"At a single stroke, Buffett has given purpose to his life"

On Happiness, Money and Giving it Away
Peter Singer
Project Syndicate, July, 2006

Would you be happier if you were richer? Many people believe that they would be. But research conducted over many years suggests that greater wealth implies greater happiness only at quite low levels of income.

People in the United States, for example, are, on average, richer than New Zealanders, but they are not happier.

...

Consider, in this light, the life of the American investor Warren Buffett. For 50 years, Buffett, now 75, has worked at accumulating a vast fortune. According to Forbes magazine, he is the second wealthiest person in the world, after Bill Gates, with assets of US$42 billion. Yet his frugal lifestyle shows that he does not particularly enjoy spending large amounts of money. Even if his tastes were more lavish, he would be hard-pressed to spend more than a tiny fraction of his wealth.

From this perspective, once Buffett earned his first few millions in the 1960s, his efforts to accumulate more money can easily seem completely pointless... Coincidentally, Kahneman’s article appeared the same week that Buffett announced the largest philanthropic donation in US history — US$30 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and another US$7 billion to other charitable foundations. Even when the donations made by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller are adjusted for inflation, Buffett’s is greater. At a single stroke, Buffett has given purpose to his life.

Introductory works on ethics

I want to list a couple of good resources for the person who would like to study ethics. Ethics is a subject I think everyone should devote much time and effort to. Deciding what is right or wrong is probably the most important decision to decide. It is not something people should take lightly and just "go with their gut" or "go with what their parents believe" or "go with what their religion teaches" or "go with what most of society believes." However, our gut, religion, parents, and society, are not as reliable as sound argument.

One might say that studying ethics is pointless. Why read papers on abortion or capital punishment? There's always a way out of every argument and there's always an excuse to give on why one won't accept a given argument. What makes little sense is even if studying ethics was pointless, these people will simply resort to one of the above ways of deciding what is right or wrong. I'll use my gut or what a thousand-year-old text says or what my parents/society has taught me, etc.

I also see little merit in the idea that "there is always a way out of every argument. Therefore, there is no point to looking at both sides of the issue because in the end, you just believe what you want anways." I have a hard time believing this because I have found it to be false time and time again. I have had my mind changed by arguments that people have given. I have been able to recognize my mistakes by looking into the issue. I have also been able to strengthen my beliefs by doing the same. It is often the people who have never looked into ethical issues substantially who say this. This shows that they are simply not concerned with the truth and are to blame for it.

So, it is true that there may be a response one can always give to an argument. The question, however, is whether it is a good or bad response. The question is not whether there exists arguments, but whether they are good or bad arguments. If you look at people debating issues and say, "Oh no this is too hard for me, everyone is arguing. There can't be any use in looking into this anymore," then you have given up on the truth.

It is good to study ethics mainly because of the danger of living a lie. I would hate to have lived my life during the Civil War fighting for slavery, believing with all my heart that it was my duty. I would hate to have been an accomplice in the Holocaust, believing that God really did command me to kill the Jews. I would hate to have ruined innocent lives simply because I was too blind to see the truth.

So, I do not want to cause any undue harm to others or to myself. In being concerned with this, as I imagine most others are as well, this gives me good reason to study ethics and to, as honestly as I can, look at both sides of any given issue. I encourage you to do the same.

Now for the list of good introductory works.

Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong ,Fifth Edition by Pojman is my favorite introduction. A cheaper version of the book, the fourth edition, is available here.

Alonzo Fyfe's online introduction can be viewed here, his is extremely good as well.

For a good set of introductory ethical readings, Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, Seventh Edition is recommended. Here is a link to the cheaper sixth edition. Here is a link to the fifth edition, which seems to be selling for about ten bucks cheaper.

On a sidenote, I really want to get some philosophy t-shirts. I would like them to be fairly nice and say things like "Aristotle" on the front and perhaps a quote on the back. Then, I could find the philosopher's birthdays and wear the shirt on that day and it would be Aristotle Day or Kant Day. Wouldn't that be neat?

"You can't be pro-war and pro-life"

Yesterday, I noticed one of my co-workers had a sticker on her car proclaiming this statement. It was most likely against political conservatives who are generally against abortion (pro-life) and also for some wars (pro-war). Whether either of these positions is tenable is not something that will be addressed. What will be addressed is whether someone can hold both positions and be consistent.

Definitions

There is a definition of each term that, when it is used, creates a contradiction. However, these definitions are ones that no one would use in normal discourse. If by "pro-life", one meant, "It is always wrong to kill any human being," then that would clearly contradict with the statement that it is sometimes permissible (or obligatory) to kill a human being (as it is in some wars).

However, when someone is pro-life, they do not need to agree that all killing is morally prohibited. They only need to agree that killing a fetus (in general) is morally prohibited. They may base this on the judgment that in general, it is wrong to kill an innocent person (and of course stating that fetuses are persons).

If someone is "pro-war", they do not need to agree with any and all wars that may occur. One can (if I understand the term correctly) be pro-war and agree that some wars shouldn't have taken place and some are inevitable. This would be better characterized by the term "pro-some-wars."

Reconciliation

So, if one believes that in general it is wrong to kill an innocent person and one also thinks that some wars are necessary, how does one reconcile the two statements? One way they can do so is to claim that in the wars that are justified, the people who are to be killed are not innocent. They may give an example of the people who committed the Holocaust (or were fighting to defend the Holocaust). Were they innocent people? Clearly not.

However, that is not the only way the two statements can be reconciled. Many wars cause innocent bystanders to die (wives, children, good soldiers, etc.) who had nothing to do with the crimes committed. In this case, one can still respond that, sure some innocent people had to die but that there was an overriding reason to go ahead with the war. To bring back the example of the Holocaust, one may say that some US soldiers and perhaps some German (and other nationality) children died that shouldn't have. However, in sacrificing their lives, we have stopped and punished those who have killed many more lives. We also stopped them from killing even more people.

Most people are best characterized as "anti-war." They agree that war is something that is bad and in general, should be avoided. However, they would agree that some wars are necessary. They are best characterized as "pro-some-wars." Some of the people who are "pro-some-wars" are also "pro-life."

Killing the Innocent

The majority of people are against killing the innocent in most cases. If this were coupled with the belief that a fetus is an innocent person, then one would have to be against most instances of killing fetuses. Where the battle comes down to in the abortion debate is whether the fetus is a person or not. If one agrees that the fetus is an innocent person, and is against killing innocent people, then one would have to be pro-life.

If one is against killing innocent people, they will not be against all wars. Some wars occur (or can occur) at too great a cost. If too many innocent people die and not enough good comes of it, then the war is not worth it. They will then be "pro-war" in the sense that they believe some wars are (overall) good and some wars are (overall) bad.

Conclusion

So, there is no necessary contradiction between the two positions of being "pro-life" and "pro-war" given that both terms are used in the way that most people use them. If someone believes that, in general, killing innocent people is wrong, they can be pro-life and pro-war given that "pro-war" doesn't mean "for any and all wars that are (and can be) committed."

The statement, "You can't be pro-war and pro-life" is only true if one defines "pro-war" in a way that characterizes nobody. No person is for any and all wars that can happen. Given this, it is possible to be both pro-war and pro-life.