My superficial knowledge of Seneca and the stoics doesn’t allow me to debate the premise fully. It does tell me that the argument that it is better can be debated. That people prefer to be rich does not make it better.
An aside: A rich man that gives away his wealth is not equal to a person that is poor from the start or has lost his riches. The person that gives it away, keeps his connections, earns respect and, generally, is in a position re-earn a fortune.
That people prefer to be rich does not make it better.
It’s enough for a strong presumption of it being better, pending evidence to the contrary.
Taboo “better”: there are preferences as belief, and preferences as revealed in actions. Actions are clearly in favour of being rich.
On the side of beliefs, there are certainly religions and ethical theories that say being poor is better. Personally, I strongly disagree with both this and many other beliefs of all such theories that I know about, not to mention religions.
There are of course ethical systems that say that while being rich may be good, giving away your wealth to charity is better still. Even plain self-interested consequentialism may tell you that you should give your money, perhaps to fight existential risk or to help develop FAI. I certainly agree that there is a tradeoff to be made; I’m only pointing out that in itself, rich is better than poor.
As for the Stoics, I too am not deeply familiar with their philosophy. But it seems to me that any concrete problems generated by wealth, can be rather easily solved in practice by using some of that wealth.
It’s true that people sometimes behave instrumentally-irrationally in the sense that they don’t take the correct steps to reach their goal of happiness. But that fact, alone, is relatively weak evidence: people are a little irrational, not completely wrong about what makes them happy.
Your reply can be read very generally (“behavior is not always rational, therefore it’s not positively correlated with desired results”). Please specify what you meant more precisely.
I’m saying that the argument that most people are doing something is not proof that what they are doing is better. In other words, the fact that most rich people choose not to give away all of their fortune is not proof that being rich is better than being poor. Why they choose not to give it all away cannot be inferred from their actions.
Personally I would state that this is a false dichotomy and that Rich is better than Poor because it is not-Poor. It isn’t necessarily the best state of not-Poor.
I’m saying that the argument that most people are doing something is not proof that what they are doing is better.
It’s evidence that what they are doing is, or leads to, something being better. And in the cases where it isn’t, we can point to a specific mechanism that subverts the general rule (e.g.: addiction).
Personally I would state that this is a false dichotomy and that Rich is better than Poor because it is not-Poor. It isn’t necessarily the best state of not-Poor.
You seem to be talking about having a middle amount of money.
Whereas I’m saying a simple thing: for any two amounts of money X, Y where X > Y, all else being equal, is is better to have X (more) and not Y (less). And in particular, it’s better to have lots of money (rich) than very little (poor).
My superficial knowledge of Seneca and the stoics doesn’t allow me to debate the premise fully. It does tell me that the argument that it is better can be debated. That people prefer to be rich does not make it better.
An aside: A rich man that gives away his wealth is not equal to a person that is poor from the start or has lost his riches. The person that gives it away, keeps his connections, earns respect and, generally, is in a position re-earn a fortune.
It’s enough for a strong presumption of it being better, pending evidence to the contrary.
Taboo “better”: there are preferences as belief, and preferences as revealed in actions. Actions are clearly in favour of being rich.
On the side of beliefs, there are certainly religions and ethical theories that say being poor is better. Personally, I strongly disagree with both this and many other beliefs of all such theories that I know about, not to mention religions.
There are of course ethical systems that say that while being rich may be good, giving away your wealth to charity is better still. Even plain self-interested consequentialism may tell you that you should give your money, perhaps to fight existential risk or to help develop FAI. I certainly agree that there is a tradeoff to be made; I’m only pointing out that in itself, rich is better than poor.
As for the Stoics, I too am not deeply familiar with their philosophy. But it seems to me that any concrete problems generated by wealth, can be rather easily solved in practice by using some of that wealth.
There is plenty of evidence that behaviour is not always rational which in my mind shifts the burden of proof.
It’s true that people sometimes behave instrumentally-irrationally in the sense that they don’t take the correct steps to reach their goal of happiness. But that fact, alone, is relatively weak evidence: people are a little irrational, not completely wrong about what makes them happy.
Your reply can be read very generally (“behavior is not always rational, therefore it’s not positively correlated with desired results”). Please specify what you meant more precisely.
I’m saying that the argument that most people are doing something is not proof that what they are doing is better. In other words, the fact that most rich people choose not to give away all of their fortune is not proof that being rich is better than being poor. Why they choose not to give it all away cannot be inferred from their actions.
Personally I would state that this is a false dichotomy and that Rich is better than Poor because it is not-Poor. It isn’t necessarily the best state of not-Poor.
It’s evidence that what they are doing is, or leads to, something being better. And in the cases where it isn’t, we can point to a specific mechanism that subverts the general rule (e.g.: addiction).
You seem to be talking about having a middle amount of money.
Whereas I’m saying a simple thing: for any two amounts of money X, Y where X > Y, all else being equal, is is better to have X (more) and not Y (less). And in particular, it’s better to have lots of money (rich) than very little (poor).
What do you mean by not rational? People reporting higher satisfaction when they’re rich even though they feel less happiness?