Life question
I had a debate with a few friends about this and I'm not sure of the right answer, maybe there is no right answer.
Two scenarios,
A man(Bob) who makes a 1,000,000 a year, donates 200,000 of his money to the poor, sick people who are in-need of money.
A man(phil) who makes 100,000 a year, donates 50,000 of his money to the poor,sick people who are in-need of money.
Who is the better person?
It comes to down to sacrifice vs helping more people. Is it about the guy who is helping more people(donating more money) or the person sacrificing more of his money.
I'm not sure and i was wondering if someone give me a better understanding of the situation.
Two scenarios,
A man(Bob) who makes a 1,000,000 a year, donates 200,000 of his money to the poor, sick people who are in-need of money.
A man(phil) who makes 100,000 a year, donates 50,000 of his money to the poor,sick people who are in-need of money.
Who is the better person?
It comes to down to sacrifice vs helping more people. Is it about the guy who is helping more people(donating more money) or the person sacrificing more of his money.
I'm not sure and i was wondering if someone give me a better understanding of the situation.
Comments
Isn't helping people a good deed? I think a person who helps others and give happiness is a good person.(at least that's what i meant in the context)
Everything else is up to the individual's ability or desire to contribute. Maybe the guy donating 50% lives a much simpler lifestyle.
tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU
But the $200,000 man, does so anonomously and does not get a tax break.
I think motivation and character are far better indicators than of the amount.
But as these scenarios, both work hard and make their money, and help people in this way. Who is better?
No situations added and they both have a similar life.
Also, I don't agree with milo if i understood what he meant correctly. I think yes people can be better than other people. its not only good, there is better. A man who helps people and pay his taxes, is BETTER than a man who helps people and doesn't pay his etc...
Yes a woman can't be a little pregnant or a lot pregnant, but can be very good or just good. We can compare good deeds but can't compare pregnancy.
Let's stick to these scenarios if possible.
If you are comparing you and me, then its me by a far stretch.
Like a poker hand, there are many variables.
I'm personally of the opinion that if you have more than x amount of money, let's say $5 million, you are a horrible, greedy person for not donating the rest or extra profits to charity because no one needs that much money.
In your scenario I'd say they're both good, but the guy donating 50% of his $100 grand is pretty stupid as well. A guys gotta eat.
The guy who donates 50k, can still eat with 50k.
Basically the question is, whats more makes bob or phil the better person. Is it that phil scarfing more of his money (although less in amount) or the person helping more people but sacrificing a less portion of his income.
My opinion is that the goal is to help more people, so the guy donating more money is helping more people makes him better than the person sacrificing a bigger portion but less in amount. (not saying anyone is bad, they are both great but the guy putting more money to help more people is the better.Agree?
Ranking people by who is better then whom is of no real value and serves no good purpose.
Either way, I'll vote for whatever Hobbes is voting for.
Does that mean its good or bad?
I think trying to become a better person is a good thing, and comparing yourself to others is what drives people to achieve good things. Not saying that people should be good so that you can be good, but looking at other people is sometimes helpful if its done in the right way. The scenarios are made up and i agree that self-satisfaction is very important.
I'm not taking a philosophy course but maybe a good idea for the future
I think this is your problem.
Is someone with a lower IQ, and therefore lower earning potential a "less good" person than someone who has a high IQ and high paying job, who can therefore give plenty of money? Is someone in a wheelchair and needs assistance for many of life's commonalities a drain on those that tend to them, and therefore a bad person? Is someone who is completely average, but does nothing but things for their own selves a bad person? What if their own interests are their family and friends?
I don't think comparing people to one another is an ideal way to determine or track one's "goodness". The best motivator is intrinsic - it has to come from you. If your internal goal is to be pretty, then you will be more likely to be pretty through being healthy and caring about your exterior looks. If your intrinsic values trend towards gathering wealth, then you will be more likely to gather wealth. If your self-goal is to at the end of the day be able to say you're happy with yourself because you helped others, well you'll do that too.
Now as to which if any of these is better or worse than the others, that's up to one's values. Someone I think is a good person is not someone you would consider necessarily good. I may respect the hell out of PK Subban for his skill, but many people piss and moan about his attitude. I may give respect to people who are earnest, caring people that others may consider deficient because they aren't overly intelligent. Hell, Eva Braun loved Hitler, and to her he was a hero.
"Good" and "Bad" people are constructs of your own value system. Your value system is your own, but it is / has been influenced by your upbringing and the people who helped raise you. One of the most frustrating things I see in and out of people is an astounding lack of unbiased introspection. It's a scary idea to look at oneself and really question your comfy idea of what is and is not right, and often much easier to default to the catchphrases and quips of others.
