The Mystery of Steve Jobs’s Public Giving

Reflecting on the decisions of others is an important component of human cultural development. Alone, we all have limited experience. We can't possibly match the diversity and reach of the outcomes resulting from decisions made by everyone around us. Reflecting on Steve Jobs' decision to abstain from philanthropy is an important cultural point of discussion.

Asking what "good" Mr. Jobs has contributed to the world is a question that should be approached with an open mind. The objectivist would look at his actions and hold them up as an example of a shared positive outcome resulting from self-motivated action. By Mr. Jobs' relentless focus on advancing Apple, we have all enjoyed the benefit of the many devices that were brought to market by Apple under his leadership.

That's just one perspective though. It may not hold up under scrutiny, but we owe it to ourselves to ask the question: Is philanthropy the best and only way?

It is considered a social norm to comment on or assess the "personal lives" of people with, say, $US8.3B in personal wealth. As least as far as "what are said people doing with these unusual quantities of money" goes. There might be a bit of public significance in that; see also Gates and Buffett.

This isn't discussing the length of his dick, for crying out loud.

Trying to turn it around on the author is questionable, given that Andrew Sorkin would be lucky to have one thousandth part of the wealth of Steve Jobs and thus the public interest in what Sorkin is doing is quite small.