When people hate others simply because of how much money they have, well, it really shows their colors.

@freemo I'd say those who have expressed satisfaction at the death are expressing anger rather than hatred. The anger is not at others merely possessing money, but at the system that gave it to them and which they heavily supported, and at the good they failed to do with the money.

@gabe That doesnt make it right, if anything that just articulates why it is so wrong..

It would be like me saying (wrongly) that im happy some random black person died because im angry at all the times ive been assaulted by blasck people...

The premise is wrong, black/billionairs as a whole arent hurting people (despite there being plenty of notable bad individuals)... and you using that as justification is also wrong.

@freemo , I'd reject the analogy of course, since blaming one black person for the actions of others of the same race is morally invalid, but blaming one rich person for their *own* actions is entirely appropriate.

The individual billionaire could have done much good with their wealth; they did not. They could have supported a more just economic system that gave them less unearned wealth and better protected the rights of the weak & poor; they did not (indeed they did the opposite). These choices deserve moral blame, especially since they are now individually in the public eye.

@gabe Except you arent blaming a rich person for their own actions beyond the act of simply being rich... sounds a lot like racism where you blame a person simply for being black and making overarching sterotype assumptions about all black/rich people.

And your last paragraph is just out of touch with the reality of it.. being rich doesnt mean you are unjust.. in fact most rich people donate a much larger portion of their income to charity than middle class people do, so you are assuming simply because they created their wealth and decided not to give away all or most of the very thing they created that they are by default evil.

@freemo
> Except you arent blaming a rich person for their own actions beyond the act of simply being rich

Please do not put fictitious reasons into my mouth after I have explicitly given different reasons. 🙂 I understand it's easy to do unconsciously because the fictitious reasons are more emotional.

I don't think it's "out of touch" to blame someone for their bad actions, even if they've also done good actions.

@gabe

You literally went on to give a generic reason why all rich people were bad... it was not fictitious.

It is out of touch when 1) those bad actions are a generalization 2) those bad actions arent reality.

@freemo ,
Indeed it was fictitious, as it was neither my words nor implied by them, but rather I explicitly contradicted that fictitious reason in my first comment on this thread.

I wonder whether you're mixing me up with other people (that is to say, blaming me as an individual for arguments of other people you consider similar).

@gabe Your statement was as follows:

> The individual billionaire could have done much good with their wealth; they did not. They could have supported a more just economic system that gave them less unearned wealth and better protected the rights of the weak & poor; they did not (indeed they did the opposite). These choices deserve moral blame, especially since they are now individually in the public eye.

These assumptions are blanket statements about rich people, and based solely on them being rich... You have no idea what good, if any, they did with their wealth in the past (or would continue to do in the future). You have no idea if they fought for a better system that protected the weak or poor, again, you knew nothing about these people and assumed, based solely on them being rich, that they were guilty of the above.

@freemo
Those reasons can apply to most rich people, but interpreting it that way was your imposition into the text, not supported by the text, which as you'll note literally indicates its subject as "the individual billionaire". You misread; we all do from time to time.

You also make a number of statements about my knowledge of the individuals, perhaps supposing I haven't read the news about them. I'm very chill about such things, but for general quality of discussion it's better to avoid attempts at mind-reading. 🙂

@gabe Then by all means, please feel free to provide individual examples of things the billionairs in this case did that was immoral.. at least then I might agree with you.

@freemo
Happy to share the two biggies in more detail, though I already referenced them. From what I've seen if your political persuasion, I doubt you'll agree with their moral valence, but that's a separate matter. (Also, I believe inaction to be equally morally relevant as action. You're free to agree or disagree with that, IMO this isn't the thread for that argument.)

• Shahzada Dawood's wealth was inherited from the Dawood Group -- quite literally unearned by him. It was his choice to accept it for personal benefit rather than to support a more meritocratic system.

• Shahzada's net worth was estimated to be around $360 million. He could have used a large fraction of that money for good; he did not. He made that choice every day.

He's currently in the public eye due to his own actions (the Titan sub fiasco), so comment on him is justified, including angry judgment of his moral failings.

@gabe So your assertion is 1) he i herited money 2) he didnt make hinself poor or middle class after he i herited that money?

Sounds a hell of a lot like your whoke accusation boils down to "he is rich" afterall.

@freemo
No, my assertion is not "he inherited money", which I view as morally neutral, it's "he chose personal wealth over meritocracy", and, No, not that "he didn't make himself poor", which I view as a prudent choice, but that "he didn't use his great wealth for similarly great good".

I'd strongly encourage us all to use the principle of charity! If your conversational partner wouldn't agree to your rephrasing, then that rephrasing is *uncharitable and wrong*.

@gabe first off he did use and continues to use his great wealth for good, dumping a great deal into his fou dation commited to educaring the poor.

So if thats all you meant then you are simply wrong.

@freemo
(Applying charity: Would I agree that that's all I meant? Obviously not.)

He used *some* of his unearned wealth for charity, but kept $360 million. He, like each of us, is blameworthy for not doing the good he could have done, and in his case that good he could do but chose not to do was *vast*.