Does philanthropy make up for past sins?

[Count of Montesano]

Many rich individuals throughout history have earned their money by being utterly ruthless in business and politics, only to give much of that money back by funding colleges, libraries, parks, etc.

So here's my ethical question: does the good that someone does with their money outweigh the evil they committed to earn that money?

I'm ask this question after hearing about two different ruthless individuals turned philanthropists. The first is Mark Zuckerburg - founder of Facebook. Movies like The Social Network paint Zuckerburg as an immoral opportunist who stabbed numerous friends and business partners in the back to rise to the top. However, now that he's on top, he's doing some amazing charity work. In Zuckerburg's case, I would say that the good he is doing outweighs him being a douche when dealing with friends and business partners.

However, a harder case to deal with is someone like J.D. Rockefeller. Unions have been in the American news recently, and tonight I saw a documentary on Rockefeller's union busting tactics of Colorado miners that led to the deaths of dozens of men, women and children. Rockefeller outfitted his own militia who beat a union organizer to death, opened fire on a crowd of striking workers with machine guns, and burned the striker's tent city where they were living after being expelled from the company barracks. During this fire 11 children burned to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

IMHO Rockefeller deserved to go to prison for life as much as any mafia don who doesn't commit murder but orders his thugs to do his dirty work. However, maybe the fact that his wealth helped thousands of people does counterbalance the blood on his hands. If that's true, what's the ratio? Is Rockefeller a good guy because he only killed a few dozen people but helped so many more? Is Hitler only bad because he killed more people than he helped?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

So here's my ethical question: does the good that someone does with their money outweigh the evil they committed to earn that money?

In my ever so humble opinion....No.

It helps, for sure, but it's not all that much and it can't undo what you've done.

[Blau&Gruen]

Seldom but for once I agree with Ó Cathasaigh.

You need to have internalized the ethos of the commandments and there is no one but your invisible alter ego who could say whether you have already achieved to be a good human being. It is however more important to be responsible than good as irresponsible good deeds may miss their ethical ends as much as malicious deeds. When we gain distance, then the bad can change into a thing that ceases to be present but as a past which is already a lot for one life-time. It's certainly not false, if certain politicians spend private money for kindergartens or certain political parties motivate their members in the Congress to find a compromise to support healthcare or certain large bank houses spend money for grand apes preservation projects as these are responsible and good ends at least I would think so.

[Elfdude]

I believe that indeed, someone can justify their wrong doing with acts of good. However as I always state I believe justification is little more than compromise, an uneasy peace so to speak. Morals and ethics are rules we use to judge people around us and ourselves. They come down to the basic fear of pain and desire for happiness. A person without morals will evaluate a situation by how it turns out. A person with morals will evaluate the implications and motivations of the people and actions involved.

When someone such as the rich and powerful decides that the ends justify the means they end up choosing immoral actions. Even a child can understand these actions are wrong (even if they can’t exactly describe why) because all normal humans have a portion of brain devoted to determining the morality of actions around us. This is because actions are in essence a precedent and imply what we can expect from future actions of the person. If someone has no morals they only care about their goal. The only thing that keeps you or me for being a target to them is the virtue of where that goal is in relation to us. If we stand between it intentionally or not he will remove us by any means necessary. We all inherently understand this implication and rationally fear it.

Every action we take is a faux pas, or a blunder. We can’t take them back no matter what we do. At best we can try and alter the implication our previous actions had by substituting a new implication. This is called repentance and many people discover the hard way the social stigma that a lack of morality will quickly find you with. Morality can be learned (or rediscovered) but trust is a property of time and effort. What’s important however is that people trust your motivation and implication and you continue to act good. A relapse simply tells them that you further can’t be trusted and if you (intentionally or not) create a new implication that you can change your values whenever people may cease to trust you all together.

Justification, remember, is little more than a compromise. I say this because justification is in the eye of the beholder, an even exchange maybe but not the ‘ideal’ exchange which is what morality strives for. Further justification changes based on what argument you apply to it. So even though Rockefeller may have justified his evil actions until the day he died I’m sure very few if anyone trusted him to make the morally acceptable decision reliably. After you die and (of course) if your goodwill lives on then future generations may rightly have no reason to fear your immorality and tend to be a bit more forgiving of it. Which is to say he never truly made up for his decisions, people simply forgave or forgot them assuming they ever knew most of it in the first place.

