs or assumptions.
I make no assumption that my personal sensibilities are universal, nor am I proposing an objective system of universal ethics. I make decisions from the basis of my point of view, such that I can achieve the outcome which in my opinion is the least distasteful. If I was someone else, I would make different choices. I acknowledge and accept the reality that other people may make choices that are different from my own.
I should never reply right away - I always come up with better examples on my way to work :P
First lets take a question which is not ethical in nature:
"Is it good for me to eat (__fill in the blank___) ?"
Suppose you pose this question to a nutritionist.
They will most likely ask you a whole lot of questions: how old are you, what is your current weight and bodyfat percentage, what is your activity level, and how much protein and fiber and saturated and unsaturated fats do you eat each day? What are your weight loss or athletic goals? What is your daily calorie intake? What food allergies do you have?
And you come back with "I just want a simple answer: is this good for me or not?"
Well, we understand that you want a simple answer. But, since biology is incredibly complex, you aren't going to get accurate answers if you insist they be easy.
The fact that the nutritionist can not give you a "simple" answer, but instead needs to consider and evaluate many things, in no way invalidates nutrition science.
And obviously what the vast majority of people will do, the vast majority of the time, is just go on their feeling - those feelings in turn being based on a combination of instincts that tie certain smells to huger and appetite, and an ingrained memory of what they ate during childhood.
The majority of the time, those two methods - reason and emotion - will come to similar results: both will tell you not to drink bleach or eat asphalt. Both will tell you to eat fruits.
But the fact that most people never consult a nutritionist, and nobody does before every meal plan, also does not invalidate the accuracy of nutrition science.
Being "simple", and being in line with what most people do most of the time, were never the topic at hand.
I think the difference between our two systems is that for your system, you cannot know the ethics of a choice unless you commit to doing all of this research. So if you make decisions without doing your research, you have no idea whether they are truly right or wrong. In fact, I'd say that under your system you will never truly know the ethics of any choice without the power of omniscience. There are always implications of your choices that you will not realize. So in the end, you really have no choice but to make an educated guess about what's right and wrong, and you'll probably never know the true objective ethical result of anything.
My system does not suffer from these shortcomings because it does not demand that we attempt to compute the "objective" result of anything.
Now lets apply the same to an ethical question:
Sticking a sharp needle into the arm of a young child.
This results in the child feeling sharp pain, which they don't expect and don't understand and haven't done anything to deserve.
If the person who does the stabbing is like most normal people, they are going to feel bad for causing this cute little kid to feel pain and start crying.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like by your reasoning this is an unethical act.
I say we have to take a step back and look at the entire picture. This is not an isolated independent event, so there is no reason to pretend it is.
So lets consider the vaccine in that needle...
Well, before vaccines, very few diseases had a more than 50% mortality rate. Which means more likely than not, the kid wasn't going to catch it anyway. But the consequences if they did would be much worse than the temporary pain of the shot. A 20% chance of a terrible painful death outweighs the 100% chance of a hurt arm.
Step back even further: disease transmission depends on a certain percentage of a population being susceptible. If enough people are vaccinated than any one person can forgo it and still not catch it, because there is no one to catch it from. But this kid IS one part of the population, so by vaccinating the child you are slightly decreasing the risk of every other person they ever interact with.
You want to disregard statistical analysis and probabilities, disregard the larger social context events occur in, disregard even the local immediate context surrounding the event itself, and go purely off of gut feelings.
So is it unethical to give a child a shot?
Again, it depends on who's viewpoint you look at the event from. From the doctor's and parent's viewpoint, the shot is justified because the pros outweigh the cons. From the child's perspective, it's probably not justified if the child doesn't understand the pros. But there is no reason why the doctor and parent should defer to the child. They can justify their decision. They know that the child is wrong.
I'm not sure what you're getting at about isolating decisions or events in this example. Here, it seems that only one decision was made: the decision to vaccinate the child. We can reasonably compute the results of this decision because we know that getting the vaccination will protect the child as well as the general population. This is one decision considered independently of any other decision. I don't see how this equates to the scenario involving the barbarians--they made multiple decisions, not one.
People's taste varies. That is inherent in the meaning of the word. In all of you examples, some person found the situation in question entirely tasteful, while someone else found it distasteful. Yet you keep speaking of "distasteful" like it were some objective, factual quality. Anytime there is moral disagreement - and there are relatively few things on which there is none - then people are disagreeing on what constitutes "distasteful".
That's the problem with resorting to feelings - then (to the patrons) the Black man walking into the place really was unethical, while (to the Barbarians) the rape - and the entire murder and pillaging - was entirely ethical. To the student the cheating was ethical, but to the classmates it was unethical. If any one event can have infinite meanings based on who is looking at it, then why even have a concept of "ethical" in the first place? Just do what you feel, and leave it at that, but nothing is ever good or bad, and the very concept of "ethically justifiable" is simply meaningless.
Agreed, I don't think that ethics is a very good word to describe the decision making process that I am proposing. But that's what philosophers call it, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
Anyway, what you are saying is exactly what I am proposing: that there is no meaningful basis for objective ethics, that nothing is objectively good or bad, and that the concept of "objectively ethically justifiable" is simply meaningless.
-
I disagree. I think that the feelings associated with being offended count as a "negative experience."
The event itself isn't what is fundamentally causing those feelings though. Again, you are trying to take one thing in isolation which would not exist independent of many other inseparably connected things. The negative feelings in this case are caused by particular social rules that they have been taught, which are by no means universal. I think we are in agreement that those social rules themselves are unethical. It makes no sense to judge one specific action as ethical or not based on its conformity to an unethical baseline.
Are you saying that any feelings that are "learned" are excluded from your ethical system? Or just feelings which were "learned" from something that is deemed unethical?
No. I am saying that the specific event in question is not the real root "source" of the negative feelings. I'm saying that the events which led to "learning" those feelings is what ultimately created them, and therefore that is the event to judge when considering the negativeness of the feelings.
If the teaching of, in this case, racism, is causing overall negative effects, then that is the part that is unethical.
I see no reason why this is necessary and think this greatly complicates your system. Negative feelings are negative feelings. Why should the source be important?
The source has been the entire question all along. What we have been considering is whether a particular trigger of a negative feeling is ethical or not. That trigger is only relevant as a source of a feeling. So of course it matters if the real source is something different, in determining the ethics of that trigger!
Feelings don't occur in a vacuum. They are directly in response to thoughts, to interpretations of experiences and events. Successfully reframe an outlook to an experience, the feelings it generates can change.
Because the events are in the real world connected to each other. They don't happen in isolation, so why would we even consider judging them that way.
...
Sure, it would be nice if we could pretend everything is separate, because it would make things easier, but then we come to wrong conclusions.
I disagree, precisely because events in the real world are connected to each other. They are connected so much that you will become hopelessly entangled in a series of cause and effect if you try to bind multiple series of decisions together.
The fact that it is inconvenient or difficult doesn't imply that it is wrong. Physics and biology are mind-mindbogglingly complicated, and just about everything in them is connected to other things in a great web of interconnectvitiy. When one wants easy answers, they turn to religion and alternative medicine.
Suppose that I commit some crime and end up in prison. Are all my decisions while I'm in jail now bound to the ethics of the decision that put me there? What if that decision was tied to some other decision which was tied to yet another decision, etc, etc? I can trace any decision I make back to the decision my parents made when they decided to have sex. How do you define what constitutes a single event? What if the event contains multiple decisions made independently from multiple people? Do the ethics of other people's decisions affect the ethics of my decisions?
