Does Charity Absolve All Sins?
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Not as religious as the title sounds...</div> (based on a side-topic brewing in OT)
Throughout history, men reviled for their unethical (or outright criminal) business practices have frequently spent the later portions of their lives contributing back to society. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates - all operated above the law (to varying degrees) in how they ran their businesses, and often caused a lot of harm. On the other hand, they also donated billions of dollars to charitable trusts, funded research, and generally had unimaginable philanthropic legacies that helped millions of people.
Does this absolve them of past behavior?
Try to shy away from the dollar figures in your thinking, and think about the results. Bill Gates' charitable trust fund is the largest in history, with an allocation of around $23 Billion. Does millions of dollars to medical research and treatment overcome questions of OS monopolization? What about Carnegie's steel and railroad monopolization? Morgan's financial actions? Is there a line, and can charity overrule dastardliness?
Throughout history, men reviled for their unethical (or outright criminal) business practices have frequently spent the later portions of their lives contributing back to society. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates - all operated above the law (to varying degrees) in how they ran their businesses, and often caused a lot of harm. On the other hand, they also donated billions of dollars to charitable trusts, funded research, and generally had unimaginable philanthropic legacies that helped millions of people.
Does this absolve them of past behavior?
Try to shy away from the dollar figures in your thinking, and think about the results. Bill Gates' charitable trust fund is the largest in history, with an allocation of around $23 Billion. Does millions of dollars to medical research and treatment overcome questions of OS monopolization? What about Carnegie's steel and railroad monopolization? Morgan's financial actions? Is there a line, and can charity overrule dastardliness?
Comments
I'm okay with it, and it costs a lot less in tax payers money for expensive dragging out for years lawsuits that eventually ends out in politically motivated, completely watered out and irrelevant verdicts. Such as the MS case.
I don't believe in 'buying off your sins'
If you think that simply throwing cash at a problem will make you a 'good guy' well your wrong.
If you screwed up in life, realise it and think that the best way to honestly make ammends is to donate a large portion of your fortune to what ever cause you feel is just, Well that dosn't bother me that much.
As for where t odraw the line.
You can't, its an ethical issue, one that needs to be taken on a case by case baises (Is Bill Gates realy EVIL for making a monopoly? Does his donations of thousands of computers to schools that would never have them make it a good use of that $$?)
waaaiiiit a sec...
MonsE Your not suposed to be here (I thought you banned your self from this forum <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
I'm okay with it, and it costs a lot less in tax payers money for expensive dragging out for years lawsuits that eventually ends out in politically motivated, completely watered out and irrelevant verdicts. Such as the MS case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't it certainly far better than a jail term? Putting Bill Gates in jail because you think he unfairly ran an OS company out of business doesn't send $100,000,000 to India for AID's treatment.
At what point have you undone your business damages, and become a good person? Or are you damned forever without hope of moral redemption?
I know, i understand this. What i'm saying is that i don't beleive a person is defined by their actions, i don't beleive "good" or "evil" exists. The only thing i see closest to your comment, are satisfying ones own mind due to how he/she perceives themselves, or perhaps how others perceive you if matters to you.
On a second note, under how i see it, if i did beleive such alignments to exist, whos to say what is good or bad, its still based on the perception of an individual whos judgements are based on that individuals experiences, or they're based on a groups perception of such actions, I.E. local societies, large societies, Organized releigions, groups that the person may belong to, etc.
With your question you are trying to force us into answering "YES" or "NO" to a question that's warranting quite a complicated answer. It's the bad journalism way of asking questions. Little girl drowns in city fire pond. Hack asks city fire chief "Is water hazardous then? Answer yes or no, please!"
The AIDS pledge is a robber's money given to charity in one sense, but if you view on it with saving life as the highest ethic, Gates isn't a bad guy. If you view legal justice as the highest ethic, he is one since he was taken to court for his ill deeds. If Bill Gates should be absolved of his crooked status, he should go through trial that comes to a verdict. I believe it happened. In that case, he is no longer a crook. He gets to keep his ill gotten money and decides to give some to charity. They have officially been washed clean.
In the end it is only the good lord or his tag team that can absolve you of any sins, really, isn't it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Us humans just deal with justice...
I'll be honest and say I think your reponse is more than a little patronizing, Immac.
Let's try and keep our eye on the ball here. If you are unclear on my questions, please ask for clarification, not simply discount it.
These magnates don't have to make donations to redress the balance, thats probably the easiest way they can though. I wouldn't mind seeing Bilge (as we called him when I was a microserf) doing some gardening for little old ladies though.....
These magnates don't have to make donations to redress the balance, thats probably the easiest way they can though. I wouldn't mind seeing Bilge (as we called him when I was a microserf) doing some gardening for little old ladies though..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhh, but most of these guys did the majority of their good works through trusts that were created and maintained after their deaths. Perhaps their legacy was in question? No one wants to have themselves thought of as the world's biggest SOB after they're dead after all...
Spending money for the common good is the work of representatives of the people , not buisnessmen.