Further severity of the sin and frequency are taken into account in an almost mathematical way. A simple lie might lose someone’s trust for a day, lie again in the same day simple or not and you can expect to lose it longer, murder someone and you might be able to repent before you die or you might not. Only time and time without immoral action can fix this, but it’s not a true fix so much as a façade.

[Blau&Gruen]

The problem with this point of view is that it assumes to know what is good for others or what are responsible decisions in a given context. This is often not possible objectively, however. Claiming something to be a good implies a subject and by this an uncertainty (you, him, her, me, us, them, or it). It can indeed be an it like adequate, critical verifiable propositions, etc. The truth in such a case is what has to be found before this something can be put in a (ethico) geometrical perspective.

[Elfdude]

The problem with this point of view is that it assumes to know what is good for others or what are responsible decisions in a given context.

I'm not entirely clear what you mean. The point is to inflict as little pain as possible with as much happiness as possible. Ideally everyone would have everything they want (be entirely happy). To act in accordance with that ideal is a to act morally. Ideally everyone would not have to feel any pain (be entirely painfree). To act in accordance with that ideal is to act morally. It makes no statement about what the objective answer is. Without a strong urge to learn what that answer is the morality falls apart and hence I think we can think of ignorance as an inherent blockage to moral action. In this respect we could consider ignorance itself immoral.

This is often not possible objectively, however. Claiming something to be a good implies a subject and by this an uncertainty (you, him, her, me, us, them, or it). It can indeed be an it like adequate, critical verifiable propositions, etc. Truth is what has to be found before this something can be put in a geometrical perspective.

I'm not sure what you're getting at all. I think you need to expand upon what you mean by several paragraphs.

[Blau&Gruen]

@elfdude

I agree with the first who would not.

To your second point: We need to distinguish, I think, between pure ethical problems and extra-ethical considerations that may imply an ethos, like writing a good text instead of a bad text. As writing bad texts is an objective sin, I should write an objectively good text. It is better for me at least to write a good one instead of a bad one. If I tell my friends, oh this evening I am together with my girlfriend (let's assume it is not true), to keep them away disturbing me writing, then this can serve the better of the activity (of writing a text), if I really write of course. I can also spend money for a grand ape preservation project but that can't make up the sin of writing bad texts although donating to grand ape projects is without doubt not a sin. - Just to give an example of what I mean.

[Vizsla]

So long as good deeds get done it really doesn’t matter about the motivation. Fairness, justice, good and evil are all concepts invented by people. Or at least that humans evolved to believe in. My dog appears to believe in fairness, so maybe it’s not just us.
If guilt motivates rich people to try and make the world nicer then that’s all well and good.
Who am I to judge them?
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. (Oscar Wilde)

[Elfdude]

To your second point: We need to distinguish, I think, between pure ethical problems and extra-ethical considerations that may imply an ethos, like writing a good text instead of a bad text.

No, what you're doing is applying morality to things which are inherently amoral (without moral concern). Writing is not wrong, how you use it might be wrong but it is not wrong to write. Further expressing your ideals are not wrong as this is an inherent right. To take either of those away would be wrong. If you knowingly lie in your writing in order to trick or betray your audience that is wrong. However information is inherently without moral concern. It is amoral in all but presentation.

As writing bad texts is an objective sin, I should write an objectively good text.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by writing bad texts. Texts which are purposefully manipulative and malevolent? Even then it's important what you do with the writing not necessarily the writing itself. If you study it to understand manipulation and evil much good could come from it. This is why I say truth is inherently amoral, without a someone to make a choice on what to do with it there is no objective evil or good in it.

It is better for me at least to write a good one instead of a bad one.

You're attempting to objectify something that is relative. Objective + relative = relative. If it's nature is relative it is amoral and depends on what you do with it.

If I tell my friends, oh this evening I am together with my girlfriend (let's assume it is not true)

A minor betrayal. A friend could conclude that you don't like them or worse that you never liked them. A betrayal of trust is a dangerous precedent to set and its fairly easy to see how that could be considered immoral.

to keep them away disturbing me writing, then this can serve the better of the activity (of writing a text)if I really write of course.

The quality of writing states nothing about the morality of the writing. I don't see where you're going with this.