"tied to" doesn't always imply cause and effect. Different levels of relatedness have different degrees of effect. Some things are unpredictable by human actors. Lots of different answers to the various questions here. Ones which your (or any other) system also has to answer - you just do it quicker, with part of your subconscious, instead of stopping to think about it all.
In the pillaging example, it is pretty easy to determine the two events should be tied together, since both the rape and the conditions surrounding (her lack of family) it would not have existed if not for the pillaging. If one event could not have happened without another, and both were due to the decisions of the same actor, then they are clearly part of a single event. Otherwise, you would not be judging "cheating on a test", you would be judging "making a mark on a piece of paper", followed by "making a different mark on a piece of paper", as independent events to be judged.
Exactly why I reject your system. The Barbarians followed their hearts
I make no assumption that my personal sensibilities are universal, nor am I proposing an objective system of universal ethics. I make decisions from the basis of my point of view, such that I can achieve the outcome which in my opinion is the least distasteful. If I was someone else, I would make different choices. I acknowledge and accept the reality that other people may make choices that are different from my own.
This seems to contradict what you said in the message before:
Personally, I am disgusted by any system that claims that something so obviously distasteful to my sensibilities is ethically correct
Your system says that (from some points of view) the racism and rape, and the pillaging and murder too, were all ethically correct.
I say that they were not, and that whose point of view you look from is irrelevant. They were always unethical.
Being "simple", and being in line with what most people do most of the time, were never the topic at hand.
I think the difference between our two systems is that for your system, you cannot know the ethics of a choice unless you commit to doing all of this research. So if you make decisions without doing your research, you have no idea whether they are truly right or wrong. In fact, I'd say that under your system you will never truly know the ethics of any choice without the power of omniscience. There are always implications of your choices that you will not realize. So in the end, you really have no choice but to make an educated guess about what's right and wrong, and you'll probably never know the true objective ethical result of anything.
True.
My system does not suffer from these shortcomings because it does not demand that we attempt to compute the "objective" result of anything.
I don't see how that's a shortcoming. It is a reflection of how complex the real world is. And all of those things remain true, regardless of your system of evaluating ethics. The real world remains just as complex even if you choose to ignore it. And what happens when you learn after the fact that a decision you made had unexpectedly bad consequences, and now you feel guilty? Does that guilt mean your past choice had been unethical all along? What if there was no way you could have predicted the outcome, but you feel guilty anyway? What if it was entirely predictable, yet you choose to ignore the likelyhood of a bad outcome, and didn't feel bad about it at the time, was the decision ever ethical?
Sticking a sharp needle into the arm of a young child.
This results in the child feeling sharp pain, which they don't expect and don't understand and haven't done anything to deserve.
If the person who does the stabbing is like most normal people, they are going to feel bad for causing this cute little kid to feel pain and start crying.
Again, it depends on who's viewpoint you look at the event from. From the doctor's and parent's viewpoint, the shot is justified because the pros outweigh the cons.
What do you mean "justified"? That wasn't the question. The feelings that the event causes inside the doctor and/or parent are negative feelings: sympathy and guilt, triggered by the child's crying, triggered by the metal in the arm.
You said we are going purely on feelings, and ignoring thoughts and reason and knowledge of big pictures. You said also to isolate every decision and ignore context.
So we can't take into consideration that intellectually they know the long term potential benefits of vaccination. We also can't take into consideration the past decision to order vaccine, or to put said vaccine in the fridge, properly labeled, or to draw the vaccine into the syringe. If you consider every event tied to the shot, you would have to track down the manufacturer of the syringe and look into their business practices
and see if the ingredients in the vaccine were ethically harvested, right?
Since that would be much to complicated, all we are looking at is this one single event: stabbing a child with a piece of metal.
From the child's perspective, it's probably not justified if the child doesn't understand the pros. But there is no reason why the doctor and parent should defer to the child. They can justify their decision. They know that the child is wrong.
And the child "know's" they are wrong! Or are you saying that actually suggesting that "if you make decisions without doing your research, you have no idea whether they are truly right or wrong" - that because the adults HAVE done their research, while the child has not, the adults are in a better place to judge the likelihood of the event being right or wrong?
It sounds like that is what you are implying, without spelling it out, and I agree with you.
I'm not sure what you're getting at about isolating decisions or events in this example. Here, it seems that only one decision was made: the decision to vaccinate the child. We can reasonably compute the results of this decision because we know that getting the vaccination will protect the child as well as the general population. This is one decision considered independently of any other decision. I don't see how this equates to the scenario involving the barbarians--they made multiple decisions, not one.
That is false, though. If almost everyone in a population is vaccinated, than any one person being vaccinated doesn't matter to herd vaccination. Herd immunity only requires 80-90% of the population to be immunized (depending on transmissability). That means if the population has a 95% vaccination rate, then it truly doesn't matter if any one person gets vaccinated. You want to look at a single event in isolation. So we are looking at that one person. Since everyone else already is (or will be), then this event will not effect herd immunity, and the child is extremely unlikely to catch it themselves. In order to factor in the possibility that every other doctor and parent in the society might also make that same decision - well, you have to consider other decisions. You can't have it both ways.
(Well, I guess you can do whatever you want, if you don't mind being inconsistent)
Agreed, I don't think that ethics is a very good word to describe the decision making process that I am proposing. But that's what philosophers call it, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)
This is not the same thing as you have been arguing for in this conversation. Ethical egoism says you "OUGHT" to do what is in your own best interest. That is making an absolute statement. It says that acting in one's own best interests in "right", is "ethical", and that self-sacrifice is always UNethical.
What you have been describing sounds a lot more like Subjective Relativism, or maybe even David Hume's moral philosophy.
-
No. I am saying that the specific event in question is not the real root "source" of the negative feelings. I'm saying that the events which led to "learning" those feelings is what ultimately created them, and therefore that is the event to judge when considering the negativeness of the feelings.
If the teaching of, in this case, racism, is causing overall negative effects, then that is the part that is unethical.
Ok, I agree that under your system racism would be considered unethical. But I still think provoking racists would be unethical under your system, assuming that no good comes out of said provocation. I don't see any reason why both of these can't be true.
The source has been the entire question all along. What we have been considering is whether a particular trigger of a negative feeling is ethical or not. That trigger is only relevant as a source of a feeling. So of course it matters if the real source is something different, in determining the ethics of that trigger!
Feelings don't occur in a vacuum. They are directly in response to thoughts, to interpretations of experiences and events. Successfully reframe an outlook to an experience, the feelings it generates can change.
My main focus has been on decisions, not triggers. We can agree that racism is unethical and that it is in part responsible for the racist's feelings but this is not really related to the actual decision which was made to provoke the racist.
Suppose that I commit some crime and end up in prison. Are all my decisions while I'm in jail now bound to the ethics of the decision that put me there? What if that decision was tied to some other decision which was tied to yet another decision, etc, etc? I can trace any decision I make back to the decision my parents made when they decided to have sex. How do you define what constitutes a single event? What if the event contains multiple decisions made independently from multiple people? Do the ethics of other people's decisions affect the ethics of my decisions?