The question is, what percentage of thier income are they giving to charity. Bill gates may give 30billion a year away, but when you make that much money in a couple of weeks, it is hardly enything. The best example I can think of is a parable from the Bible. Jesus tells us of two people who gave money to the church like an offerering. One of them is a really righ man, with loads of money and he makes a big song and dance about giving two whole bags of gold to the church, when he makes that much in the time it takes to brush his teeth. The other is a really poor woman who gives just two gold coins. it is absolutely nothying, but that is all she has. Jesus then goes on to say that the woman was a better giver than the rich man, because she gave all she had.
Its very good that the rich people are donating large sums of money to charity, but i am sure that when you put it in perspective of the amount thay have, it will add up to nothing.
Spending money for the common good is the work of representatives of the people , not buisnessmen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point. Going to the Carnegie example, his Pinkerton guards killed a couple rioters at one point (and it's very unlikely anyone was acting under direct orders from Carnegie to kill - historians seem to think things just got out of hand. But they were Carnegie's cops, after all) . However, the Carnegie trust has given millions of dollars to AIDS research and prevention that has undoubtedly saved or prolonged thousands of lives in Africa. It has also worked heavily to stop proliferation of WMD's, and to lesson tensions between the US and Soviets for 50 years. Does *that* undue the loss of several lives?
I'll put it to you another way - knowing what you do now about history and the results of these charitable works, if you could have locked up Carnegie 100 years ago to avenge the deaths of his workers, knowing that all these good deeds would now <i>never</i> happen, would you still do it?
It's a pickle of a question...
Its very good that the rich people are donating large sums of money to charity, but i am sure that when you put it in perspective of the amount thay have, it will add up to nothing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To clarify, $23 billion is a little over half of <i>all</i> his assets. Not anything he made in a week, but instead a lifetime. And he also has a trust set up that will kick in when he dies, and gives away all the rest. 100% charity.
For Catholics, it might be enough to absolve earthly sins.
For Protestants/Lutherans/All the others, it is not, as you get justification by faith alone.
I personally think that even though he has slightly sleazy business practices, Bill Gates is still a good man for being willing to give up just about half of the money he ever earned. and he is ready to give away the rest when he dies, though probably saving a couple million for his children (if he has any) to set up their own life.
For Catholics, it might be enough to absolve earthly sins.
For Protestants/Lutherans/All the others, it is not, as you get justification by faith alone.
I personally think that even though he has slightly sleazy business practices, Bill Gates is still a good man for being willing to give up just about half of the money he ever earned. and he is ready to give away the rest when he dies, though probably saving a couple million for his children (if he has any) to set up their own life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
3 that I know of. I'm sure they'll be set for life, but he said unequivically that they do not get any sizable portion of his fortune - it's almost 100% earmarked for charity. No Paris Hilton nonsense in the Gates' household...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you gave the Bill Gates example some fuel by mention the AIDS research. It was natural association that took about .5 seconds <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll be honest and say I think your reponse is more than a little patronizing, Immac. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was not intended at all! Pardon me for bad choice of words, but I stand by my opinion that I do see a yes or no question asked here, can you be absolved of sin by doing good deeds if the deeds you do are sufficiently magnificent? I'd say it qualifies for that definition.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Let's try and keep our eye on the ball here. If you are unclear on my questions, please ask for clarification, not simply discount it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that's perhaps the problem, I didn't find anything unclear about your question - so why ask you if I had no problems? Anyways, since you stated what your aim was, Ill try to answer that, but I carry the same reservations as before.
You ask
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not forcing anyone to say anything, and certainly not YES or NO. I am trying to distance you from considering the individual in question, and think more about the deeds.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is still a kind of very conscious and artificial division to want to seperate people's deeds from the people doing them, since our whole social system is made up of people's INTENTIONS as well as their actions. Sometimes action counts more than intentions, but sometimes intentions are most important. Like in a court case, you judge people harder by their ill intentions when they murder someone for gain, and more lenient when they kill someone by accident.
In the case of saving, let's say, 100.000 lives, I'm to a certain point willing to ignore means - as long as it didn't kill 200.000 people to accomplish it. But the situation is very much depending on it, and Im not sure you can make anything but a moral judgement on this case, which makes it an individual thing.
Let's take that Schindler guy from germany who saved a few jews but let so many other slave labors suffer in his factories. Good or bad guy? Well he did play along and march to the nazi tune... But he also saved someone's life at great personal risk. I'm unable to judge such a person in any clear cut manner.
For some persons, philantropic behaviour can make us forgive them their ill begotten gold - or forget them. What really matters to me is probably - did they give out their heart's blood, or was it just a cynical calculation to gain public favour? Or did they have so much gold they didn't know what to spend half of it? I'm sure not a lot of those gentlemen you mention had any suffering and lack of luxurious life style due to their contributions.
IF you take an economic view, you could perhaps calculate if their shennanigans was more costly to society than their contributions later, or not.
