It's a bit surprising that anyone is arguing over this issue. [...]the charitable interpretation
If a debate is obvious with the charitable interpretation it makes sense to have the debate about the actual reasons why people take the positions they take.
The underlying battle is about what Zizek calls liberal communism. The steelman is: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/slavoj-zizek/nobody-has-to-be-vile It's about whether a person should be applauded for doing earning-to-give or whether earning-to-give should simply be seen as a way to "enhance his reputation and status". Those cultural norms matter. Having the wrong cultural norms make people die who would otherwise be saved.
If it's in your morality to pratice charitable reading at the cost of human lives, feel free to live with that moral decision.
It's about whether a person should be applauded for doing earning-to-give or whether earning-to-give should simply be seen as a way to "enhance his reputation and status". Those cultural norms matter. Having the wrong cultural norms make people die who would otherwise be saved.
I'd say it's more about a public figure who transfers billions worth of stocks to a for-profit company that they own while making a big show of it should be applauded or we should be wary of their intentions.
It's also about why EAs all fell head over heels the moment the...
Mark Zuckerberg annouced that he is going to give away 99% of his facebook wealth ($45 billion) over his lifetime.
He announced guiding questions:
It's interesting that "live much longer and healthier lives" is on the list. Larry Page seems to divert money inside Google into Calico for anti-aging tech. Under Cook Apple also invests into health.
The future seems looking good :)