"tied to" doesn't always imply cause and effect. Different levels of relatedness have different degrees of effect. Some things are unpredictable by human actors. Lots of different answers to the various questions here. Ones which your (or any other) system also has to answer - you just do it quicker, with part of your subconscious, instead of stopping to think about it all.
In the pillaging example, it is pretty easy to determine the two events should be tied together, since both the rape and the conditions surrounding (her lack of family) it would not have existed if not for the pillaging. If one event could not have happened without another, and both were due to the decisions of the same actor, then they are clearly part of a single event. Otherwise, you would not be judging "cheating on a test", you would be judging "making a mark on a piece of paper", followed by "making a different mark on a piece of paper", as independent events to be judged.
...
What do you mean "justified"? That wasn't the question. The feelings that the event causes inside the doctor and/or parent are negative feelings: sympathy and guilt, triggered by the child's crying, triggered by the metal in the arm.
You said we are going purely on feelings, and ignoring thoughts and reason and knowledge of big pictures. You said also to isolate every decision and ignore context.
So we can't take into consideration that intellectually they know the long term potential benefits of vaccination. We also can't take into consideration the past decision to order vaccine, or to put said vaccine in the fridge, properly labeled, or to draw the vaccine into the syringe. If you consider every event tied to the shot, you would have to track down the manufacturer of the syringe and look into their business practices
and see if the ingredients in the vaccine were ethically harvested, right?
Since that would be much to complicated, all we are looking at is this one single event: stabbing a child with a piece of metal.
I think you are building an unnecessary framework here. Sure we can judge individual decisions such as the decision to make a mark on a piece of paper, and the results may come out however they may come out. But those were not the answers we were looking for in the first place. The question we want to answer is "is it ok to cheat on this test?" The ethics of all these different decisions do not need to be aligned. For example, a soldier may need to make a decision to hurt someone that may be considered unethical as a single event. Although that decision can be unethical under your system, the soldier may be carrying out an overarching decision that is still considered ethical.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the ethics of an overarching decision do not determine the ethics of its "sub-decisions." Why bother worrying about this? You can still always get the answer for the main decision, as well as the sub-decisions if you are so inclined. The ethics of a decision do not invalidate the ethics of a sub-decision, and vice-versa. Can you explain what you are trying to say about the ethics of decisions and sub-decisions?
Exactly why I reject your system. The Barbarians followed their hearts
I make no assumption that my personal sensibilities are universal, nor am I proposing an objective system of universal ethics. I make decisions from the basis of my point of view, such that I can achieve the outcome which in my opinion is the least distasteful. If I was someone else, I would make different choices. I acknowledge and accept the reality that other people may make choices that are different from my own.
This seems to contradict what you said in the message before:
Personally, I am disgusted by any system that claims that something so obviously distasteful to my sensibilities is ethically correct
Your system says that (from some points of view) the racism and rape, and the pillaging and murder too, were all ethically correct.
I say that they were not, and that whose point of view you look from is irrelevant. They were always unethical.
I don't think I am making a contradiction. When you have multiple actors working in their own interests, conflict is a natural result. So if someone imposes their system of ethics on me that I don't agree with, I may have a negative reaction. I can accept that the enemy is justified from their point of view but still go to war with them on the basis of my point of view. A war isn't worth fighting if one side thinks they are wrong.
I don't see how that's a shortcoming. It is a reflection of how complex the real world is. And all of those things remain true, regardless of your system of evaluating ethics. The real world remains just as complex even if you choose to ignore it. And what happens when you learn after the fact that a decision you made had unexpectedly bad consequences, and now you feel guilty? Does that guilt mean your past choice had been unethical all along? What if there was no way you could have predicted the outcome, but you feel guilty anyway? What if it was entirely predictable, yet you choose to ignore the likelyhood of a bad outcome, and didn't feel bad about it at the time, was the decision ever ethical?
Under my system, I would just reassure myself that I made the decision that seemed right at the time and move on. Lessons learned, I guess. The same holds true under your system. Remember, my system is not based on anything objective like overall benefit to the self or others. It's just based on the perceived pros and cons of decisions at the time they are made. If my decision results in a complete clusterfuck, it doesn't change my feelings at the time I made the decision.
And the child "know's" they are wrong! Or are you saying that actually suggesting that "if you make decisions without doing your research, you have no idea whether they are truly right or wrong" - that because the adults HAVE done their research, while the child has not, the adults are in a better place to judge the likelihood of the event being right or wrong?
It sounds like that is what you are implying, without spelling it out, and I agree with you.
What I'm saying is that under my system, the adults believe that they are justified in their decision to vaccinate the child and can use that sense of justification to make some hard sub-decisions in order to achieve their overall objective.
That is false, though. If almost everyone in a population is vaccinated, than any one person being vaccinated doesn't matter to herd vaccination. Herd immunity only requires 80-90% of the population to be immunized (depending on transmissability). That means if the population has a 95% vaccination rate, then it truly doesn't matter if any one person gets vaccinated. You want to look at a single event in isolation. So we are looking at that one person. Since everyone else already is (or will be), then this event will not effect herd immunity, and the child is extremely unlikely to catch it themselves. In order to factor in the possibility that every other doctor and parent in the society might also make that same decision - well, you have to consider other decisions. You can't have it both ways.
(Well, I guess you can do whatever you want, if you don't mind being inconsistent)
Sounds like this is more of a problem for your system, not mine. My doctors and parents only need a sense of justification to tip their ethical scales and carry out these hard decisions, which allows them to carry out these decisions in isolation. But in my opinion your system still works--you can just say that it's ethical to vaccinate a population and let the ethics of individual vaccinations remain murky. You already answered the important question about the ethics of vaccinating the overall population.
This is not the same thing as you have been arguing for in this conversation. Ethical egoism says you "OUGHT" to do what is in your own best interest. That is making an absolute statement. It says that acting in one's own best interests in "right", is "ethical", and that self-sacrifice is always UNethical.
What you have been describing sounds a lot more like Subjective Relativism, or maybe even David Hume's moral philosophy.
I think your confusion stems from if you take the meaning of "best interest" to be from an outside perspective. But I believe that our feelings and desires can only be understood subjectively, and they are the only thing that determines what someone's "best interest" is. Take away all feelings and desires and you will no longer have any objectives. Without any objectives, all decisions become meaningless. Again, refer back to this podcast (https://youarenotsosmart.com/2014/09/15/yanss-podcast-032-willpower-is-a-battery-that-must-be-recharged/) for more on this point.
I still think what I'm describing is a form of ethical egoism. I define the objectives of my feelings as what is in my interest and make all of my decisions based on how the predicted results align with these objectives. It could even be in my own interest to sacrifice myself for others, because I could have very strong feelings about self-sacrifice. So I am saying that I ought to do what is in my best interest.
-
So I am saying that I ought to do what is in my best interest.
I think you will do what you think is best, always.
I don't think it follows that you ought to do what you think is best, always. Sometimes there are other things you ought to do, even if you end up not because you don't think that is best.
Ethical egoism argues that ethically, everything is best when we all act in our own selfish interests, thus we ought to act that way.
I do think we only act in the way we think is best. And, as a hardcore determinist, I think that we have no choice to act otherwise. But I think that if we could, or did, act otherwise, it would be better. I don't agree that because we act in self-interest, that's the best way to act.
-
So I am saying that I ought to do what is in my best interest.
I think you will do what you think is best, always.
