I did not participate in your poll but really have to ask what is 'good for the world' mean? Does it make a person 'good' to be a ruthless businessman who donates money after achieving a level of success where his donation isn't even a tithe, no matter how much money he donates? If a person can create 'good' just by monetary donations without any personal conscience? If so then the Clintons' giving away 10% or more of thier income since Bill left the White House would justify the Clintons as 'good' people by this poll's definition; Ted Turner would be a 'good' person by his donations to charity. I find most people who are called 'good' by this yardstick are not so good or nice when the interaction more personal. Donation of funds is commendable but not a qualifier to me as a candidate for a 'good for the world' kind of poll.
This is a very interesting question and exactly the question I was hoping for.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is it enough to have good intentions or do you need to actually be successful in achieving something good? What about those who inadvertantly and unintentionally do wonderful things for humanity?
It all comes down to what you think is the meaning of life. If it is material progress, achievement or success, then it would have to be Bill. If you are of a more religious outlook and believe in the spirit, then you would probably say Teresa.
I was right up the middle on this one, but in the end I voted for Bill, so I guess it shows that I am a secret pragmatist and possibly even a shameless raving capitalist!
Choosing between insane, heavily indoctrinated religionist scoring points with ruthless imaginary deity and ruthless and well connected businessman, pointless.
.
Comments
Define 'good for the world'
I did not participate in your poll but really have to ask what is 'good for the world' mean? Does it make a person 'good' to be a ruthless businessman who donates money after achieving a level of success where his donation isn't even a tithe, no matter how much money he donates? If a person can create 'good' just by monetary donations without any personal conscience? If so then the Clintons' giving away 10% or more of thier income since Bill left the White House would justify the Clintons as 'good' people by this poll's definition; Ted Turner would be a 'good' person by his donations to charity. I find most people who are called 'good' by this yardstick are not so good or nice when the interaction more personal. Donation of funds is commendable but not a qualifier to me as a candidate for a 'good for the world' kind of poll.
The road to hell
This is a very interesting question and exactly the question I was hoping for.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is it enough to have good intentions or do you need to actually be successful in achieving something good? What about those who inadvertantly and unintentionally do wonderful things for humanity?
It all comes down to what you think is the meaning of life. If it is material progress, achievement or success, then it would have to be Bill. If you are of a more religious outlook and believe in the spirit, then you would probably say Teresa.
I was right up the middle on this one, but in the end I voted for Bill, so I guess it shows that I am a secret pragmatist and possibly even a shameless raving capitalist!
Reply to comment
Choosing between insane, heavily indoctrinated religionist scoring points with ruthless imaginary deity and ruthless and well connected businessman, pointless.
.
Politicians
A bit like choosing between political candidates!
Gates v Mother Teresa
As with all votes, a 'non of the above option' should always be available!
You got it!
As with all votes, a 'non of the above option' should always be available!
Of course.