Fact: to achieve your own goals, you need 100% of your time, money and effort.
Fact: its possible for one's own goals to include improving other people's quality of life.
Living your best life, and achieving your own goals, doesn't mean ignoring everyone else in the world's well-being (for most values of "your own goals" and "your best life").
Remember, the purpose of morality to guide you so that you can enjoy a good life. A morality (that's good for life) should not tell you to suffer, give up what you care about and die.
This statement itself is a controversial moral position, rather than a universally-accepted statement of the purpose of morality.
But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere. The choice each of us has when reading anything is: "well, what do I think about this?" And for that, the number of people that agree or disagree is irrelevant.
No, claims about the "purpose of morality" are non-factual statements of personal preference in any context. It doesn't depend.
> In America, most people agree with my statement.
Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant, I see no evidence that this is true.
> But so what? There is no universally-accepted statement of anything, anywhere.
There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference).
The problem with your claim about the purpose of morality is that it presented a value claim as if it were a true statement of fact.
Well, you lost me there. When I choose not to lie to my family and friends, or when I deal with others justly, I am behaving that way (i.e., morally) because I want a good, long, happy life. It is not a matter of "personal preference." (It is absurd to say, "It is merely my personal preference to live well by honest means. Others may choose differently, and live well by dishonest means.") If I lied to my wife, or cheated a customer out of money, I would suffer, and that's an inescapable fact. (If you don't understand this point, just ask and I'll explain why.)
Show me someone, out here in reality that lives a good, long and happy life by lying to his spouse, cheating his customers, and stealing to top it off at night. Or even someone that just does one of the three, occasionally.
There's a categorical difference between logical claims (which are abstract and which are true or false independent of factual context), fact claims (which are, in principal at least, subject to objective validation as true or false), and value (including moral) claims (which are statements of personal preference).
Sigh. In relation to an individual person's life, for every is, this is an ought. For example, suppose that I am driving my car down the highway. There is a giant boulder in the middle of the road ahead. If I want to live, I ought to slow down and turn to avoid it. So much for Hume!
Yet almost every moral code condemns murder. What does that have to do with ensuring that I personally live a good life?
Even a psychopath will worry about the evidence they've invariably left behind, which leads to getting caught. A life of constant, nagging doubt is not a good life. Can you imagine trying to plan for the long-term under those (self-created) circumstances? "Well, maybe I'll major in Geology. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," or "maybe I'll buy this house. It has a 30-year mortgage, so when I pay it off, I'll be able to travel to New Zealand, just like I've always wanted. ...that is, if they don't catch me first," and "I wonder if that new forensic technique will implicate me. I sure hope not!"
A criminal will grow uncomfortable every time something reminds him of his crimes, because, short of coming clean and turning himself in, the only way to escape the above mental processes is to evade it altogether, and that means shutting out anything that might remind him of his crime. This includes an ever-increasing array of things, many of which would only be tangentially associated with the original act. Escaping knowledge of reality becomes a deeply ingrained mental habit. Lies to other people are inevitably required in this pursuit.
Most people are not psychopaths, so there is an additional and deeply emotional dimension to the above for them. They will feel terrible, and deeply guilty for the rest of their lives. Actual happiness is an impossibility in that state...
Isn't all of this obvious?
There are those who require 100% of their money to simply achieve their personal consumption goals but -whether financially or emotionally- they're very poor.
Well, this guy would disagree:
What about people born into wealth, who inherited the money their parents or grandparents earned by doing something useful for society? Where do they fit into your picture?
On the flip side, what about people who cannot find any job that pays enough for them to save money, who are literally living paycheck to paycheck. Do you want to live in a society where we have a class of people who have no social mobility at all, and who lack the power needed to change anything about that?
Ayn Rand's image of the heroic capitalist who amasses a fortune by solving society's problems is very unrealistic. Even people like Mike Bloomberg and Bill Gates, billionaires whose fortunes were amassed as a result of their own work, received help early on. Who do you think paid for Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg to go to Harvard, where they met the people that worked with them to build their businesses?
