The Debate Club discussion

Thanks for the suggestion, clown_the_basking_shark!

of course. not all rich people got their money by doing shady stuff. a lot of people who have good money got it by working hard to achieve their goals. and plenty rich people give a lot of their money to donations and good causes.

Thank you! I think no, let's say a billionaire gets their money without exploitation. Its not ethical to hoard that money, no one needs a billion dollars. Most of the time, billionairs use exploits to get a billion dollars too (tax evasion, underpaying workers, ect). A lot of billionaires have huge carbon footprints too.

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "most of the time isn’t all of the time… now I’m not one to defend the rich but I do think you could be an ethical billionaire tho it wouldn’t last long if your goal is to remain ehtical"

Either way it's never ethical to hoard that amount of money

I think there can definitely be ethical billionaires.
Billionaires can have morals and ethics and still be rich. Having that much money does not affect their morals merely because they worked hard enough to have that money. And yes, there are definitely unethical billionaires.

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "most of the time isn’t all of the time… now I’m not one to defend the rich but I do think you could be an ethical billionaire tho it wouldn’t last long i..."

What makes it hoarding? They may save the money because they are smart. But thats not hoarding just because its a lot of money?

Another thing is most billionaires have a specific lifestyle and are kind of expected to keep it. So even being a billionaire, because of societal expectations their lifestyle costs more. Does this mean they can't donate? No, most actually do. There are good things they can do with their money, but its not necessary just for them to be considered ethical.

It depends. In theory I think they absolutely can be but in the real world it is a lot more complicated. What defines ethical? does donating money make them ethical? but what is their lifestyle like? what did they do to get their money. i don't really feel like there is an actual answer that fully takes everything into consideration

Millionaires can work for their money. To become a billionaire exploitation is needed, whether it be through workers, buying up businesses that are already rich, tax evasion, or exploitation of the planet. In theory there can be yes, but in practice it can not happen.

Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Another thing is most billionaires have a specific lifestyle and are kind of expected to keep it. So even being a billionaire, because of societal expectations their lifestyle costs more. Does this..."

Let's say there was a farmer, he grew all of the food for the town, one day, the mayor comes in and says, I will give you double the amount of food you can grow for your farm and the farmer agrees. The mayor keeps all the best food for himself and gives the scraps to the town. Is it ethical for the mayor to keep all of the food for himself?

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Another thing is most billionaires have a specific lifestyle and are kind of expected to keep it. So even being a billionaire, because of societa..."

No? A mayor also has responsibilities as a literal mayor. His job is to do whats best for the town. A billionaire is just a billionaire. A person with money.

Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Another thing is most billionaires have a specific lifestyle and are kind of expected to keep it. So even being a..."

A person with that much money has an obligation to help their community. Why would anyone need that much money? Let's not forget that, at least in the US, billionaires quite literally run our government. They are doing nothing to help anyone. People are starving in the streets, getting arrested for sleeping in public or sleeping in tents and they have more money than anyone could possibly need. Elon Musk could give every single homeless person in the US $100,000 and still have $263252000000 left over. People have an obligation to help others.

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Another thing is most billionaires have a specific lifestyle ..."

Elon Musk what now???

Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Another thing is most billion..."

His net worth is 340.4 billion (340,400,000,000), there's approximately 771,480 homeless people in the US if you times that by 100,000, you get 77148000000. 340,400,000,000 - 77148000000 = 263252000000

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "Another thin..."

Omg T^T

Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind o..."

That's the exact reason I think there's no such thing as an ethical billionaire. They have the money to help and do nothing

I dont think it could work like that but i see your point.

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of..."

that's assuming all of them do nothing, though. I see your point, but a lot of billionaires don't do nothing. A lot of them donate and help people. The question isn't "are all billionaires ethical?" it's "is there such a thing as an ethical billionaire?" to which I would say yes, there can be a such thing as an ethical billionaire.

Emma (read my bio before friending me) wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Barnette wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "Tessie ~face of an angel, mind of a killer~ wrote: "clown_the_baski..."

