Rousseau, On Wealth

Chrysophile

lover of gold

kind of person who aims to amass a great fortune, only to then do good with it

Main claim

Wealth by itself invariably corrupts

No wealthy person seems to seek to “atone” for their wealth

One desires it in order to make good use of it, but one no longer makes good use of it once one has it

Supporting argument - sophisms

Finds sophisms (justifications) not to give wealth away

• True sounding but misleading claims about how wealth is earned

Once Chrysophile accepts these sophisms, he might come to believe that poor people deserve their station

Supporting argument 2- The Way There

Cautions Chrysophile to watch out for whether he must do bad, to then later do good

Even if he later retains his OG intention to do good, how is he sure that the good will outweigh the bad?

Supporting argument 3 - Character

Chrysophile’s plan: do bad things over long time to then do good

> But after “rebuffing” the desire to do good for so long, why assume it will still be there?

◦ Good character is a matter of habit.

> But habits need to be maintained.

◦ The road to wealth is an active impediment to maintaining good intentions.

• Hard to stick to principles when the environment pushes against them and desires tempt you

• Once you live among the wealthy, they will mock moderation as “pedantic,” old-fashioned, or boring.

If he seeks to live a good life, his current modest surroundings are much more suitable

• Protects character

Supporting argument 4 - stopping

Having more money to invest means making more money, giving money away on the way to wealth impedes the way to wealth

Will he never stop accumulating wealth? There is always more good to be done with more wealth

Worries Chyrsophile will be a longtermist - once you start thinking like this, you’ll always hoard more money to do more good with it… later

• You can always claim to work for some more-distant good

Distance gives you infinite justification to not actually do anything

Supporting argument 5 - failure

If Chrysophile sets up his whole life on amassing wealth and spending it well, what happens if he fails?

• then will have done no good at all

• sets Chrysophile up for misery

• Surer path to happiness and goodness would be to find another way

Counterpoint - MacAskill

◦ MacAskill considered the challenges of corruption and failure.

> For him, these are simply something too look out for.

> You should choose the high-paying career where you think these are the most unlikely.

Rebuttal

MacAskill is underestimating the danger

Once you account for the real probabilities of corruption, the decision might go in a completely different direction

• People almost always get corrupted by wealth and status

• Rich life rarely delivers the “grand moral works” promised

Supporting argument 6 - Moderate EA

Suggestion: make a pledge and stick to it

Ex: donate 10% of income every year to most effective charities

Rousseau would not particularly object to this

Supporting argument 7 - Modest Life

Living calmly has worth

Modest life also has some benefits for the individual

Supporting argument 8 - Why you?

Why should any particular person be in charge of all this wealth?

> Accruing wealth somewhere means it is not available elsewhere - However legitimate your gain might be, others who perhaps need

it more than you do would have made it instead of you

> (Isn’t quite right based on modern economics)

◦ Wealth might not be distributed fairly right now, but there’s no indication that you being in charge of it would improve things

Counterpoint 2 - sacrifice

◦ If Chrysophile is sincere and succeeds in maintaining his morals, he will likely be unhappy.

> A consequentialist would say that if Chrysophile is really a good person, he can accept personal unhappiness for the greater good.

Overall rebuttals

◦ Rejects Singer’s claim that distance is irrelevant.

> Rejects consequentialist claim that it does not matter how good is achieved.

> Sees a special value in local community, and friendship that doesn’t depend on money.

◦ He recommends living a modest life in a real community.

> Facing real hardships, together, and overcoming them.

◦ Wealth, Rousseau claims, removes one from having a real life.

> The wealthy remove themselves from communities.

> Communities of wealth are different, since not bound by hardship