I don't think it follows that you ought to do what you think is best, always. Sometimes there are other things you ought to do, even if you end up not because you don't think that is best.
Ethical egoism argues that ethically, everything is best when we all act in our own selfish interests, thus we ought to act that way.
I do think we only act in the way we think is best. And, as a hardcore determinist, I think that we have no choice to act otherwise. But I think that if we could, or did, act otherwise, it would be better. I don't agree that because we act in self-interest, that's the best way to act.
Very good point. I agree with you in that I believe that as individuals who are only capable of acting on based our subjective experiences, we must always do what we feel is "best." To do otherwise would imply the absence of a free will, insanity, or both.
Obviously, this deterministic interpretation of free will comes into conflict with any system of objective ethics. It puts you in a rather unfortunate position if you believe in determinism and objective ethics--the implication is that if humans are only capable of deterministic decision making based on subjective feelings, we are fundamentally incapable of true objectively ethical decision making. In other words, we are not and cannot become objectively ethical beings--we can only imitate objective ethics by cultivating a strong desire to behave ethically.
But here is where we differ, I believe. If it doesn't follow that you ought to do what you think is best, then you must come up with some objective way to measure what is best--in other words, objective ethics. But I cannot bring myself to believe in any objective system of ethics because I can't find any way to choose which system of objective ethics I should follow. Bakari's brand of utilitarianism might say that a decision can bring an objective amount of "good experience" into the world, but I see no reason why X amount of "good experience" is objectively more meaningful than X amount of "bad experience" or X amount of hydrogen atoms. I see no alternative but to value nothing beyond my own subjective experience, since that is all I am capable of experiencing, and I cannot conceive of a "correct" objective value system.
I mean, you can come up with all sorts of objective ethical systems. For example, you could objectively try to increase objective happiness in the universe, or the objective amount of desires that are fulfilled, or the objective amount of snails in the pond behind your uncle's house. You could objectively choose to do nothing. You could objectively follow your god's commandments, or your king's commandments, or whatever you believe that your dog objectively wants you to do.
I guess I just don't see the point of any of it. Why should one system of objective ethics be more meaningful than any other? If you pick one of them as your favorite, you are still behaving according to your own subjective feelings. You can never escape this pattern of behavior and I feel like only a masochist would try to aspire to be something that he is not and can never become, assuming that he could figure out what he is supposed to become in the first place.
So I just throw the whole notion of objective ethics out the window, and claim that it is ethical for me to be what I am. In other words, I make decisions according to the way that humans objectively make decisions, and take this system to be my ethical system. This way, I don't have to aspire to be something that I am not. I can just be what I am. Perhaps my ethical claims hold no more weight than saying it is ethical for gravity to make things fall because, objectively, gravity makes things fall. Maybe it is more accurate to say that I do not believe in ethics at all; I simply believe in reality.
-
So I just throw the whole notion of objective ethics out the window, and claim that it is ethical for me to be what I am.
Here's where you lost me.
If the second half of the sentence said "and ethics is a meaningless term," sure.
But to claim that it's ethical to be what you are doesn't make sense if you're throwing it out the window, it more fits with a definition of ethics not existing, and thus being a meaningless term.
But "I don't buy into ethics therefore what I do is ethical" is nonsense, to me. Or I'm just not understanding you, at least.
-
So I just throw the whole notion of objective ethics out the window, and claim that it is ethical for me to be what I am.
Here's where you lost me.
If the second half of the sentence said "and ethics is a meaningless term," sure.
But to claim that it's ethical to be what you are doesn't make sense if you're throwing it out the window, it more fits with a definition of ethics not existing, and thus being a meaningless term.
But "I don't buy into ethics therefore what I do is ethical" is nonsense, to me. Or I'm just not understanding you, at least.
Read the rest of that paragraph, that's basically what I say:
Perhaps my ethical claims hold no more weight than saying it is ethical for gravity to make things fall because, objectively, gravity makes things fall. Maybe it is more accurate to say that I do not believe in ethics at all; I simply believe in reality.
I think whether this boils down to nonsense depends on how you define ethics, and whether you believe that there is a relationship between existence and justification. I define ethics as the logical system I use to justify the decisions that I make. So I am saying that I have defined a logical system that explains why it is necessary that I make decisions in the way I do--and in my opinion, what is necessary is justified by nothing more than its own existence. Imagine that I am a rock falling out of the sky. That I am falling is necessary due to gravity, so in my opinion it is also justified. I do what I do because of my feelings. This is necessary due to my understanding of how the human mind works. Therefore, in my opinion it is justified.
-
Justified doesn't mean ethical.
Anyone can justify anything.
Again, it seems odd to call it "ethical" simply because it is the way it is, or because you can justify it.
To continue with your gravity example, I wouldn't say: "Look, I dropped the pen and it fell because of gravity. That sure was ethical of that pen! It did the right thing!"
Saying ethical in that sentence is nonsense.
You seem to be arguing that ethics is nonsense, which is a justifiable position, but then conflating it by saying that what you do is ethical, rather than just what you do.
-
I think you are building an unnecessary framework here. Sure we can judge individual decisions such as the decision to make a mark on a piece of paper, and the results may come out however they may come out. But those were not the answers we were looking for in the first place. The question we want to answer is "is it ok to cheat on this test?"...
Basically, what I'm saying is that the ethics of an overarching decision do not determine the ethics of its "sub-decisions." Why bother worrying about this? You can still always get the answer for the main decision, as well as the sub-decisions if you are so inclined. The ethics of a decision do not invalidate the ethics of a sub-decision, and vice-versa. Can you explain what you are trying to say about the ethics of decisions and sub-decisions?
If the ethics involved in moving a pencil against paper, and of taking steps to get a particular grade in a class, are completely unrelated to the ethics of cheating on the test, then why is "is it ok to cheat on the test?" the question? One is a sub-decision of the other, one a level up, one a level down. Either you can take all factors of a complex system into account, and judge it as one continuous unit, or you can sub-divide into every individual decision and judge that, in which case the question is "is it ethical to hold a pencil?" and "is it ethical to move your hand?", as well as "is it ethical to open a door?" and "is it ethical to walk through an opened door?". The level you are choosing to isolate is arbitrary.
I don't think I am making a contradiction. When you have multiple actors working in their own interests, conflict is a natural result. ... I can accept that the enemy is justified from their point of view but still go to war with them on the basis of my point of view.
Of course! But "interests" isn't the same as "ethics"
And the child "know's" they are wrong! Or are you saying that actually suggesting that "if you make decisions without doing your research, you have no idea whether they are truly right or wrong" - that because the adults HAVE done their research, while the child has not, the adults are in a better place to judge the likelihood of the event being right or wrong?
It sounds like that is what you are implying, without spelling it out, and I agree with you.
What I'm saying is that under my system, the adults believe that they are justified in their decision to vaccinate the child and can use that sense of justification to make some hard sub-decisions in order to achieve their overall objective...My doctors and parents only need a sense of justification to tip their ethical scales and carry out these hard decisions
AH!
Yes, well, now we are getting somewhere. So it isn't just about immediate feelings that occur in a vacuum. That "sense of justification" is dependent on knowledge and reasoning. It is dependent on (objective) scientific research. The adults used all the steps of utilitarianism, to the best of their ability, to come up with what they believe to be the right answer.
Yes, granted, this is ultimately a "belief", and, granted, that belief will be coupled with a "feeling" of "doing the right thing".