If you take a moral view as to sin and forgiveness, well, they're morally tarnished and I don't think their good deeds will save their blackened souls [Please adjust for your personal choice of religous dogma on this one <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ]
And the pragmatic view: Win some, lose some. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
So there you go, a yes, a no answer a maybe perhaps-answer from me. Highly opinionated and I hope not condescending this time.
I think that is completely off-topic from this discussion.
Anyone else, perhaps with a more controversial opinion than the utterly reasonable (i.e. boring <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> j/k) response from Immac?
Anyone else, perhaps with a more controversial opinion than the utterly reasonable (i.e. boring <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> j/k) response from Immac? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well sorry for my dry style lecturing. I guess I made all the other punters go to sleep <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Ill hafta sex up my replies O_o.
I just spent 13 days with a very argumentative irish journo who would ask some very pointed questions all the time, to start "interesting debates". That made me fortify myself into this type of bland "On the other hand..." cover-all-bases-including-your-behind argumentation. It felt like another of those discussions, pardon me for raining on your parade.
/me makes sure to include mentions of WMD in his next reply, no matter the topic.
Now the question I pose to everyone here (assuming what I heard from a friend of a friend of mine is true) is:
Did Bill Gate's wife have anything to do with his supposed, charitable mindset? (Sorry for bringing up ol' Gates).
Look at the great men of history and their female confrontations; how females have altered important decisions and often enforced them with a persuasion bag locked around men of high aptitude. It is probable that such intentions have been wrought forth by a variant of experiences-perhaps so much to the extent of trying to destroy them-and then, what?. To some of them "the end always justify the means," hopefully a great deed to them will abolish that malicious image and possibly, their moral conscience; does it? I don't know the particular thoughts of each individual, hehehe, but in my opinion the most plausible reason to me would be that in order to justify and thus erase their past actions, charity is what they can offer- a light in the darkness. Deep inside they probably don't feel "forgiven;" Rockefeller on the other hand probably didn't give a real hoot about the sins, because judging by his character, he was one basterd, so who he cancels out of the sin-and-be-forgiven equation. This type of situation is double edged and I can't really come up with an answer, meh.
First off, I'll state I'm a Christian, and a minister at that, but I'll try to look at this with and without my beliefs.
By Christian definition:
Good deeds mean nothing. Working your entire life to be a better person, giving charities, even giving everything you have to "good" means nothing. Christianity is built around the fact that Jesus was the only one to absolve your sins through His death, and the only way for your sin to be remitted would be to accept His free gift of salvation. NO deeds attached. Just accept Him. So, in this argument, they would be condemned without that. A verse for good measure: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23 (NAS) But, that is to say that a man is not free to commit these sinful acts upon salvation, James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." If he claims faith, but works claim otherwise, then he is not acting of his faith.
By secular world view (or mine if not through my faith):
I truly believe it's not the actions of a man, but his motive. Should a man commit atrocities against another, but compensate through charity, he is not truly "made clean" in my book. Now, shoul that same man committ atrocities, truly be convicted of past crimes, <i>change his behavior</i>, and give back to reconcile his past mistakes, that I could approve of. If a man's motive is to give back to keep a good legacy, or improve his image, then he is a hypocrite, and not truly doing good. He is only doing good things to justify his bad ideals and keep up his immoral activities.
Disclaimer: I did not in any way include Christian beliefs as a statement of the absolute truth you must accept. I included it for your comparison. Do not hijack this thread for religious discussion please. MonsE has a great thread, and I enjoy viewing religious and non-religious discussion involving morality.
I suppose you'd also have to specify a religion also, as I don't think many atheists really contemplate whether someone is inherently evil or not, and many religions will probably say different things.
And no, they are not necessarily interrelated, god squad. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Throughout history, men reviled for their unethical (or outright criminal) business practices have frequently spent the later portions of their lives contributing back to society. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates - all operated above the law (to varying degrees) in how they ran their businesses, and often caused a lot of harm. On the other hand, they also donated billions of dollars to charitable trusts, funded research, and generally had unimaginable philanthropic legacies that helped millions of people.
Does this absolve them of past behavior?
Try to shy away from the dollar figures in your thinking, and think about the results. Bill Gates' charitable trust fund is the largest in history, with an allocation of around $23 Billion. Does millions of dollars to medical research and treatment overcome questions of OS monopolization? What about Carnegie's steel and railroad monopolization? Morgan's financial actions? Is there a line, and can charity overrule dastardliness? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that charity absolves any sins at all. For example, if you stole $10 from a friend and then gave him $20 later to pay it back, it would be justice. But it doesn't take away the fact that you originally stole $10.
This doesn't mean that charitable acts are worthless, but as an earlier person mentioned, it's the heart that matters.
I think that the apostle Paul said it well, "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3)
What I think is that people who give charity to look good in public or feel good about themselves do themselves a disservice, and that the utilitarian benefit of such charity (while good) doesn't qualify someone for absolution. But I would not be the one to judge a person's motives, so I won't comment about what some people are speculating on here.