Poker is a stunningly powerful mirror for this... people play for years and get no better. Myself, I haven't improved much, and I can say it's honestly because I haven't the interest in being more than an average player. But I hear people lie to themselves over and over by saying they want to improve their game, and just write off losses as bad luck. So the CPF / philosophy crossover isn't a surprising one.
In the end, this scenario means nothing, unless your value system is high on money. But that's like asking who's a better athlete, Usain Bolt or Hakuhō (link provided, but essentially the record holder for most Sumo contest wins in a year).
Mark
Obviously, as everyone else has stated it's never black and white and donating a higher percentage doesn't make you "better". But if you want the straight up answer of your two situations, there it is.
First of all thank you for your time to reply with a lot of knowledge.
For the first part: I think you are putting limitations on people, A person with a lower IQ could find a way to make a high earning if he works hard to achieve it. If he works hard enough by doing whatever is needed to make him better than the guy with a high IQ he would succeed. (study harder, read books, memorize, practice a skill... whatever it takes to be better) same goes for a guy with a higher IQ, if the guy with the lower IQ surpass him and starts getting a higher income he has to work harder.. this is what makes the world a better place, humans, societies and nations compete and strive for the better.
For the guy on the wheel chair with people helping him, if he finds a way to live without the help of the others, then he is better than the other people on wheel chairs. I'm not saying he is bad, he isn't but he could be better.
Same goes for the guy who does things for his self-interest, he isn't bad but if he goes for both self-interest and social-interest he is a better person.(none of them are bad but they can always strive for better)
Things could be comparable and i believe its a good thing to compare similar situations and strive for the better.
I agree with you that when you are self-satisfied you don't need to change anything with yourself, you are happy with what you are doing and where you are at, but looking at better people is good. Poker as an example, if i'm the best player in the world(my self-satisfaction is to be the best) then i wouldn't improve my game unless someone is trying to better than me. If you are satisfied with being 500th in the world then I'll try to be the 500th and if i get to 501st ill work hard to go back to 500th (because that is where i want to be, self-satisfaction).
As for the scenario itself, I think now i know the right answer. The right answer is that it depends on how you look at both these people and both could be the right answer. Now i understand why it was a silly question. I've always thought of situations as right and wrong but sometimes there is no right and wrong answers.
Also i didn't understand the part i put in bold in your quote if you could explain it with easier vocabulary if possible.
For the last part, It is pretty hard to compare who is better from two different sports, but its possible to compare things with similar positions. Bolt would be a better athlete in running and hakuho would be a better athlete in sumo wrestling. You can compare two soccer players or whatever two people in the same sport and its possible. If not then how do they award the best player of the year in a certain sport?
thank you for your direct answer.
Now I don't agree with this because of two reasons (i might be wrong but i find it more logical)
1) the whole thing of donating is to help people or assuming its the main reason. The guy who is donating more money is helping more people.
More money= Help more people
2) If i didn't specify how much they both make (income), people would agree with the guy donating 200k is more helpful.
Assuming what makes a 'good person' in this scenario is the willingness to put self aside for the greater good of the community....
I disagree because there are far more potential donators in one bracket than the other. The one who gives up the higher percentage of what he gets to me is the better person. He decides to live a significantly less self centered life with his sacrifice than the one with a lot of moola still left for hookers and blow.
Hmm.. you kinda missed my point.
Your question is not an answerable one. This is because who I think is good / bad, is not who anyone else necessarily will think is good or bad.
The examples I gave of the lower IQ / wheelchair bound / etc etc? They weren't meant to reflect my ideas of good or bad, but rather to highlight how any given criteria is not definitive. Intelligence, giving money, helping behaviours, none are going to be an adequate measuring stick.
Further, only a certain percentage of people are motivated by those around them. Only some people will take improvement and hard work on to "best" their neighbor. Most people have to internalize a goal, or an ideal to live up to in order to improve oneself. Looking at your peers and deciding to outdo them may work for you, but not all.
You CAN compare athletes from various sports. Who's the better athlete, Usain Bolt, or the world's greatest bowler? Who's better between the world Dart Champion and Derek Jeter? I think most would go with Bolt / Jeter in those regards, mostly because we discount bowling and darts "sports value". FWIW, I would argue that Hakuho is probably the better athlete over Bolt, because although admittedly I know very little about Sumo wrestling, it does look like there is more to it than running in a straight line.
As for the bolded part about introspection? Many people do not look at their true and honest reasoning behind their actions. Someone living a sedentary lifestyle can easily say they are "too busy" for this or that, but ignore the 5 hours of wrestling they watch a week (or so I hear).
Mark