I say that part is irrelevant, you say that is what makes it justified. Whatever. My point is they would come to a different conclusion and make different decisions if they had done anything other than use a logical utilitarian approach to deciding what to believe, and therefore, ultimately deciding what to feel!
That is what I am arguing for. Using "good experience" as a base, and trying (to the limits of human ability), to maximize it, and using that as a guide for what to do. Or as a guide for how to feel, and then act on those feelings, in the end that is the same thing.
Ethical egoism says you "OUGHT" to do what is in your own best interest. ... It says that acting in one's own best interests in "right", is "ethical", and that self-sacrifice is always UNethical.
What you have been describing sounds a lot more like Subjective Relativism, or maybe even David Hume's moral philosophy.
I think your confusion stems from if you take the meaning of "best interest" to be from an outside perspective. But I believe that our feelings and desires can only be understood subjectively, and they are the only thing that determines what someone's "best interest" is. Take away all feelings and desires and you will no longer have any objectives.
Ok, granted. If you define "interest" as "whatever makes you feel best overall in the moment (even if what makes you feel best is contrary to your own short or long term physical and emotional well-being)" then this is inevitable, and the consequences of such will always be self-consistent.
I still think what I'm describing is a form of ethical egoism. I define the objectives of my feelings as what is in my interest
This is not the definition the Ethical Egoism actually proposes for "self-interest". It says specifically and overtly that altruism is unethical. There is no allowance for if you felt good because of it.
and "Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self." which is in conflict with your statement " I would just reassure myself that I made the decision that seemed right at the time and move on. Lessons learned, I guess." - ethical egoism says that the decision was actually wrong all along if it ends up doing you more harm than good.
and make all of my decisions based on how the predicted results align with these objectives. It could even be in my own interest to sacrifice myself for others, because I could have very strong feelings about self-sacrifice. So I am saying that I ought to do what is in my best interest.
Arguments under ethical egoism include "To give charity to someone is to degrade him".
This actually seems to be one of the primary focuses of its proponents (see Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness")
More over, under your definitions the term "altruism" is meaningless, because it simply isn't possible to do anything that you don't want (overall, all things considered) to do, (by definition, since you did it). The term "self-sacrifice" is meaningless, if "self" is defined as "your subjective feelings in the moment a decision is made".
But the very sentence "sacrifice myself for others" implies there is a "self-interest" that existsindependent of in-the-moment subjective emotional experience.
While your outlook may be a-moral (morally neutral), it at least isn't immoral (like Ethical Egoism)! I think the comparison is not only inaccurate, but makes your position seem worse than it really is!
-
I do think we only act in the way we think is best. And, as a hardcore determinist, I think that we have no choice to act otherwise. But I think that if we could, or did, act otherwise, it would be better.
Of course we have some control over what we think, and therefor it becomes possible to think otherwise, which in turn leads to acting otherwise, which in turn leads to better outcomes.
Hence the utility of threads like this - both the original one Sol posted, and the purely theoretical tangent we've taken recently
-
I do think we only act in the way we think is best. And, as a hardcore determinist, I think that we have no choice to act otherwise. But I think that if we could, or did, act otherwise, it would be better.
Of course we have some control over what we think, and therefor it becomes possible to think otherwise, which in turn leads to acting otherwise, which in turn leads to better outcomes.
I disagree.
Hence the utility of threads like this - both the original one Sol posted, and the purely theoretical tangent we've taken recently
There's still utility in them, because they do change our behavior--not by influencing a choice (of which there is none) but by being a causal determinant in the act we do.
-
Obviously, this deterministic interpretation of free will comes into conflict with any system of objective ethics. It puts you in a rather unfortunate position if you believe in determinism and objective ethics--the implication is that if humans are only capable of deterministic decision making based on subjective feelings, we are fundamentally incapable of true objectively ethical decision making. In other words, we are not and cannot become objectively ethical beings--we can only imitate objective ethics by cultivating a strong desire to behave ethically.
I would agree with that, but I don't see the conflict. "Unfortunate" doesn't mean "untrue".
We can only do the best we can. We don't need to come up with a framework to rationalize our mistakes, we can just try to make the best decisions we can. If we don't have a fallback way to rationalize mistakes, we might just try a little harder to get as close as we are capable of to the right answers the first time.
If it doesn't follow that you ought to do what you think is best, then you must come up with some objective way to measure what is best--in other words, objective ethics.
That's true either way! How do you decide what you think is best? It isn't just something that spontaneously happens, the way you just are born liking the flavor of something or not. Hell, even taste can be acquired. You can choose to not have any responsibility, and adopt a pre-made set of rules like a religion, or you can make a point of never learning or thinking about anything and just do the first thing that pops into your head. Even those things are choices you make (even if unconsciously), and ones you could change. Everyone is coming up with some way to decide what is best, and the system they come up with is a guide for how they feel about individual decisions.
But I cannot bring myself to believe in any objective system of ethics because I can't find any way to choose which system of objective ethics I should follow. Bakari's brand of utilitarianism might say that a decision can bring an objective amount of "good experience" into the world, but I see no reason why X amount of "good experience" is objectively more meaningful than X amount of "bad experience" or X amount of hydrogen atoms.
For the same reason you put value on your own subjective experience. How do you know that what makes you feel good? Why do you value feeling good? You are putting an objective value on a subjective feeling (your own). All I'm saying is that since we know each other all have similar objective feelings, and we have no way to objectively say oneself is any more (or less!) valuable than any other individual, then everyone else's subjective experience has value too.
So I just throw the whole notion of objective ethics out the window, and claim that it is ethical for me to be what I am. In other words, I make decisions according to the way that humans objectively make decisions,
The way humans make decisions includes "choosing a favorite" system of morals and/or ethics to follow.
Maybe it is more accurate to say that I do not believe in ethics at all; I simply believe in reality.
I think it is. I've said that before in this conversation.
-
So I just throw the whole notion of objective ethics out the window, and claim that it is ethical for me to be what I am. In other words, I make decisions according to the way that humans objectively make decisions,
The way humans make decisions includes "choosing a favorite" system of morals and/or ethics to follow.
But you don't choose a favorite. Just like you don't choose anything that you like.
If you like chocolate or vanilla or strawberry ice cream better, at what point did you "choose" to like that one better than the others?
If you are sexually attracted to X, or Y, at what point did you "choose" it?
At what point do you "choose" a system of morals? You think you pick one. Maybe you read a book, and it convinces you, and you change from your current beliefs. But you didn't "choose" to be swayed by that book. It just happened. You didn't control it.
And then you read a discussion on a forum, and slightly modify what you think. Again, you're not going "That Bakari guy says this..I decide that it makes sense to me!" It makes sense to you, or it doesn't, but it's not of your own will that it makes sense or not. It just does, or doesn't, without "you" having any input at all.
-
I do think we only act in the way we think is best. And, as a hardcore determinist, I think that we have no choice to act otherwise. But I think that if we could, or did, act otherwise, it would be better.
Of course we have some control over what we think, and therefor it becomes possible to think otherwise, which in turn leads to acting otherwise, which in turn leads to better outcomes.
I disagree.
That we have some control over what we think specifically, or that we can make any decisions, of any form, ever?
Certainly a good case can be made that free will does not exist, but the line is just as much a dead end as "I can never know that anything at all exists other than my own consciousness, since all information about the world is filtered through imperfect senses and biased perception".
