One doesn't have to be
rich to do good; go ask Mother Teresa if you don't believe me.
Actually, I would say that it DOES take money to do good. And that the good you can do is somewhat directly proportional to the amount of money (capital) available for that deed. How you get that money is another issue (ie, make it as a tycoon, or solicit charitable contributions).
For example, the driving force in my life is to protect the greater good of humanity by spreading it to the stars (massive redundancy). To do that takes more than good intentions and a smile.
Heck, even Mother Teresa could not have done the good she did without beaucoup money to back up her "good deeds" (gotten initially through the aegis of the Catholic Church, and later through direct contribution as word of her deeds spread).
In the end, no matter what "good" things you want to do, you have to work hard to get the resources to do them (whether that means writing the best software you can, or stoically providing for orphans). Eventually, assuming persistance outweighs disaster over time, success (in the form of available capital) will be the reward of that effort.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that people persisting creatively are inherently adding to the sum of human endeavor, and that their deeds, by that token, are "good". Conversely, people who add nothing to the human condition (always existing on the charity of others) are engaging in an evil act.
In other words, charity is, in a sense, a loan that tries to help someone reach their personal creative plateau, whereupon they can begin to return that "investment" to society through persistent application of their own gifts.
Someone who continues to accept charity without the "good faith" to someday return the favor is a cad and a scoundrel of the worst order.
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker
[ Parent ]