This question, in one form of another, is one that I’ve used at dinner parties in the last year or so–I’m a great guest because I bring hors de oeuvres, I listen to others and I often do the dishes (Thanks Mom). I’m always surprised at the unexpected answers and reasoning I get from people. There is no wrong answer, as all you Philosophy Majors will attest.
Before Occupy Wall Street was a twinkle in the eye of a White Dreadlocked Drummer, and before The Tea Party was launched in a tract mansion with filet mignon sliders and Artesa ’07 Cab, I observed two distinct personalities that ignited my curiosity. These are real people (sometimes I actually talk to them!), and began to ponder the Big Picture.
Here’s the set-up:
Person #1
This person is very kind, very likeable and extremely accommodating. He (or she) would do anything for you, and is a pleasure to have around. When you are sick, he/she is there. When the kids need watching, he/she will help you out. This person is reasonably successful, i.e. has a job and a car and a home and is minding his (her) own business. This person does not believe in donating money to charity.
Person #2
This person is not that nice, not very likeable and not at all accommodating. He (she) doesn’t cut slack for you or his (her) children. He/she is not mean, but not kind. This person is rich. This person gives huge amounts to charity (I’m talking about Millions).
So here’s the Question:
Which of these two people is better for the society?
Remember, there is no wrong answer.
I’ll take my answer in the Comments box.
Les
bestbathroombooks 
The first .
Interesting!
Les
They’re both awful.
But they were both at the dinner party.
Les
I’d have to go with the first. The second person would help more people, but in the concept of “give a man a fish”. The first person teaches others, both inside and outside the family, to do good things for others, rippling outward as if a pond – this is the “teach a man to fish” concept.
Besides, if everybody only gave money, nobody would really be helped, because there would be no one to disburse the funds. No?
I wrestle with this too, because I know person #1 is a good person. Then I see someone who I define as not kind, and yet they contribute somehow to society and others benefit. It helps me in my effort to decrease judging. I promise to be funny next blog!
Les
I’d have to say that if we’re talking society it’s citizen number two, simply because his dollar stretches further to cover a greater need. More members of “society” would be helped by number two’s contribution. The same few members of society are repeatedly helped by citizen number one. If the question were, “Who is the better humanitarian?” I’d probably give you a different answer. For what it’s worth.
I have friends who answered the same way, without hesitation. It’s funny, because a lot of times I guess wrong on which answer someone will give.
Thanks!
Les
I’d have to pick the author because he is the best of both people.
Well, Joe. Welcome to the discussion. If you think that kind of talk is going to get you laid, you’re probably right.
Just not by me.
Les
I prefer person number two. While person one may be more generally friendly, I do not doubt that person two would help you if you were in dire need due to factors out of your control – given that you have the same standing with both, of course. The apparent lack of accommodation cannot be completely true – there is no way to be so high up any social group without accommodating to others in one way or another. Perhaps person two simply accommodates different things, things which he or she believes to be more valuable to their time. After all, people whose time are precious to them – which is all rich people, and any of very high character – have a very good reason to not deal with those which do not meet their expectations.
I do not take into account donations to charity. They are reflective of lifestyle. Person one probably doesn’t believe in donations to charity because he or she is already actively helping people out in his or her own life. Person two probably donates lots to charity to make up for the time he or she does not have to do it him or herself.
I was trying to compare and contrast personal kindness. I got stuck on the part of your comment where you say “rich people’s time being precious to them”. I think you mean their time being profitable to them. I’m pretty sure everyone’s time is equally worthwhile, even if someone is being kind, but not profitable.
Hopefully you agree.
Les
Great question, but too deep for my first day back. Both have positives and negatives, so my answer depends on perspective. For an inner circle, I want #1. For helping a larger group, it;s #2. Just wanted to say hello after my week away.
Frank!
Sorry to bombard you with philosphy on your first day back into cyberspace. It’s very subjective and always interesting to hear what each answer is. I’ll be over at your great blog today.
Les
Is either one a babe?
Joe, I purposely didn’t mention breast/unit size so as not to sway all the romantics out there.
Les
Person 1 is better for society. Person 2 *cough Paris Hilton cough* may donate to less needy “charity” organizations like I don’t know… to help the poor, defenseless dogs and cats. Seriously, there are kids starving in the world and you’ll donate money to animal shelters or a related organizations instead. WTGB?!
Kindness trumps remote charity. Yeah, I get it.
Les
Les, you asked a really good question though. It was interesting to see how other people responded too.
Tough one. They both suck because they each lack some level of awareness for humanity, whether big picture or not. #1 has no apparent interest in caring for the “greater good” and #2 has no interest in caring for those in their immediate view. But as a former philosophy student (was that a shout-out to me or Steve Martin?), I would dig deep into my bag of Socrates….okay, this is actually coming from my bag of Mr. Rogers…and I’d say #1.
With the exception of the Arts, natural disasters and whatnot, a lot of the charities that might collect from person #2 are working to undo the results of people’s lack of kindness for one another. So maybe #2 is helping to somehow contribute to the sort of unkindness that creates the need for much of their money in the first place. Is #2 Ted Turner? 😉
Damn, how did you know it was Ted?
That is a great answer by the way. And it makes sense.
Les
(Shout out to A.Z!)
Which one mixes the better drink?
The rich one. Sorry.
Les
If more of us were like person #1, we wouldn’t need big charities (and all their fundraising expenses, director salaries, and cronyism).
Person #2 wreaks a lot of havoc in his drive to amass wealth, and I am not sure that donating it to some big “charitable” organization undoes more than a small fraction of the destruction in his wake.
You’re a number one person. Got it. You’d be surprised how answers cross party lines.
Les
Hello, BBB,
This is one of the topics usually discussed by this guy – http://barkinginthedark.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-our-laws-today-more-email-from-the-tea-party/ – which I usually enjoy reading. It’s be fun, perhaps, to take a peek (you love doin’ that, you said) 😉
I also tried to test the waters on this one with my post – http://35andupcynicismonhold.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/theres-always-a-rich-relative/ – hope you’ll find time to read it (haha) when you’re not swamped with work and preoccopied with vaginas, penises and erections which, are by far, the better way to make use of one’s time, lols! ^_^
At any rate, hope things are shakin’ well for you and your dear ones. Regards! 🙂
I liked both the articles. I work in mansions and have worked my way up to the point where I associate with the rich, though can only be described as such in comparison to the third world. Being in such close proximity, it’s a lot harder to hate rich people. I’ve come to the conclusion that being an a-hole crosses all socio-economic spectrums.
Glad you did, mr. BBB, thanks… Hey, did you know that Barking In the Dark’s the guy who sang the song Don’t Nobody Move? Yeah, he is. He’s also the stuttering guy in the movie, the Godfather. He writes swell, too, dang! 😉
What can I say about rich people? They live and think differently from you and me, I guess. The class divide is much more pronounced in Third World settings.Unlike in industrial or post-industrial societies where poverty is more or less transitional and poor people could work their way up in five to ten years. In our country, that’s hardly the case… ^^
Ah, I do agree with you there. Poor people could be a_holes and bitches as much or better than the middle class or the rich, ahaha. 😉 Good day and thanks for the follow! 🙂
Looking forward to your next post!