• Veraticus@lib.lgbtEnglish
    5·
    2 years ago

    Sure.

    Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation will probably eradicate polio.

    Before people jump on the bandwagon about how Gates is evil and problematic, that there are no virtuous billionaires, and a government or an NGO or an equivalent should have been the one to do it… I know. But the question was “name one billionaire that’s done anything good,” and I think it’s pretty difficult to argue that eradicating polio isn’t good.

    • nonearther@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      On same tone, Warren Buffet.

      He has also donated billions in the same charity and largely lives controversy free.

  • Stuka@lemmy.ml
    2·
    2 years ago

    ITT: people who can’t understand the difference between doing something good and being good.

    Of course there are plenty of billionaires who have done good things, and pointing out all the ways they are still a shit person doesn’t change that. Shitty people occasionally do good things, even if for shitty reasons.

  • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
    2·
    2 years ago

    In these comments: People who think someone can accumulate obscene personal wealth and then give a small percentage away makes them good. But if someone dares suggest taxing that obscene wealth they are a monster.

    • paholg@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Not to defend billionaires, but this post sets an incredibly low bar. I imagine that all people, billionaires included, have done something good in their lives.

    • Stuka@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 years ago

      Reread the title. The question has nothing to do with billionaires being good people.

  • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
    1·
    2 years ago

    is this a psyop? surely its a psyop

    youd probably have a hard time naming one billionaire that hasnt done anything good

    theyre still a shit thing to have, practically never got the money they have by being a good person and shouldnt exist in the same world as homeless people, starvation or massively underfunded public projects

  • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 years ago

    It’s pretty easy to come up with some things billionaires have done that are good. Bill Gates funding cures and prevention of diseases in the third world is one that comes to mind.

    Now, if we’re talking about finding an example of a billionaire whose life is on balance a good thing for humanity…that’s pretty much impossible.

  • Squirrel@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    Good acts do not make a good person. Plenty of billionaires have done good things, but they don’t even come close to outweighing the bad.

    • quat@lemmy.sdfeu.org
      1·
      2 years ago

      A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.

      • Helmic [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        The issue is that any philantropy a billionaire does comes from money “earned” through exploitation and is never enough to un-make them a billionaire. Even if they did, it’s still a single person taking the resources of millions of people and controlling it themselves to put into their pet projects, in a completely undemocratic manner - so Gates gets to benefit from the looting of Africa and then turn arounf and tell Africans how he will be allocating that stolen loot. Oh, and that man controlling so much policy in various African nations thinks Africa is overpopulated, an extremely racist eugenicist myth.

        The good and bad are not separste things you can judge in isolation, any “good” a billionaire does is only possible by causing disproportionate harm. It is not as though these billionaires are personally doing much of anything, they are simply seizing resources from the public to inefficiently address problems that the public could have managed themselves if they were permitted to control their own lives, if they aren’t just doing what Gates does of using donations as money laundering.

  • ArbitraryOasis@reddthat.com
    1·
    2 years ago

    My two cents:

    1. The current problem is rather that relatively many rich people are trying to do good things. The vast amount of private donations and privately funded NGOs, etc., have a strong influence within traditional, often national, political and governmental processes. This has had good and bad consequences and has been done with good and not so good intentions. Even if all consequences were good, the question remains to what extent we object to the fact that the choices of where to put money have been made by individuals and not arrived at through democratic processes, which can also lead to good or bad consequences.

    2. It is unfortunate that “effective altruism” has become the trendy moral framework for many wealthy individuals, especially within Silicon Valley, to make decisions about where they put their money and how. Effective altruism is a questionable moral theory because it is primarily about the question of “how” to act and less about why. The theory suggests no underlying value system. As a result, it remains a values-free form of consequentialism, unlike, say, utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism that does propose an underlying value, namely happiness - and thus happiness maximization as a goal. Moreover, “effective” is a vague term, which also remains relatively free to fill in.

    The free-fillability of effective altruism combined with the inherently individual choices of, well, individuals, currently creates friction between wealthy individuals and democratically elected bodies.

    This is imho the current issue we need to think about, regardless of any “goodness” of consequences. Where do the responsibilities, rights, duties, freedoms and liabilities of wealthy individuals start, lie and end with respect to those of democratically elected governments, other representatives of the people, and, of course, ‘regular’ citizens.