In theory, yes, In practice, no

Seeing as most people with alot of money at least start out with generaltional wealth I'd say no

What do you guys think billionaires dow ith their money? Just stare at it in their banks? No, they invest it. In tech, in business, etc. Which is essentailly giving it back to us

No, we get more jobs. So that leads to us getting more money

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "not if we keep going the direction we’re heading for with all the replace humans with ai shit 💀"

Well....i think people are over exagerrating, it hapoened before with the industrial revolution which actuallly in the grand scheme of things left us with more jobs. More free time to think of new ideas vs gruel in the fields all day

Well if people earn too much, they spend too much = inflation.

What is worse is stagflation

i think billionaires can be ethical, but i feel like they should use some of their money for charity and stuff (like the homeless things rorie stated). because honestly, what will you do with a billion dollars? buy twitter? lmao honestly the only things i can think of that you can buy with billions of dollars are things that shouldn't be in control of a singular person. like twitter/x

MidnightButterfly wrote: "What do you guys think billionaires dow ith their money? Just stare at it in their banks? No, they invest it. In tech, in business, etc. Which is essentailly giving it back to us"

This is old but I'm responding anyway. This is trickle down economics and it's stupid. "Give us all the bread and some crumbs will eventually fall down to you" that makes no sense. They invest, they get richer, we get their crumbs.

clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "MidnightButterfly wrote: "What do you guys think billionaires dow ith their money? Just stare at it in their banks? No, they invest it. In tech, in business, etc. Which is essentailly giving it bac..."

So then you can go and do the same thihg and get rich, how else do you want miney? To be handed to you?

MidnightButterfly wrote: "clown_the_basking_shark wrote: "MidnightButterfly wrote: "What do you guys think billionaires dow ith their money? Just stare at it in their banks? No, they invest it. In tech, in business, etc. Wh..."

To be evenly distributed.

Right. By who?

And if people do not want thier money to be taken away?

MidnightButterfly wrote: "And if people do not want thier money to be taken away?"

I don't care, there's no amount of work that could allow people to be billionaires, to get that amount of money, exploitation is needed, they need to give back to those they got their money from in the first place

Right, okay. But how?

You are laying principles with no method

Would you, for instnace, kill or imprison those who do not agree?

Would you by force take and collecrively steal everyones miney and store it in common?

Then take note of everybody on the land and hand eople out money?

Not a billionaire, but Dolly Parton is an amazing person who has done many things to help people in need, including creating an amusement park where any employee, no matter how long, gets all college tuition payed off.

i don't agree with forcing billionaires to donate money, but we should highly encourage them to spend it on/invest in things that will benefit many people. (like medical research or charities)

None of my questions have been answered so thats it socialsm failed

No there isn't. unless you're giving more than half of your money away it's not ethical wheen there are millions of people homeless around the whole world.

um none of the ones we have right now....

In the real world, I don't agree with forcing anyone to donate their money to charity or any cause. If someone earned their money legally, they have the right to do whatever they want with it.

But when we talk about a theoretical or imaginary world—everyone would receive the same amount of money no matter how smart or hardworking they are.

If we ask: **“Is it ethical to be a billionaire?”**, then we should also ask:


- Is it ethical to be a millionaire?

- Is it ethical for an employee to keep extra money beyond basic living costs?



According to this logic, everyone should give away all extra money and keep only what's needed to survive—until poverty and homelessness no longer exist.

After reading everything in this thread, the conclusion I’ve drawn is that billionaires cannot be ethical. Even if someone earns their wealth without illegal activity or obvious exploitation, the sheer scale of accumulating a billion dollars inherently involves indirect harm or societal imbalance. In practical terms, becoming a billionaire almost always requires the extraction of value at a level far beyond what is needed for personal survival. Even if their fortune stems from entrepreneurship, they benefit from structural inequities, labor exploitation, or market monopolization that concentrates wealth in the hands of one person.

