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:
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.
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.