Prosperity and Morality?
Today I was talking to Josh and he made the generalization that rich people were more immoral than poor people. I argued with him because I thought he had no basis for this assertion other than his personal perception of the rich. So we had to end our discussion before it became a ridiculous fight.
So I thought about it:
I have similar perceptions that rich people seem to place more emphasis on materialistic values. (I have not done the sociological research, but I'm just writing casually) They seem to be more likely to care about appearances and social norms. Such values and concerns leave less room for more transcendent facets of humanity such as love, loyalty and humility. At face value I would almost agree with Josh that the rich are more immoral as a whole.
However, I think the prima facie values of the rich are not indicative a person's moral character. Instead, I think it gives insight to the context of a person's life. There could be a variety of reasons we tend to observe morality as inversely related to wealth.
1) Perhaps poor individuals cling to non-materialistic values simply because it is what they have. It makes sense that a person of humble means would place more emphasis on non-materialistic values as a way of validating their lives.
Conversely, the rich may place emphasis on the material things they have to gain a sense of validity.
In both contexts, I argue that people place emphasis on what they must to raise their status in pursuit of validation. Whether it is a rich person scoffing at the poor, or the poor calling the rich selfish. The fact that I am responding to the charge that the rich are immoral shows that very perception is used to elevate the poor in contrast to the rich. I would argue the same way if a rich person charged all the poor with lacking work ethic.
2) The poor may be more appreciative of material things simply because of scarcity.
One could argue that rich people are unappreciative because of the way some frivolously spend and that this reveals lack of morality. After all, how could someone spend thousands of dollars on one purse? After all, the devil wore Prada. However, we should ask ourselves, is it immoral, or merely human, to react to the law of scarcity?
Say there are two teenage girls, one has a dad and the other does not. The one with a dad fights with him relentlessly and is unappreciative of his love. The one without finds it offensive to hear about the ridiculous reasons the first girl yells at her dad for, when at least she has a father. Would we conclude that the teenage girl who fights with her dad is immoral because she is unappreciative? I think, as objective onlookers, we could see that this is not indicative of her moral character. Further, if you want to disregard this example because you think material things and a father cannot be compared, consider this: If morality can be reflected in the appreciation of material things, then shouldn't morality be even more reflected in the appreciation of loved ones?
3) Lastly, perhaps the poor seem morally superior in some regards simply because they have not been given the means to be morally deficient. Can we fairly say that one individual, that displays unsavory characteristics, is more morally corrupt than another, who never had the opportunity to display the same characteristics? Basically, if you can't afford to care about labels, is it fair to say you are better because you don't?
A similar assertion to rich people are comparatively immoral, is that money corrupts. I'm sure you have heard that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is not unrealistic to equate wealth with power, as they often go hand in hand. If it is true that money corrupts, then we can conclude that the immorality associated with the rich is not the result of an individual's morality, but the result of a person's context. The implications of this are that the rich cannot simply be called immoral in comparison to the poor, because the poor would display the same characteristics if elevated to the same situation.
I think I wrote on this because it struck a personal cord with me. I want to be successful and, dare I say it, rich. I don't think it shows that I am immoral or selfish. I truly believe wealth acquired through just means is good. Also, I have a cynical view of people. I find it hard to believe that one segment of the population is morally superior because I feel that most people, in whatever context, tend to be morally deficient (not that I am any different). In my personal experience, almost everyone I meet has a hard time seeing outside of their own perspective. As such, they easily condemn people with differing views. I, myself, struggle in empathizing with individuals who assert conclusions that are not reached by a course of reason.
Anyways, those are my thoughts for tonight.
Peace
-Mike
So I thought about it:
I have similar perceptions that rich people seem to place more emphasis on materialistic values. (I have not done the sociological research, but I'm just writing casually) They seem to be more likely to care about appearances and social norms. Such values and concerns leave less room for more transcendent facets of humanity such as love, loyalty and humility. At face value I would almost agree with Josh that the rich are more immoral as a whole.
However, I think the prima facie values of the rich are not indicative a person's moral character. Instead, I think it gives insight to the context of a person's life. There could be a variety of reasons we tend to observe morality as inversely related to wealth.
1) Perhaps poor individuals cling to non-materialistic values simply because it is what they have. It makes sense that a person of humble means would place more emphasis on non-materialistic values as a way of validating their lives.
Conversely, the rich may place emphasis on the material things they have to gain a sense of validity.
In both contexts, I argue that people place emphasis on what they must to raise their status in pursuit of validation. Whether it is a rich person scoffing at the poor, or the poor calling the rich selfish. The fact that I am responding to the charge that the rich are immoral shows that very perception is used to elevate the poor in contrast to the rich. I would argue the same way if a rich person charged all the poor with lacking work ethic.
2) The poor may be more appreciative of material things simply because of scarcity.
One could argue that rich people are unappreciative because of the way some frivolously spend and that this reveals lack of morality. After all, how could someone spend thousands of dollars on one purse? After all, the devil wore Prada. However, we should ask ourselves, is it immoral, or merely human, to react to the law of scarcity?
Say there are two teenage girls, one has a dad and the other does not. The one with a dad fights with him relentlessly and is unappreciative of his love. The one without finds it offensive to hear about the ridiculous reasons the first girl yells at her dad for, when at least she has a father. Would we conclude that the teenage girl who fights with her dad is immoral because she is unappreciative? I think, as objective onlookers, we could see that this is not indicative of her moral character. Further, if you want to disregard this example because you think material things and a father cannot be compared, consider this: If morality can be reflected in the appreciation of material things, then shouldn't morality be even more reflected in the appreciation of loved ones?
3) Lastly, perhaps the poor seem morally superior in some regards simply because they have not been given the means to be morally deficient. Can we fairly say that one individual, that displays unsavory characteristics, is more morally corrupt than another, who never had the opportunity to display the same characteristics? Basically, if you can't afford to care about labels, is it fair to say you are better because you don't?
A similar assertion to rich people are comparatively immoral, is that money corrupts. I'm sure you have heard that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is not unrealistic to equate wealth with power, as they often go hand in hand. If it is true that money corrupts, then we can conclude that the immorality associated with the rich is not the result of an individual's morality, but the result of a person's context. The implications of this are that the rich cannot simply be called immoral in comparison to the poor, because the poor would display the same characteristics if elevated to the same situation.
I think I wrote on this because it struck a personal cord with me. I want to be successful and, dare I say it, rich. I don't think it shows that I am immoral or selfish. I truly believe wealth acquired through just means is good. Also, I have a cynical view of people. I find it hard to believe that one segment of the population is morally superior because I feel that most people, in whatever context, tend to be morally deficient (not that I am any different). In my personal experience, almost everyone I meet has a hard time seeing outside of their own perspective. As such, they easily condemn people with differing views. I, myself, struggle in empathizing with individuals who assert conclusions that are not reached by a course of reason.
Anyways, those are my thoughts for tonight.
Peace
-Mike