True, but not particularly useful, so for the sake of doing anything other than just staring blankly until one staves to death, we assume that the world does exist and make decisions accordingly.
If we can make any decisions at all, though, then we can set in motion particular causal determinants - say, clicking on one thread instead of another, which in turn sets a different set of conditions inside our heads
There's still utility in them, because they do change our behavior--not by influencing a choice (of which there is none) but by being a causal determinant in the act we do.
But if there is no choice, what does it mean to say anything is ethical? It becomes like Herbert's "gravity is ethical" argument. Like Penny says "Everything Happens". What does it mean to say there is "utility" (or not), in anything, when everything (this thread included) was inevitable, and will lead to other inevitable things, and it could never have been any other way? Utility implies some goal or valuation, but what does "goal" even mean if everything that ever happens could never have gone any other way?
-
True, but not particularly useful, so for the sake of doing anything other than just staring blankly until one staves to death, we assume that the world does exist and make decisions accordingly.
No. Determinism and fatalism are not the same thing.
I'm surprised you of all people would buy into this myth, Bakari.
It's like if someone said a stoic is someone who never has emotions. No. That may be a popular misnomer, but it's not the case.
But if there is no choice, what does it mean to say anything is ethical? It becomes like Herbert's "gravity is ethical" argument. Like Penny says "Everything Happens". What does it mean to say there is "utility" (or not), in anything, when everything (this thread included) was inevitable, and will lead to other inevitable things, and it could never have been any other way? Utility implies some goal or valuation, but what does "goal" even mean if everything that ever happens could never have gone any other way?
Who said there's no goal?
Everything can only happen the one way, but that doesn't make actions irrelevant--those actions are causal determinants/antecedents in future actions.
If you determine one way of being is "better" (say, you "decide" that about more happiness for everyone), that will impact your actions. Just because you don't choose your beliefs doesn't mean they don't impact your actions, and thus impact others.
Your argument of it all being meaningless is the same as someone saying "well the heat death of the universe makes this all meaningless." Sure, in a super zoomed out way, but that doesn't mean there isn't meaning in the moment.
-
This is an AMAZING thread. I am STUNNED that people who still work have the time to create such enormous posts continuously!
-
True, but not particularly useful, so for the sake of doing anything other than just staring blankly until one staves to death, we assume that the world does exist and make decisions accordingly.
No. Determinism and fatalism are not the same thing.
I understand that determinists make a distinction, but I fail to find any meaningful one.
Most especially if you explicitly propose that free-will does not exist and their is no such thing as choice.
Yes, human behavior is a step in the causal chain, but that human behavior itself was the (inevitable) consequence of existing conditions, and so they themselves could not have happened any other way. The net result is exactly the same, whether the inbetween steps involved a human mind or not. It still leads to a world in which everything is, for all practical intents and purposes, pre-determined. The only reason we can not accurately predict everything that will ever happen (including what choices everyone will ever make about everything) is insufficient information, but the conditions that will cause the future are all already set in motion.
Yet, in day-to-day life we do actually perceive ourselves as having choices, whether or not it is an illusion. I just don't see how its helpful, in trying to determine what choices to make, to point out that there is no real "self" that is making those choices, that its just your brain doing what its various molecules tell it to.
But if there is no choice, what does it mean to say anything is ethical? It becomes like Herbert's "gravity is ethical" argument. Like Penny says "Everything Happens". What does it mean to say there is "utility" (or not), in anything, when everything (this thread included) was inevitable, and will lead to other inevitable things, and it could never have been any other way? Utility implies some goal or valuation, but what does "goal" even mean if everything that ever happens could never have gone any other way?
Who said there's no goal?
Everything can only happen the one way...
So those goals will either happen or not happen, either way, why worry about it, if we have no influence over it?
but that doesn't make actions irrelevant--those actions are causal determinants/antecedents in future actions.
Certainly, but those actions are not under our control either. Those actions themselves, if we have no choices, are just reactions that happen to pass through us.
If you determine one way of being is "better" (say, you "decide" that about more happiness for everyone), that will impact your actions.
I agree. But this sentence is dependent on my being able to "determine" anything.
Just because you don't choose your beliefs doesn't mean they don't impact your actions, and thus impact others.
Should we debate the ethics of a volcano that erupts undersea and supports an ecosystem of microbe, plant, and animal life, versus one that erupts violently on the surface and wipes out a village and a forest?
Would we question the best moral framework a hurricane should take, or whether an asteroid that does or does not land on Earth was justified in it's decision?
Those are silly questions, precisely because we understand their actions to be purely deterministic - the conditions that precede this moment are 100% responsible for the actions they are taking now, and their current actions are 100% responsible for the ones they will take in the next moment.
If by some indescribably improbable coincidence the molecules of the hurricane were to briefly become arranged in such a way as to facilitate hurricane consciousness - yet that consciousness had no influence over the actions of the system as a whole - it would remain equally meaningless to judge the ethics of where it makes landfall.
If I were to start shooting people, or donate all my wealth, or just stare blankly, whatever it is I end up doing, it was inevitable, because all of whatever influences led to it all actually happened. And so I can not be in anyway culpable for whatever my actions end up causing in the future either. So I guess my question is, if you consider those actions "relevant", relevant to what?
-
Yet, in day-to-day life we do actually perceive ourselves as having choices, whether or not it is an illusion.
Absolutely.
I just don't see how its helpful, in trying to determine what choices to make, to point out that there is no real "self" that is making those choices, that its just your brain doing what its various molecules tell it to.
There are a number of benefits to seeing things the way they are. One immediately obvious one in regards to determinism is a massive increase in empathy. It destroys the just world fallacy. If it's not other people's choice to commit a crime, or make a poor financial decision, or something, we can empathize and feel for them. If I were in the same situation, with the same brain chemistry, same background, all the same antecedents, I'd make the exact same choice.
So those goals will either happen or not happen, either way, why worry about it, if we have no influence over it?
Well I don't think we should "worry" ever, but by thinking about it, we will change our actions, and that will be a prior cause for other actions.
(No, we're not choosing to think about it. That's okay. By me saying this, I'm an antecedent cause in making you think about it, even if I didn't choose that. By believing it, even though I have no choice, it affects actions.)
If you determine one way of being is "better" (say, you "decide" that about more happiness for everyone), that will impact your actions.
I agree. But this sentence is dependent on my being able to "determine" anything.[/quote]
You have to determine things all the time. That doesn't mean there's any free choice involved in that.
And so I can not be in anyway culpable for whatever my actions end up causing in the future either.
I'm guessing by culpable here, you're talking about the fallacy a lot of people fall into that with determinism we can't hold a criminal responsible for their actions. This isn't true. Even if they didn't have any choice to do them, by holding them responsible, we prevent them from causing future harm, and we set a deterrence for others. Holding them responsible is a antecedent cause to help prevent future pain.
Of course, we should understand they had no choice, and treat prisoners with dignity.
So I guess my question is, if you consider those actions "relevant", relevant to what?
Relevant to any future actions. They're all antecedent causes.
Does a dog have free will? If so, how/why? If not, why not?
I have a 10-month old. She's starting to show some personality. Does she have free will? Or are all her actions determined? When she was two weeks old, and crying, or smiling, was she choosing to smile, or cry? Or was it a reaction to stimuli around her, combined with her genetic makeup? Did she have free will as a fetus? I'm going to choose to kick mommy in the ribs? If not, when did she "gain" free will?
