Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bill Gates Vs Steve Jobs Who’s the "Better" Person

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://www.clazh.com/bill-gates-vs-steve-jobs-whos-the-better-person/

I just found this link while searching for the phylosophical or at least political stance of Steve Jobs since I know the moral bankruptcy of Bill Gates - "Giving Pledge": http://givingpledge.org/#enter"

The link is a sick look upon the two great buissnisman that judges from the stance of a self-righteous alturist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly article. Yeah, Steve Jobs is rich so he has a moral obligation spout off his political views any chance he gets. Whats more distressing though is the constant moral condemnation of Gates for giving away his money. Sure, I dont agree with his political views, but its his money and he can do whatever the hell he wants with it. Whats the alternative? Should someone else decide how it could be better spent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not only givig his money away he's also trying to persuade others to do the same.

“We contacted between 70 and 80 people to get the 40. A few were unavailable. We don’t give up on them. Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future. We’ll keep on working,” Buffett said. But I'm inclined to believe that Bill Gates agrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not only givig his money away he's also trying to persuade others to do the same.

Not to mention releasing the names of those who refuse to the press for public shaming and outrage. I fully agree. Since Gates has decided that other people's money is his business turn about is fair play.

Edited by SapereAude
Link to post
Share on other sites

. Sure, I dont agree with his political views, but its his money and he can do whatever the hell he wants with it. Whats the alternative? Should someone else decide how it could be better spent?

Sure, that is inarguable. You can't take it with you, so burn it if you choose.

There is a principle (and a psychological mindset) that these zillionaires adhere to, that is disturbing, though.

By action and words, they are anti-capitalist, "capitalists".

What they are saying is: Please don't fault me for making so much; don't think I'm any better than you are; it was all a game, and I got lucky, that's all; my self-esteem will depend on giving it away, not in being productive, and making it; besides, with my connections, and with special favors from government, it was pretty easy, and I'd feel guilty if I hung on to my wealth. So help me atone for my sins, please.

I see these crony-capitalists all around in my country, and I have more respect for the small factory owner or restauranteur, than for any of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention releasing the names of those who refuse to the press for public shaming and outrage.

If thats the case, thats not cool on his part. But it also speaks to the moral atmosphere of our world today, if refusing to give away your hard earned money brings shame and outrage the problem is too big for Bill Gates to have an effect either way.

There is a principle (and a psychological mindset) that these zillionaires adhere to, that is disturbing, though.

By action and words, they are anti-capitalist, "capitalists".

What they are saying is: Please don't fault me for making so much; don't think I'm any better than you are; it was all a game, and I got lucky, that's all; my self-esteem will depend on giving it away, not in being productive, and making it; besides, with my connections, and with special favors from government, it was pretty easy, and I'd feel guilty if I hung on to my wealth. So help me atone for my sins, please.

Or maybe donating their cash to a cause they deem worthy is something that makes them feel like their hard work was worth something "bigger than themselves" or some other nonsense. Irrational self interest maybe. And its not like these guys are stoics or Mother Theresas in the here and now, most live like the Shah of Iran and dont care what happens when theyre dead.

I see these crony-capitalists all around in my country, and I have more respect for the small factory owner or restauranteur, than for any of them.

For the type of "anti capitalist capitalists" that you describe, I agree. But I dont agree that Gates or others on that list necessarily fit that profile. Hollywood leftists and aging business tycoons dont all donate out of guilt, and they dont all think that theyve had an easy ride.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention releasing the names of those who refuse to the press for public shaming and outrage. I fully agree. Since Gates has decided that other people's money is his business turn about is fair play.

Then this is blackmail...

I being me the moment I found out went arguing about it with my family :worry:

But the question arises... why is blackmail wrong. I had no answer to give. Could anyone give an objective definition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then this is blackmail...

I being me the moment I found out went arguing about it with my family :worry:

But the question arises... why is blackmail wrong. I had no answer to give. Could anyone give an objective definition?

Yeah, you got it: blackmail - wrong because it denies freedom of choice, independence of mind, etc, to others, and is initiation of force.

Essentially, collectivist, I'd reckon.

Someone else might identify this better than I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only blackmail if youre worried about the publics response to you keeping your money rather than doling it out to strangers. Personally I wouldnt care. So what, Im keeping my money, if youve got a problem make a billion and give it away yourself. It reminds me of Reardons speech in Atlas. The fact that the general public has a crappy moral code is no claim on the fruit of my labor. Too bad Im not a billionaire, Id love to publicly tell Gates to sh*t in his hat.

Edit: I should say, if I was in a position to donate large sums of money Id have no problen doing it, Im sure that I would in fact. But the recipients would be deserving people who live by the same ideals that I hold to be true. Need is not a claim, as we all should know.

Edited by JayR
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this in an article written in 1998:

Meanwhile, for well over a century, men like Gates have relied on nothing but their own minds and selfish desire for profit. Their "greed" has expanded human knowledge, raised life expectancy, and created jobs for those willing to follow their standards.

I think it is amazing how this explanation would never be used to describe Gates today. It is amazing to see how many of the billionaires have transformed over the years. It is puzzling how Gates tries to convince others to donate their money along with his relentless campaign (with his father) for higher taxes (or Washington state taxes at least).

Link to post
Share on other sites

JayR, I agree that it is not possible to blackmail a virtuous man.

However, the INTENT is to blackmail, by 'name and shame', which exposes the kind of morality these attempted blackmailers have.

What will be interesting, is if any one of their intended 'victims' laughs in their faces instead of bowing to pressure - but don't hold your breath, for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When altruism is the measure in ethics, it is easy to see why the media's balance scale tilts the way it does.

What was more disappointing to me was to discover that Pixar has been acquired by Disney. With the exception of Wall-E, their productions had a pretty good 'sense of life' over-all.

Their productions seem to be a big mixed bag. The Incredible's was the best philosophically in my opinion. If you have never seen it- never ever see "up" it is one of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. The Toy Story films where hella cool though, i think! <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Yeah, the logic of altruism is the logic of contradiction and mind-destruction.

But we have to face here also some facts:

If Gates or whatever millionaire proves that his donations are not self- sacrificial, because their life standard remains intact...

If they prove that they are doing it voluntarily...

If they prove that the help is being directed only to those who cannot help themselves ( say, children or victims of natural disasters) or to those talented people who are struggling to raise themselves ( say, soft credit to mothers engaged in a productive project, like in Bangladesh)...

Why would we condemn them?

If we as Objectivist think that "nothing is wrong with charity" when used to address specific problems and done in non-sacrifical ways, then THAT kind of charity is good.

Charity implies persuasion, promotion. That's the opposite of coercion or force.

If we have determined that certain type of charity is not wrong, then it is good. if it is not irrational, it is rational. If it is not immoral, it is moral. If it is not despicable, it is embraceble.

Furthermore, the fact that millionaire can give away a lot of money for charity speaks eloquently about the benefits of wealth and capitalism.

The message is "Getting rich is fun, because you can do a lot of things, including charity".

The message is also "Voluntary help works. Taxes are not justified on the grounds of any cause"

So, why don't we stop condemning Gates and rather use this case as an example of the infinite options that wealth and capitalism open to our lives?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...