Complex question that depends on one’s ethical views, but I’d say not pushing the idea that inequality is good, or retweeting people that are obviously ideological making heritability claims, is a good start.
From there, the sky is the limit. Directly helping underserved communities access the same networks/resources is another. A handful of billionaires have also donated their entire wealth, but the laudability of that depends on your ethical stance of course.
I don't see how lack of either of the suggested options is any kind of indication that the person doesn't accept that success has a factor of chance.
I doubt there's even a claim that this is right ethically or that you are not displaying a hipocrisy here. How far is your own wealth from the worldwide median?
I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
That someone could be a billionaire, spend their time writing essays about how inequality is good, retweet and give attention to people insisting that intelligence and success are mostly inheritable – and yet also deeply understand that their success is largely dependent on chance? Uh, I guess such a person could exist, but it seems like you’re just nitpicking here.
And of course there is an obvious ethical claim here: that people who benefit from a system and become wealthy should feel some sort of ethical obligation to contribute to or improve access to that system. Or at least not actively try to deny that such a system helped them. This is a complicated topic which is why I said “depending on one’s ethical views.”
No idea what my personal situation has to do with this, but I assure you, I’m not a billionaire, nor am I wealthy, unless merely being born in a Western country implies that one is wealthy (a nonsensical claim.)
Complex question that depends on one’s ethical views, but I’d say not pushing the idea that inequality is good, or retweeting people that are obviously ideological making heritability claims, is a good start.
From there, the sky is the limit. Directly helping underserved communities access the same networks/resources is another. A handful of billionaires have also donated their entire wealth, but the laudability of that depends on your ethical stance of course.
I don't see how lack of either of the suggested options is any kind of indication that the person doesn't accept that success has a factor of chance.
I doubt there's even a claim that this is right ethically or that you are not displaying a hipocrisy here. How far is your own wealth from the worldwide median?
I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make.
That someone could be a billionaire, spend their time writing essays about how inequality is good, retweet and give attention to people insisting that intelligence and success are mostly inheritable – and yet also deeply understand that their success is largely dependent on chance? Uh, I guess such a person could exist, but it seems like you’re just nitpicking here.
And of course there is an obvious ethical claim here: that people who benefit from a system and become wealthy should feel some sort of ethical obligation to contribute to or improve access to that system. Or at least not actively try to deny that such a system helped them. This is a complicated topic which is why I said “depending on one’s ethical views.”
No idea what my personal situation has to do with this, but I assure you, I’m not a billionaire, nor am I wealthy, unless merely being born in a Western country implies that one is wealthy (a nonsensical claim.)