I can also spend money for a grand ape preservation project but that can't make up the sin of writing bad texts although donating to grand ape projects is without doubt not a sin. - Just to give an example of what I mean.

See this confuses me further because you're now agreeing with what I said and everything before this part seems extraneous and unnecessary.

So long as good deeds get done it really doesn’t matter about the motivation. Fairness, justice, good and evil are all concepts invented by people. Or at least that humans evolved to believe in. My dog appears to believe in fairness, so maybe it’s not just us.

There's a location in our brains which controls evaluating the motivations of people. Morality is about motivation not the end. We think this way because if someone hurts us, even if guilt compells them to later do good they may be willing to accept the guilt. This makes them untrustworthy. If you hurt me now you may not feel so bad about hurting me later assuming you feel bad at all. Forgiveness is accepting that they don't intend to hurt you/others in the future true or not.

Further there's something to be said if good deeds only get done after someone commits an evil one. At best they're restoring the status quo, that's not goodness, had they not been evil in the first place their goodwill would've benefitted those around them to a much greater extent. It''s like taking $1000 and giving back $1000. You haven't done anything good. At best you've sated your conscience.

If guilt motivates rich people to try and make the world nicer then that’s all well and good.

Ah, but making the world nicer implies more good than evil. If that's the case motivation and action become doubly important.

Who am I to judge them?

Presumably a normal human with your moral reasoning in tact.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. (Oscar Wilde)

Those stars can been seen as moral ideals. To put it a different way, using good acts to make up for bad ones is like digging a pit into the gutter then standing on a ladder. If you had just built the ladder in the first place you would be closer to those stars.

Why do people give money to animal shelters?
They feel guilty or they want other people or their god to like them, or feel a duty to help.
So long as the shelter gets the dough, the why does not matter.

It does matter. If they give because they've taken then what has changed? What has improved? What has gotten nicer? You've created a problem to solve a problem. That is not morality, that is compromise and public relations. If your guilt motivates you to give more than you've taken that's another story, but don't expect to be forgiven by people until they feel they can trust your actions which requires significantly more depending on the frequency and severity of your sins.

[Akar]

No.

[Blau&Gruen]

What no? Are you against philanthropy?

[Akar]

What no? Are you against philanthropy?

No, philanthropy does not make up for past sins. I should have clarified what I meant. But no, im not against philanthropy itself just the idea that it makes up for past wrongs.

[Blau&Gruen]

Ah, I think most agree with this here so far.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Hell no. Philanthropy is what rich people do when they're desperate for that warm fuzzy feeling inside that you get from doing good.

[Floris V van Holland]

Hell no. Philanthropy is what rich people do when they're desperate for that warm fuzzy feeling inside that you get from doing good.

best reaction yet i think.
and i agree wholeheartedly.


makes up for nothing.
if they really want to attone for their evildoing at least give away 100% and start a life of service to others.

you never see a philanthropist do that. only a comfortable 10 - 50 % of the massive fortunes involved wich leaves their financial status quo unchanged in that they never need work again.

so its a meaningless gesture for atonement purposes however i still think its the right way to go.
i think in the core of the matter anybody holding say more than 3 million in assets should already be heavily involved in charity any above 5 millionis a criminal.
at least for as long as there are people in the world dying of lack of clean drinking water to name one example.

[Helm]

Only a true faith in and repentance to our Lord Jesus Christ who died on the cross so we could be forgiven can make up for past sins, unless you mean some other religion you would have to specify which.

[Tuor]

I think philanthropy is definitely better than just asking for forgiveness or being dunked in a pool of water. While it's debatable whether or not it's serving the purpose of making up for those sins, the other methods for making up for sins are also debatable.

[Nimthill]

If the good you do is in any quantifiable way greater than the evil you do, then yes. Shooting a person to save lives for example. Then again, I do not really adhere to the concept of 'sin', so I'm pretty amoral.

[Thanatos]

Philanthropy never makes up for past sins.

[Nyxos]

I don't really understand what you mean by making up.

If you killed someone, or ruined someones life and that someone committed suicide, then no matter how much money you give away to charity and such, that person will still be dead (yes its an exaggerated example). As was said before, you can't undo something that has been done.

On the other hand, you might gain recognition, respect and even forgiveness if your good deeds are impressive enough. People might think "hum, he was a douche, but he changed".

So what do you mean by making up ?