Here's the bottom line: You feel like you have free will, because the antecedent causes are so complex, you can't trace them back, the way you can with a volcanic eruption. There's so many competing factors, and you feel like you're choosing between them. Maybe you choose based on a preference, or maybe you choose because one thing had more weight than the other. But step it back one level. You didn't CHOOSE to have that preference. And you didn't CHOOSE to give more weight to that thing.
Ultimately, you don't have a choice. But you believe you do. And all your beliefs influence your actions (as antecedent causes), and all your actions affect future things (as antecedent causes). So going through these deliberations will affect things, even if you had no choice to go through them. Yes, staring at a wall could happen, but it's pretty unlikely, and by understanding and accepting determinism, it won't happen, because you'll see that staring at a wall is an antecedent cause, and would only make your life worse. You wouldn't have control then choosing to do something else, but you very likely would.
And you can use this knowledge to help a lot of people.
-
Here's the bottom line: You feel like you have free will, because the antecedent causes are so complex, you can't trace them back, the way you can with a volcanic eruption. There's so many competing factors, and you feel like you're choosing between them. Maybe you choose based on a preference, or maybe you choose because one thing had more weight than the other. But step it back one level. You didn't CHOOSE to have that preference. And you didn't CHOOSE to give more weight to that thing.
But doesn't that still render the concept of ethics nonsensical? If human behavior and volcanic activity are equally deterministic (differing in degree (as to the complexity of their antecedent causes), but not in kind), isn't it just as absurd to say that a person ought to behave in a given way as it is to say that a volcano ought to behave in a given way? Volcanoes probably don't experience the illusion of having choice (or, for that matter, experience the experience of experiencing, period), but as long as it really is just an illusion then why should our behavior be subject to a system of ethics any more than should a volcano's?
-
Here's the bottom line: You feel like you have free will, because the antecedent causes are so complex, you can't trace them back, the way you can with a volcanic eruption. There's so many competing factors, and you feel like you're choosing between them. Maybe you choose based on a preference, or maybe you choose because one thing had more weight than the other. But step it back one level. You didn't CHOOSE to have that preference. And you didn't CHOOSE to give more weight to that thing.
But doesn't that still render the concept of ethics nonsensical? If human behavior and volcanic activity are equally deterministic (differing in degree (as to the complexity of their antecedent causes), but not in kind), isn't it just as absurd to say that a person ought to behave in a given way as it is to say that a volcano ought to behave in a given way? Volcanoes probably don't experience the illusion of having choice (or, for that matter, experience the experience of experiencing, period), but as long as it really is just an illusion then why should our behavior be subject to a system of ethics any more than should a volcano's?
The volcano doesn't feel like it has control.
Certainly though we can decide that a volcano blowing up and killing a bunch of villagers is a worse outcome, and do things to influence it not exploding (I mean, the science isn't really there yet, but pretend for this hypothetical).
If we can do things that influence that bad outcome in a deterministic way, why wouldn't we also do those things in us, who can cause bad things, like the volcano, but also have the benefit of feeling like we have choice?
-
I am not going to try to attempt to answer the free will argument. In reference to the OP, I think the MMM goal is to maximize happiness. This is going to be different for different people. However, I think one of is main points is that overall buying stuff doesn't make you happy. As a result, you can take an express train to happiness by not buying stuff you don't need.
-
If we can do things that influence that bad outcome in a deterministic way, why wouldn't we also do those things in us, who can cause bad things, like the volcano, but also have the benefit of feeling like we have choice?
We should, but we can't, any more so than the volcano itself can decide not to erupt onto a bunch of villagers, if determism is true and choice is an illusion. So we should try to do what's best, just like the volcano should try to do what's best, which strikes me as nonsense.
-
But doesn't that still render the concept of ethics nonsensical? If human behavior and volcanic activity are equally deterministic (differing in degree (as to the complexity of their antecedent causes), but not in kind), isn't it just as absurd to say that a person ought to behave in a given way as it is to say that a volcano ought to behave in a given way? Volcanoes probably don't experience the illusion of having choice (or, for that matter, experience the experience of experiencing, period), but as long as it really is just an illusion then why should our behavior be subject to a system of ethics any more than should a volcano's?
If I say that somebody "ought" to behave in a certain way, all I am saying is that a particular system of rules dictates that they should act in that way. This has absolutely nothing to do with "free will", no matter how that illusory concept is defined, and hence I do not need to resolve any imagined tension there.
We (mostly) limit the discussion of ethics to human actors not because humans enjoy "choice", but for the more mundane reason that the consequences we apply to actors who violate the norms of ethics (such as oral reprimands, social coldness, banishment from a community, psychiatric treatment, economic sanctions, or imprisonment) only make sense as applied to humans, and not to volcanoes. It doesn't make any sense to tell a volcano that it's a bad person, not because it lacks choice, but because it doesn't have facilities to process language. Home confinement would be an equally wanting sanction, not because a volcano lacks choice, but because it doesn't move much anyway. We can't punish a volcano by locking it in a cage, not because it lacks choice, but because it wouldn't fit within the cell walls, and even if it did, a cell wouldn't be effective in restraining its particular variety of offensive conduct. We also know from physics that we can't administer psychotropic drugs and therapy to a volcano to persuade it not to kill again, not because it lacks choice, but because it doesn't have a brain that would respond to such drugs and therapy.
In fact, the stronger argument is actually that consequentialist ethics (i.e., a form of ethics where the virtue of actions is determined by reference to the consequences of those actions) makes sense only under determinism. This is because, as I've explained before (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/wealth-of-people-in-their-30s-has-'halved-in-a-decade'/msg1255107/#msg1255107), there are only two alternatives to determinism: (1) mystical religious phenomena (such as souls); and (2) randomness. Under option (1), the consequences of actions are irrelevant, because virtue is determined solely by reference to the rules handed down by a deity, without regard for whether the deity's rules are themselves meritorious (for example, if the deity says it's moral to stone both parties to an act of extra-marital sex, without even any apparent mens rea requirement, then that stoning is moral (Deuteronomy 22:22 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-22.htm))); and, under option (2), the consequences of actions are unknowable in advance, which makes it difficult or impossible to analyse the ethical implications of a proposed course of conduct. Hence, if consequentialist ethics is important to you, you should probably hope that determinism is correct.
As for the "illusion of having choice", I can't say I know what that is. I've certainly never experienced it. From my perspective, as an ordinary human being and not a deity, it's impossible to distinguish between determinism, religious phenomena, and randomness, and hence I remain agnostic about which is correct. The truth of the matter, if it even makes sense to say there is a truth in view of the unverifiable nature of the issue, does not affect my life in any way, so I pay it no mind.
-
There are a number of benefits to seeing things the way they are. One immediately obvious one in regards to determinism is a massive increase in empathy.
I suppose it might, in some individuals, but it seems unlikely to be massive in general.
We all know animals are alive. We know there are conditions they respond negatively to and others they respond positively to.
Many people believe that non-humans are soulless, mindless automatons. This does not give them empathy for those animals, it confirms that any injury done to them is justified.
I doubt taking away one of the few qualities that makes humans feel that they are unique and special is likely to cause them to humanize more people.
It destroys the just world fallacy.
And (whether you agree it should or not) replaces it with a "fatalistic" one, which leads to an equivalent overall conclusion.
