Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    I'm a student so I'm not particularly well off, but I survive fine. I don't have anywhere near the resources to make a real difference, it's just not possible. There are people sitting on huge amounts of wealth, that they will never spend, that would make zero difference to their lifestyles if the majority of it disappeared, yet they would rather have it sat in a bank account or wherever when they could instead save thousands and thousands of lives. With the mega rich wealth is just a symbol of status, and they value this status over the lives of other human beings, that is immoral.
    If every student who spends any money on alcohol (a luxury) donated that money instead to charity, the difference would be huge. You could easily save lives by doing that. Surely by not doing this, just you, one person, you value alcohol more than the lives of others, if that's the way you want to approach it.

    Is it really a good thing to save lives that way though? Is it moral to encourage an even bigger and less sustainable population?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Removed
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    If every student who spends any money on alcohol (a luxury) donated that money instead to charity, the difference would be huge. You could easily save lives by doing that. Surely by not doing this, just you, one person, you value alcohol more than the lives of others, if that's the way you want to approach it.

    Is it really a good thing to save lives that way though? Is it moral to encourage an even bigger and less sustainable population?
    The thing is, I would have to alter my lifestyle significantly to do that, and that's a co-ordinated effort by millions of people. There are mega rich people who could instantly start saving lives single handedly, but they would rather the money do nothing than be used to save lives.

    The reason that there are poor people in the world is because the rich are greedy, not because students drink beer.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    The thing is, I would have to alter my lifestyle significantly to do that, and that's a co-ordinated effort by millions of people. There are mega rich people who could instantly start saving lives single handedly, but they would rather the money do nothing than be used to save lives.

    The reason that there are poor people in the world is because the rich are greedy, not because students drink beer.
    No actually, it's a cumulated greed that has caused poverty. Your computer, your phone, your TV - if everyone on earth earned enough to survive, you could not afford your lifestyle. Therefore, it profits many to keep the poor poor.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    No actually, it's a cumulated greed that has caused poverty. Your computer, your phone, your TV - if everyone on earth earned enough to survive, you could not afford your lifestyle. Therefore, it profits many to keep the poor poor.
    The greed of the masses is wanting a comfortable life for your family, is that really greed at all? Wanting a private jet, a fleet of yachts, a collection of expensive cars and dozens of homes round the world, all while still having your back account overflowing with piles and piles of money is true greed. Look at how wealth is distributed, the lions share is in the hands of the few, not the masses.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JBMJBM)
    Should I read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead first?
    It depends whether you want to go nuts slowly (Fountainhead) or quickly. (Atlas)
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    The greed of the masses is wanting a comfortable life for your family, is that really greed at all? Wanting a private jet, a fleet of yachts, a collection of expensive cars and dozens of homes round the world, all while still having your back account overflowing with piles and piles of money is true greed.
    Of course it's greed. You don't need it, so it's greed. That is all greed, whether you like it or not.

    All I'm saying is you can't condemn a rich person who doesn't give to charity if you yourself buy luxury items rather than give.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    LOLZ @ only $10 million.

    My point was he unfairly gained an advantage against his rivals which may have stopped them 'earning' for their hard work. I'm sure he could have still made lots of money in a market that was actually competitive instead of monopolising that market.
    Are you saying that how he lead the company meant competition was suppressed? Is that his fault or is it the fault of the OFT? I honestly don't know enough about Microsoft's rise to power but there seem to be plenty of people more unscrupulous than Gates..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)

    People die of hunger everyday. In that case then, everyone who is not starving should be considered immoral if they do not give all the food they can to others.

    If it were not for poverty, we could not live normal (by our standards) lives. To quote from Jesus Christ Superstar: "There will be poor always, pathetically struggling; Look at the good things you've got."
    I think you're going overboard now and stretching my words to make ridiculous claims. Giving all your food away is illogical not to mention stupid, you can't help everyone but the key is working out how much you can afford to give out so that you can live within your means. There's nothing wrong with living a lavish lifestyle and you shouldn't feel guilty for having money when others don't but you also need to help the poor.


    The Jesus quote is open to interpretation rather than saying "oh there'll always be poor people so don't bother" I believe it's telling us to appreciate the small things we have which we often take for granted.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Of course it's greed. You don't need it, so it's greed. That is all greed, whether you like it or not.

    All I'm saying is you can't condemn a rich person who doesn't give to charity if you yourself buy luxury items rather than give.
    Of course I can, as I said before the world is ****ed up because of the mega rich, not because of students drinking beer or buying a tee shirt.



    That's just liquid wealth by the way, so it doesn't even include the masses of money that the mega rich have tied up in things like property.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Yes, I believe that it is immoral. I'm at a loss to justify how it could ever be considered moral for one person to live in the sublimest of luxury whilst millions others died of poverty.

    Out of sight, out of mind.
    I'm pleased we agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day, who the **** are you to tell someone they have to give their money away on the grounds of what you deem is 'fair'? Don't use morality as a veil for stealing from those with more than you; it is a left wing tactic and predictable at that.

    Charity is moral. Theft is not.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No, in this regard I agree with Lord Mandelson.

    edit: A quick look on Google reveals that he has changed his mind, but I haven't.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Of course I can, as I said before the world is ****ed up because of the mega rich, not because of students drinking beer or buying a tee shirt.



    That's just liquid wealth by the way, so it doesn't even include the massive of money that the mega rich have tied up in things like property.
    It's staggering that 0.11% of the population own half of all the world's liquid wealth. That has to change, the world cannot be governed in a rational manner when it is forced to serve the interests of such a small proportion of the population.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    No, In this regard I agree with Lord Mandelson.
    His famous quote was, by the way, taken out of context.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's staggering that 0.11% of the population own half of all the world's liquid wealth. That has to change, the world cannot be governed in a rational manner when it is forced to serve the interests of such a small proportion of the population.
    Yep, its been traveling in the wrong direction for last half a decade or so as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Plus, I'm not surprised at the left wing ****fest on this topic. Perhaps if you didn't have such a vendetta against wealth you wouldn't degenerate every country you get your work-shy hands on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Only a loony communist/lefty would find extreme wealth ''immoral''.

    The world has and always will be about the survival of the fittest. Nowadays wealth is a sign of being the ''fittest''. As long as the extreme wealthy aren't using their money for immoral causes [ie killing people with it etc] then there's nothing immoral about being extremely wealthy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Question is, if say everyone with less wealth than you suddenly acquired/was given more so that everyone now had a decent quality of life and there was no starvation or anything like that but you were now the poorest person on earth, but had no less than you do now, would you feel better or worse?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by 321zero)
    In fairness to Gates, he does give a phenomenal amount away to charity. He has the sort of wealth where he can genuinely change people lives.

    I just find the idea of being mega wealthy bizarre. Why does anyone aspire to being infinitely more wealthy than 99.9% of their fellow human beings? Surely once you and your loved ones futures are taken care of, it is job done.
    I'd also add that Warren Buffet is a good friend of Bills's and has said that when he dies about 90% of his wealth will be going to the Gates foundation, pretty much doubling it.

    Many billionaires want to make a difference in a positive way even if they haven't done much beneficial to get it.

    Elon Musk is another billionaire who wants to do good for our species.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.