You're rich, now what?

RedskinRat · 03-25-2005, 01:19 PM

In another thread the subject of rich people donating came up. I believe that people have the right to do what they like with their money. I give both my time and cash when I can. I'm also a mean spirited bastard when the mood takes me just to even up my Karma.

Do you think that the wealthy have a moral obligation to be philanthropic?

Discuss:

Daseal · 03-25-2005, 01:35 PM

Not a moral obligation, luckily for them it's a tax shelter. Personally if I had the money I would give even if it weren't a tax shelter.

Do they have a MORAL obligation. No. Do I feel that they should. Yes. Not just every time a large natural disaster hits for PR.

EEich · 03-25-2005, 01:37 PM

Balance is everything. If you take, it's good to give back.
I believe it's more of a spiritual obligation than a moral one.

RedskinRat · 03-25-2005, 01:38 PM

That's another aspect where 'You're damned if you do..' because if they give to a disaster fund it looks like moral showboating and if they don't it looks like they're an unfeeling tightwad depending on how the media want them perceived that week.

Give quietly, regularly and it will sort its self out.

BDBohnzie · 03-25-2005, 01:39 PM

do the wealthy have a moral obligation to be philanthropic? sure...just as the rest of us do. whether it's spare change in the collection basket each Sunday, or a $100,000 check to Jerry's Kids, or volunteering to coach a youth league, i believe we all have a moral obligation to provide what we can to those who need it.

some can provide more (time and/or money) than others...but i feel that we are still obliged to provide what we can, when we can do so.

Schneed10 · 03-25-2005, 01:42 PM

No obligation whatsoever. They call it "generosity" for a reason.

If I were filthy rich, and I decided to give $1 million to the Tsunami relief efforts, and I heard someone say that they thought I was obligated to do that, I'd be real pissed.

When people are giving of their time or financial resources, they deserve to be thanked and appreciated.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-25-2005, 01:56 PM

Exactly. I haven't read what people said in my response to the "Unique Whips" thread, but I basically agree with what most of everyone has said. There is no TRUE obligation, but it is a good thing to donate what people can, when they can.

EEich · 03-25-2005, 02:00 PM

Is a philanthropist a better person than a non-philanthropist?
Is it our obligation to be the best people we can be?

BDBohnzie · 03-25-2005, 02:01 PM

i consider a moral obligation as something that my morals would lead me to believe I would do...do I personally think that charity is a moral obligation? Yes I do. Doesn't mean the next Joe, Schneed or Malcolm does...and that's cool. that is certainly your preogative. that is a problem with humans in general. most cannot disassociate themselves to form a valid opinion, and realize that your opinion may not be right or wrong. there is always room for gray area...you certainly do not always have to be right.

my morality leads me to believe that giving of yourself for charitable reasons is obligatory. for if you do not give, who will?

BDBohnzie · 03-25-2005, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEich

Is a philanthropist a better person than a non-philanthropist?

absolutely not.

EEich · 03-25-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

absolutely not.

Do you think more good people are philanthropists or non-philanthropists?

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-25-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

i consider a moral obligation as something that my morals would lead me to believe I would do...do I personally think that charity is a moral obligation? Yes I do. Doesn't mean the next Joe, Schneed or Malcolm does...and that's cool. that is certainly your preogative. that is a problem with humans in general. most cannot disassociate themselves to form a valid opinion, and realize that your opinion may not be right or wrong. there is always room for gray area...you certainly do not always have to be right.

my morality leads me to believe that giving of yourself for charitable reasons is obligatory. for if you do not give, who will?

You.

J/K

This is definitely one of those areas where it is completely subjective and I too, feel that I should help charity. I don't know if this is out of obligation or not. It's one of those natural reactions because of how I was raised.

Schneed10 · 03-25-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

i consider a moral obligation as something that my morals would lead me to believe I would do...do I personally think that charity is a moral obligation? Yes I do. Doesn't mean the next Joe, Schneed or Malcolm does...and that's cool. that is certainly your preogative. that is a problem with humans in general. most cannot disassociate themselves to form a valid opinion, and realize that your opinion may not be right or wrong. there is always room for gray area...you certainly do not always have to be right.

my morality leads me to believe that giving of yourself for charitable reasons is obligatory. for if you do not give, who will?

That's cool, I admire that you're able to not press your views on somebody who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

You should check out the Terri Schiavo thread. At the end of the thread we got all Socrates about personal belief systems.

http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread...2&page=3&pp=10

BDBohnzie · 03-25-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EEich

Do you think more good people are philanthropists or non-philanthropists?

Good is such a generalized term...I personally think "Good" people realize that they should give of themselves, and would be more philanthropic. However, not being philanthropic doesn't make you a bad person automatically.

schneed...i've been keeping up with the Schiavo thread...i even have a post in there somewhere. i quite honestly believe neither side is doing what is best for Terri, and since the law has been brought into the equasion, and they have made their decisions, that it's best to follow what is says and move on.