"Lisa: Maybe there is no moral"
"Homer: Exactly! It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
And so I can not be in anyway culpable for whatever my actions end up causing in the future either.
I'm guessing by culpable here, you're talking about the fallacy a lot of people fall into that with determinism we can't hold a criminal responsible for their actions. This isn't true. Even if they didn't have any choice to do them, by holding them responsible, we prevent them from causing future harm, and we set a deterrence for others. Holding them responsible is a antecedent cause to help prevent future pain.
I'm saying we equally can't hold the person who tortures a prisoner, or conversely, one who lets a murderer go, culpable. We can't hold society responsible for holding criminals responsible (or not). We can not "prevent" or "set a deterrence" or anything else, these things just happen to happen through us, the way a computer can't "hold someone responsible".
There seems to be a dichotomy in the language of how you talk about the issue, where we are making a logical determination of the best way to think about the fact that other people can't make logical determinations of how to think.
If we are not making choices, I don't see how you can say we are really "acting", or "making determinations", as opposed to these are things which just happen, and which our molecules happen to be involved with.
Of course, we should understand they had no choice, and treat prisoners with dignity.
There can be no "should"! Some people will feel/believe they had no choice, others will feel/believe they had a choice, but no one has any choice in which one they feel so it is meaningless to say what they "should" understand.
Given the view that the purpose of (society imposed) consequences is to direct the actions of future potential criminals, I don't see why we would necessarily be more likely to treat prisoners with dignity (I think deciding one has no free will and no choice already robs them of all dignity, but I digress) - why wouldn't we treat them in whatever way was most likely to cause others not to commit crimes?
Does a dog have free will? If so, how/why? If not, why not?
I have a 10-month old. She's starting to show some personality. Does she have free will? Or are all her actions determined? ... If not, when did she "gain" free will?
Its generally believed that certain human metal facilities, like reason and logic, impulse control, self-awareness, occur specifically in the frontal lobe, particularly the pre-frontal cortex. This area grows more slowly in humans than other brain (or body) parts, and it never develops as fully in dogs.
It does exist, however, in both, so, to any extent that we have free-will, they should, albeit less of it. It develops gradually. It isn't an all or nothing quality. Will power varies even among adults, and within one individual at different points in time.
Here's the bottom line: You feel like you have free will, because the antecedent causes are so complex, you can't trace them back, the way you can with a volcanic eruption.
Its more than just being complex and not knowing the sources. I absolutely can NOT trace back every molecule of mineral, both molten and solid, and every tectonic plate shift going back millions of years, and be able to predict, or even explain, exactly why a volcano finally goes off at one instant and not three minutes earlier or a thousand years later. I don't think anyone can, or probably ever will be able to, because the various planetary cycles involved are far too complex. This does not make me feel like I am actually causing a volcano to explode when it does.
And you can use this knowledge to help a lot of people.
This is where you lose me. It sounds like "this information, transiting through your mind, either will or will not change conditions for a lot of people". That isn't equivalent, in my mind, to "me" using something to help people. If I am in no way responsible for my own actions, then I am nothing more than a set of atoms involved in the big space show that is physics.
I will grant that there is some neuropsychological research that implies you may actually be right.
However, I very strongly doubt the reaction of wide-spread acceptance of this theory would be increased empathy.
I think a far more likely result would be internal self-justification for bad behavior. "It may be immoral for me to steal this, but hey, I don't have a choice, this is just the natural result of the antecedent causes that led to my current brain state"
You already have various racists and xenophobes and nationalists claiming these things are "natural", due to biology, and therefor justified. If we have no control over what we do, then ultimately everything is "justified", the way Herbert's falling mug is "justified" by the existence of gravity.
The volcano doesn't feel like it has control.
Certainly though we can decide that a volcano blowing up and killing a bunch of villagers is a worse outcome, and do things to influence it not exploding (I mean, the science isn't really there yet, but pretend for this hypothetical).
If we can do things that influence that bad outcome in a deterministic way, why wouldn't we also do those things in us, who can cause bad things, like the volcano, but also have the benefit of feeling like we have choice?
It doesn't mean anything to say "we can do things" if we have no control. It is just "we will do things", or else "we won't".
If we aren't choosing to influence, then "we" aren't really influencing at all. Things are just playing out.
So the reason we wouldn't "also do those things in us" is that the antecedent conditions were not such that we would do those things in us.
I don't think you've really addressed how you find the concept of ethics meaningful if no one makes any choices about anything.
You've explained why it may be useful, in that it may in itself create better outcomes - the same can be said about religion or santa claus - but not how it is actually valid or meaningful.
To bring it back to the original topic - if I accept determinism to mean that humans can not make choices, then my response to the question of "why don't you donate more money?" has to be "I don't have any choice!"
-
Does a dog have free will? If so, how/why? If not, why not?
I have a 10-month old. She's starting to show some personality. Does she have free will? Or are all her actions determined? ... If not, when did she "gain" free will?
Its generally believed that certain human metal facilities, like reason and logic, impulse control, self-awareness, occur specifically in the frontal lobe, particularly the pre-frontal cortex. This area grows more slowly in humans than other brain (or body) parts, and it never develops as fully in dogs.
It does exist, however, in both, so, to any extent that we have free-will, they should, albeit less of it. It develops gradually. It isn't an all or nothing quality. Will power varies even among adults, and within one individual at different points in time.
What does "develops gradually" mean?
How can you partially have free will?
How can you have more free will, or less?
-
OP/sol,
Well said. I attempted a similar post about a year and a half ago and was pilloried. Part of that was my fault, as I lacked the words to put things in a non-judgmental manner and well, my post did come with some judgement. The other part of it was that people don't like to feel like they haven't done things the right way - they usually end up giving justifications for their actions in lieu of questioning things at a fundamental level. I don't know if you're going to get people to question, but your OP was definitely worded better than my post.
-
Its generally believed that certain human metal facilities, like reason and logic, impulse control, self-awareness, occur specifically in the frontal lobe, particularly the pre-frontal cortex. This area grows more slowly in humans than other brain (or body) parts, and it never develops as fully in dogs.
It does exist, however, in both, so, to any extent that we have free-will, they should, albeit less of it. It develops gradually. It isn't an all or nothing quality. Will power varies even among adults, and within one individual at different points in time.
What does "develops gradually" mean?
How can you partially have free will?
How can you have more free will, or less?
Our levels of executive control (the ability to consciously override automatic impulses) varies even within a single person depending on time of day, blood sugar levels, and what other things we have resisted or experienced recently.
I don't think it is just semantics that links the terms "free will" and "will power".
Just like you can have gradations of consciousness and lucidity, there's no obvious reason why will should have to be an absolute. In fact, if there were gradations (which I am sure there are), it would completely answer the apparent contradictions I pointed out in my last post.
-
OP/sol,
Well said. I attempted a similar post about a year and a half ago and was pilloried.
...
The other part of it was that people don't like to feel like they haven't done things the right way - they usually end up giving justifications for their actions in lieu of questioning things at a fundamental level. I don't know if you're going to get people to question, but your OP was definitely worded better than my post.
It seemed that was no less true of the various posters in this thread. It included people making justifications for why their own personal preferred way of doing good was the correct way that all others should do as well, (not just people making justifications for why they offer nothing), but the level of self-righteousness and the lack of questioning of one's own assumptions seems universal.