[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
“Bitchy” would imply that she did something to harm someone else. She did nothing of the kind. She used the vast majority of her fortune to help other people. To me, it just doesn’t parse whatsoever to call that “bitchy.” The opinion you expressed upthread that people have some moral imperative to give money to greedy relatives before they give it to charity is also very puzzling to me. You didn’t really give an explanation for that. Would you care to elaborate? Hypothetically, f I have a choice between leaving a million dollars to tsunami victims or to a worthless, alcoholic, wife-beating grandson, you’re saying t would be immoral and “bitchy” for me to try to do some good with that money rather than give it to an asshole?
[/QUOTE]
On the subject of charity, I am of the opinion that there are two aspects to consider: the amount of good done by the charity, and the spirit in which it is given. The highest degree of charity is to give in order to help others (to help themselves), not out of a sense of self-aggrandizement. I partly agree with Maimonedes on this, though I am not of his religious beliefs and do not believe that his eight degrees of charity perfectly capture my own opinions on the matter.
Now, we have no idea what good works this charity is doing, so we cannot comment on the first aspect. Assume for the purpose of discussion that the charity at issue is doing good works.
However, in my opinion it would appear very likely that the spirit in which the money was given was at least partly a negative or spiteful one - to keep money out of the hands of her (undeserving) family, and self-aggrandizement (the charity is named after her and her husband). This is a determination quite independant of the good done by the charity.
Take for example this situation: at Christmas, a family is giving out presents; granny gives a lump of coal to grandson, then loudly announces that the money she saved in not giving her grandson a present is to go to the “Grandma X fund” to do unspecified “charitable work”. It would seem that the purpose of establishing such a charity is two-fold: to act spitefully towards her grandson for some real or imagined offence; and to aggrandize herself, by creating a fund named after her, and to demonstrate to everyone what a good person she is.
Now, it may also (or even primarily) have in mind actually doing good works - but the circumstances of its endowment make it appear that this purpose is secondary.
That merely addresses the issue of “charity”, and leaving aside the matter of endowing her dog and her tomb, which strike me as even more obviously bitchy, spiteful and selfish.
Now, all that being said, I’ve stated before that the grandkids have no moral entitlement to any money. This isn’t about their rights, it is about her choices. One can be IMO “bitchy” and “spiteful” even when doing something it is perfectly within your right to do - the opposite of “mean”, “bitchy” and “spiteful” is not “dutiful”, but something like “gracious” (that is, doing good where not required by some sort of duty, and doing it in a manner that unselfish and positive). So I disagree with your first sentence - indeed, this is a sort of paradigm case for the opposite proposition.