There isn't really any difference. The parents kept the money they earned, and (quite rationally) chose to spend it on giving the children an economic advantage (that the children, more often than not, could not have earned for themselves.) To tax the children is to tax the parents.
So the children, who could not have earned that money themselves, should get it anyway? Why are they particularly special -- why not redistribute money to other people who have trouble earning their way? Why does the fact that you are someone's descendant someone exempt you from having to earn your way just like everyone else?
As a side note, it seems quite plausible to me that redistribution from the "lucky" to the "unlucky" will result in a growing pie for all, though perhaps it won't grow to the extent that the very lucky are better off than if the redistribution didn't happen.
By all means be a miser if that makes you feel better, but don't cloak your actions in "morality".
Opportunities are not "given". I don't go to work thinking, "just look at all the opportunity I'm creating for other people by contributing to industrial civilization."
Rawls is wrong. The idea that "you didn't earn your brain, your family, your upbringing, etc." is completely in error because the concept "earn" only applies to situations where choice is involved. In reality, "earn" distinguishes the hardworking doctor or construction worker from a 30-year old man that won't get a job and still lives with his parents.
I say that if you make the most of what you've got, it doesn't matter if you started out with $5 or $5e7. What matters is that you make the most of the opportunities that are out there. What matters is how much you improve your lot.
I say that the purpose of morality is to have a happy life, here on earth. It sounds like you are against "enjoy yourself and live."
Edit: Here I give the answer to most of the people that are downvoting me. Clicking the down arrow to shut out other viewpoints won't help anyone get to the truth on the matter.
However, success in today's world is not driven solely by "creating value" for a variety of reasons. Don't succumb to the "just world" fallacy - it's easy to moralize about how the unsuccessful must be lazy, but applying a little bit of critical thinking should make it clear that a rural shepherd in a third world country isn't necessarily poor because he "chooses" not to work hard and become a surgeon. Indeed, well-targeted charity may increase the returns to hard work.
If someone wants to donate money to charity, they should donate money to charity. That's the life they want to live.
Helping others is deeply ingrained in our nature. But ofcourse, there are Kobe Bryant's out there being brought up by eskimos, who have no concept of basketball.
Studies indicate that spending money on others is one of the best ways to increase your own happiness. I don't have references handy, but check out the book "Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending." That is loaded with references to studies that support that claim.
I think yours is a pretty selfish viewpoint. I wonder how world war II soldiers would feel about what you say.
you mention creating, but nowhere do you mention who one should create for. the ethical reason for creating a product is to better others lives, not your own.
you also suggest that bettering others' lives does not better your own:
>i.e., because you know that the specific cause you're supporting will make your own life better
this ignores the joy that most people experience when they genuinely help others, the sense of community people feel when they come together as a group for a cause, and the feeling of hope that your community service or charity may impart on those who are less fortunate than you can likely imagine.
assisting a charity is not 'giving up' your life for most. It's enriching it.
As an aside, your comment detracts from the value of charity to begin with, when the article is about whether or not a specific _form_ of charity is more beneficial than others. I think your comment adds little to the discussion and ignores the content of the article entirely.
Well, I agree, and I take that idea very seriously. People should keep their money (earned by trading time from their lives), and use it to make the most of their own lives.
Moral credit ought to go to those who create the most, not to those that give up everything. Contrary to what your mother will tell you, giving money to charity does not make you a better person. But creating things and otherwise making the most of your life (you only have one), does.
If you want to give money to charity, make sure you're doing it for the right reason (i.e., because you know that the specific cause you're supporting will make your own life better), and that you have enough money so that you're not sacrificing your primary values (your own goals, family, friends, for example) by doing so.
Don't give up the one life you have, or any part of it - it's yours, and it's all you've got.