If Gates's Foundation is truly worthy then there should be no reason to deny him the prize merely based on his occupation.

The difficulty is deciding worth, comparing and assessing the criteria in relation to the prize. The work of the Gates Foundation has certainly been important in the field of health and poverty but is this relevant under the criteria for a Peace Prize - I don't know the criteria and how they might be weighted.

It could be argued that progress in the areas of health/poverty aid in the promotion and likelihood of peace in avoiding international or internal conflict. Similarly Al Gore's contribution - although I am not sure how it relates directly to Peace.

Not thinking of Bill Gates specifically but any businessperson; is the way their fortunes are made important in considering the merit of awarding these sorts of prizes or awards?

Speaking of businessmen generally (as per examinator's original question):

For example, what if a businessman did any of the following:
1. exploited or underpaid his workers
2. knowingly produced a faulty product
3. followed the extreme rules of planned obscelence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)
4. cheated the Tax Office hence burdening the lower and middle income groups
5. was involved in illegal activity
6. actively worked against competition
7. infringed copyright (or any other commercial infringement)
8. failed to pay creditors

(I am sure there are other activities I haven't thought of that could be included on the list)

Do businessmen deserve to be recognised if any, some or all of these activities took place, even if some of the enormous wealth is used for good? Or do we just accept this is 'normal' in business and ignore it in terms of allocating the prize?

Maybe a new prize catgory should offerred for Personal Dedication to Life-Time Philanthopy. Thus, requiring "personal" involvent for several "decades". If Bill Gates has just left Microsoft, he should be in the running say in 2020, if he is consistant. Albeit, pragmatically, if millions of lives saved, should we be pedantic about the rules being followed? Gates is certainly a better candidate that was Arafat.

Quite the conundrum you have raised here, Examinator. There is no easy answer as Pelican's succinct post has clarified.

As someone who has recently shrugged off the expense of the built-in obsolescence of Windows, (Am happily running my OS on Linux) I feel that the means do count. If Bill had a history of altruism maybe, but then he wouldn't have made so much money, so the argument goes in circles.

I like the example he is setting to other vastly wealthy people, but is it worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?

There are far more people, who selflessly assist others, who have none of the financial advantages, yet simply help out neither receiving nor expecting any reward or acknowledgement.

Is the Noble Prize being cheapened? While I admire Al Gore, I don't think that his award was appropriate and perhaps has lowered the standard now that people like Gates are being considered.

In conclusion, there are many more people who are far more worthy than Bill Gates.

The list of criteria that Pelican made up for
business men to meet - would knock most of
the successful ones out of the picture.

Of course there are more worthy people
out there than Bill Gates. He's only one of
the contendors. It's not an easy diecision
chosing the right person. I personally would
not have given Henry Kissinger the prize.

In my earlier post I made the error of naming
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a Nobel Peace Prize
recipient. I meant to say - Nobel Prize for
Literature. I apologise for that mistake.

Whoever gets the prize - may not necessarily
deserve it, (in our opinion), but hopefully
it may encourage others of the same ilk to
do good.

I think this is a very interesting question.
I don't have anything against Bill Gates and I think his targeting of aid money to areas like malaria is exemplary.
However, hearing that he aspires to a Nobel prize for his philanthropy leaves me feeling very ambivalent. Shouldn't it be enough that he has been fortunate beyond the wildest dreams of 99.999999...% of the world's population? It's not as if he has to make the slightest sacrifice of his lifestyle to still be able to distibute his munificence.
I would agree that there is not enough recognition of the real "heroes" (I hate that word).

Kassie
I'm impressed you've succinctly nailed the issue that was my subliminal concern, thank you.
In term of Christianity (which I'm not a follower) it's the principle of the widow's mite (the level of sacrifice not just the quantum). That, determines the 'extraordinariyness' of an action that makes it special, worthy of some award. Even a new category of the Nobel.
I celebrate the individuals achievements in terms of exceeding their personal limitations/circumstances. Otherwise the act is within their everyday capacity and not extaordinary. Gates (Plural both B&M) have yet to reach that goal.
Thanks to you, my troubled mind is resolved at least on that issue.
:-)
Regards Examinator ant