Critics who argue that donating to charity or investing ethically absolves billionaires ignore the disproportionate moral responsibility that comes with immense wealth. When someone like Elon Musk has more wealth than the combined annual incomes of millions of people, choosing not to redistribute even a fraction that could prevent homelessness, famine, or lack of healthcare represents a failure of ethics. It is not a question of legality but of morality. Even if donations occur, the systemic impact of hoarding wealth at such a scale perpetuates inequality. The wealth gap itself creates social harms , reduced social mobility, political influence that favours the rich, and a concentration of power that undermines democracy.

Historical and contemporary examples reinforce this point. During the Gilded Age, industrialists like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie accumulated fortunes through monopolistic practices, wage suppression, and harsh labor conditions. Even Carnegie, who donated large portions of his wealth, retained enormous personal influence and perpetuated structural inequities. Modern billionaires replicate similar dynamics on a global scale, benefiting from tax loopholes, lobbying, and technological monopolies. This pattern suggests that the accumulation of a billion dollars is inherently tied to social harm, regardless of intent.

Counterarguments emphasizing hard work, entrepreneurship, or charitable giving fail to address the systemic consequences of extreme wealth concentration. Trickle-down economics, often cited to justify investments as broadly beneficial, has repeatedly failed to reduce inequality meaningfully. Studies from the past decades show that wealth accumulation at the top correlates with stagnating wages, reduced upward mobility, and political systems favoring the wealthy. The notion that investing in business or creating jobs makes a billionaire ethical ignores that their success often depends on maintaining conditions that suppress fair competition or equitable pay.

In essence, the ethical critique of billionaires is not a personal attack on ambition or entrepreneurship but a structural observation: no one person should possess wealth exceeding the lifetimes of millions without moral accountability. The moral failure is not in earning money but in retaining excessive wealth while preventable suffering exists at scale. This is why, in the real world, ethical billionaires do not exist. Wealth at this level creates obligations that cannot be fulfilled by occasional philanthropy or symbolic gestures.

in my opinion if you were an ethical billionaire you would be using that mula to do ethical things stop hoarding you greedy bastard

i don't think some of you realize how much a billion dollars is. the current federal minimum wage in the us is 7.25 bucks, or $290 per 40 hour work week ($15,080 per year, $573,040 lifetime). that's over ~3,448,275 weeks needed to earn 1 billion dollars, or in other words 66,312 years of working 8-5 every single week day. if we assume a person has a kid at 28 and they have a kid at 28 and so on, and every member of the family works from the ages of 22 to 62, or 40 years, that means it would take 1745 generations to earn 1 billion dollars, however we must consider that people actually spend money so if one person spends 17919 dollars on their kid for 18 years that's $318,942, and if they spend 55692 dollars on themseleves for 40 years that's $2,227,680 so the total is $2,546,622 (/40=so

wait

no.
how do you earn 573k and spend $2.55 million.
okay i'm going to have to redo this with median earnings

okay i did the math and i'm too lazy to explain so i'll add a picture of it later, but basically if there was a family tree who only had a singular child every 28 years, no partners, each member worked for 40 years between 22-62 and earned $90,000 every year, it would take them 26,703 years to earn 1 billion dollars, accounting for life expenses but not accounting for inflation

that only took me like 40 minutes. 😭🥀

Respect to the amount of patience you had to do that math 😭

Also that's an insane amount of money

ash ³³ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ ᵈᵘ wrote: "in my opinion if you were an ethical billionaire you would be using that mula to do ethical things stop hoarding you greedy bastard"

help why did I laugh so hard 😭 but yeah I somewhat agree, I don’t think billionaires are completely ethical but not all are inherently evil, like I think if they were 100% ethical they would donate all the money they won’t use, but also not doing that or just donating a lot but not enough to not be a billionaire doesnt make them a bad person necessarily

like for example, if I suddenly had a billion dollars I would buy what I really wanted (let’s say a property with 20 acres, a couple horses, and a bunch of books) and then keep the amount where I would still be rich and comfortable and be able to do things like buy more books, go to concerts, etc, but otherwise I would donate the rest, I’d likely be left with over a million dollars but much less than a billion