Morality and resources

Here's an interesting argument from the Dilbert TV show:
"As long as there are starving people in the world, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral." And: "... until you give it all away, you're not more moral, you just feel less guilty."

It's said by a character in a story, but it seems that the author believes it, and I've heard it said before (by Dave Sim). And I think many people believe it, and many of us partly believe it or suspect it.

But it's absurd. After you've given it all away, shouldn't you be working more hours, so you can save more poor people? And then wouldn't it be a sin to buy a pair of good shoes instead of the cheapest ones you can find? Or go barefoot actually? If you live in a home bigger than twice your bed, aren't you taking food out of poor people's mouths?

And of course it negates personal responsibility. If I stop working, soon I'll be poor, and then apparently it will be your duty to feed me.

Not to mention it's a completely mechanistic viewpoint of the world and resources. It is the idea that resources, represented by "money", is a finite quantity, and anything you use is taken from somebody else. It simply does not work like that, not even on a practical level and certainly not on a metaphysical level.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give. (Just an hour ago I gave $111 to Chicago Public Radio.) I'm just saying you can't judge others by what they give, it's a personal choice. And to claim that the only moral viewpoint is somebody who gives everything, is ridiculous. Just for one thing, it leaves not a single person I know.

I invite more arguments, on either side.

Through The Lens said:

According to an age-old adage, anything you give comes back to you multiplied. If true, then giving must be the most efficient method of wealth creation there is. Regardless of how you define wealth.

In 1985, Roedy Green donated his fully paid for 4-bedroom house and everything else he owned to help out with the Ethiopian famine. Today he seems to be doing well (he even survived AIDS), so maybe it works. But I'm sure there are counter examples, too.

The Dilbert moral code "As long as there are starving people in the world, you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral." plays on the Christian idea of morals which I certainly don't subscribe to. (Roedy Green, by the way, is an atheist.)

On the other hand, giving (or more generally, action) is the way we affect (move things in) our environment, whether it be the giving of energy, mass or finances. The more we give (act), the richer our life experience becomes.

I wouldn't give away resources I need for myself. But then if I am perfectly honest with myself, I don't need much at all. The question then becomes, are the resources I hold but don't need right now a liability? Would it be beneficial for me to get rid of them as soon as possible, recognizing that they are contributing to immobility and thickness of energy at the moment, and also trusting that should I ever need them I can easily acquire them again at that moment?

Tim Ferriss coined the term "The New Rich", replacing the old definition of wealth (money) with time + mobility. Mobility contributes to more meaningful encounters with people. Mobility is also lightness. And lightness contributes to spirituality.

To summarise: rather than looking at giving as a moral obligation, I recommend looking at it as a way to enrich one's experience. And indeed, giving seems to be the direct way to get the most out of life.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

I think that Ferriss' definition is better than "money". For sure, having a Billion bucks don't do you much good if you have no time and can't move.

I also think "wealth" is different for each of us. For me, time and mobility are very important, and I'm blessed with much of both. I work just a couple hours a day, and can do that from anywhere in the world with Net access. But also increasingly a "connection with Source" is my top priority. However, that gets very metaphysical, so...