[ntakasaki]

>> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.

That's well put and explains the furor over Bill Gates' charity work while other immensely rich folks get zero heat for essentially hoarding their wealth like Scrooge McDuck instead.

[tingol]

What? I've literally never seen anyone say anything negative about Bill's charity work. Can you cite some sources for that?

Microsoft "charity" however will allways be suspicious because how ridiculosly backhanded they were during their era of monopoly. Whether its justified or not remains to be seen.

[ntakasaki]

Here's a few examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2457760

"arguably more bad than good being done"

[nl]

You can find a single person on some forum on the internet who is against anything. That's hardly a furor.

I don't think there is any substantial negativity associated with Gate's charity work. The closest you'll find is some in the educational space who don't agree with the metrics his foundation uses to measure progress.