I think it’s a mistake to think that donating $50,000 to a charitable organization in 5 years is more important or “better” than buying $100 of groceries for someone who needs it today.

This person isn’t trying to maximize the amount of “good” they can do, they’re trying to minimize what it will cost them because they’re greedy and unwilling to actually give something of themselves.

“Giving all you have” doesn’t have to mean taking all of your money and possessions and just giving them to someone. It can also mean earnestly engaging with the idea that we’re here to serve and elevate each other, and having faith that in doing so we will create a better world.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

But then how are their wife and daughter gonna land that sweet charity board job?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think it’s a mistake to think that buying $100 of groceries for 500 people is more important or “better” than buying $100 of groceries for one person

If your goal is to eliminate hunger it's a hell of a lot more effective

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

*if your goal is to eliminate hunger in a hypothetical future 5 years from now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Don't forget by accumulating massive wealth he's going to be damaging people all around the world right now. You can't accumulate that type of wealth without exploiting workers. His hypothetical accumulation of wealth is literally creating poverty and inequality.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Unless you believe hunger will be solved in the next 5 years it's not really all that hypothetical