A genuinely good person with substantial resources would use those resources to alleviate suffering rather than hoard them. Moral philosophy distinguishes doing harm from failing to do good, and harming others is generally considered wrong. A person who acquires wealth by harming others or uses wealth to cause harm is typically not morally good. Some argue that individuals have no moral obligation to assist others and can withhold help while remaining good. Kant examines a well-off person who avoids harming others but refuses assistance and argues that withholding help in such circumstances is immoral by appeal to reciprocal duty.
I concluded that, in general, the two are not compatible. The gist of the argument is that if a person is good and they have vast resources, then they would use those resources to do good. I, of course, also used an analogy: could a good person on a derelict ship sit on a giant pile of supplies while other people suffered and died from lack? The answer is obvious: a good person would not do that.
In moral philosophy, philosophers make an important moral distinction between doing harm and not doing good. As philosophers such as J.S. Mill have argued, we generally consider harming others to be wrong (although there are exceptions). So, a billionaire who becomes rich by doing harm to others or uses their wealth to cause harm would usually be a bad person, or at least not good. But one can make a case that people have no moral obligation to help others and can withhold their assistance while still being good.
Collection
[
|
...
]