Schneed10 · 03-25-2005, 02:36 PM

Yeah it's impossible for us to know what is best for her, unless she had left a living will. We have no idea what she wanted.

Anyway, giving your time and money is a very admirable thing to do. I just hope that whoever is the recipient truly appreciates it. If I gave to someone and they didn't thank me or show appreciation, I'd never give to them again. I'm not a fan of ingrates. That's not to say that if I give then that person owes me something in return, giving doesn't mean you own the recipient. All I expect is basic common courtesy: a thank you and genuine appreciation.

03-25-2005, 01:19 PM	#1
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	You're rich, now what? In another thread the subject of rich people donating came up. I believe that people have the right to do what they like with their money. I give both my time and cash when I can. I'm also a mean spirited bastard when the mood takes me just to even up my Karma. Do you think that the wealthy have a moral obligation to be philanthropic? Discuss:

03-25-2005, 01:35 PM	#2
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	Re: You're rich, now what? Not a moral obligation, luckily for them it's a tax shelter. Personally if I had the money I would give even if it weren't a tax shelter. Do they have a MORAL obligation. No. Do I feel that they should. Yes. Not just every time a large natural disaster hits for PR. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

03-25-2005, 01:37 PM	#3
EEich The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bristol, CT Age: 60 Posts: 1,001	Re: You're rich, now what? Balance is everything. If you take, it's good to give back. I believe it's more of a spiritual obligation than a moral one.

03-25-2005, 01:38 PM	#4
RedskinRat Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: I'm in LA, trick! Posts: 8,700	Re: You're rich, now what? That's another aspect where 'You're damned if you do..' because if they give to a disaster fund it looks like moral showboating and if they don't it looks like they're an unfeeling tightwad depending on how the media want them perceived that week. Give quietly, regularly and it will sort its self out.

03-25-2005, 01:39 PM	#5
BDBohnzie Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederick, MD Age: 45 Posts: 4,628	Re: You're rich, now what? do the wealthy have a moral obligation to be philanthropic? sure...just as the rest of us do. whether it's spare change in the collection basket each Sunday, or a $100,000 check to Jerry's Kids, or volunteering to coach a youth league, i believe we all have a moral obligation to provide what we can to those who need it. some can provide more (time and/or money) than others...but i feel that we are still obliged to provide what we can, when we can do so. __________________ Bad Things man, I mean bad things... “WE TOOK HIM IN THE SIXTH ROUND SO WE'RE NOT SMART EITHER.” - Shanny on what the Skins saw in Alfred Morris

03-25-2005, 01:42 PM	#6
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	Re: You're rich, now what? No obligation whatsoever. They call it "generosity" for a reason. If I were filthy rich, and I decided to give $1 million to the Tsunami relief efforts, and I heard someone say that they thought I was obligated to do that, I'd be real pissed. When people are giving of their time or financial resources, they deserve to be thanked and appreciated.

03-25-2005, 01:56 PM	#7
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 19,225	Re: You're rich, now what? Exactly. I haven't read what people said in my response to the "Unique Whips" thread, but I basically agree with what most of everyone has said. There is no TRUE obligation, but it is a good thing to donate what people can, when they can. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-25-2005, 02:00 PM	#8
EEich The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Bristol, CT Age: 60 Posts: 1,001	Re: You're rich, now what? Is a philanthropist a better person than a non-philanthropist? Is it our obligation to be the best people we can be?

03-25-2005, 02:01 PM	#9
BDBohnzie Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederick, MD Age: 45 Posts: 4,628	Re: You're rich, now what? i consider a moral obligation as something that my morals would lead me to believe I would do...do I personally think that charity is a moral obligation? Yes I do. Doesn't mean the next Joe, Schneed or Malcolm does...and that's cool. that is certainly your preogative. that is a problem with humans in general. most cannot disassociate themselves to form a valid opinion, and realize that your opinion may not be right or wrong. there is always room for gray area...you certainly do not always have to be right. my morality leads me to believe that giving of yourself for charitable reasons is obligatory. for if you do not give, who will? __________________ Bad Things man, I mean bad things... “WE TOOK HIM IN THE SIXTH ROUND SO WE'RE NOT SMART EITHER.” - Shanny on what the Skins saw in Alfred Morris

03-25-2005, 02:36 PM	#15
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	Re: You're rich, now what? Yeah it's impossible for us to know what is best for her, unless she had left a living will. We have no idea what she wanted. Anyway, giving your time and money is a very admirable thing to do. I just hope that whoever is the recipient truly appreciates it. If I gave to someone and they didn't thank me or show appreciation, I'd never give to them again. I'm not a fan of ingrates. That's not to say that if I give then that person owes me something in return, giving doesn't mean you own the recipient. All I expect is basic common courtesy: a thank you and genuine appreciation.

You're rich, now what?

Parking Lot