The essay speculates on the controversial principle of richness: the author argues that richness is immoral until at least one suffering person is on Earth. In that way, the fortune is expected to be sacrificed for the benefit of those less fortunate. He also claims that his arguments are not about how much money each person should earn, but what they should do with the money after they have earned it. The author explains that despite giving up wealth in a gesture of altruism is usually lauded as ethical, the current social and cultural environment prioritizes materialism, which leads to the high global level of inequality.
As a result, being affluent is immediately branded as immoral because the wealthy person can afford various excesses. In contrast, poor people often should suffer from the inability even to be healthy. Based on that, the author argues that rich people should get rid of their wealth for the poor ones.
Wealth redistribution is proposed as a possible solution to the high level of current inequality. The author raises the question of merit when it comes to evaluating one’s wealth status: “Regardless of whether you have earned it, to what degree are you morally permitted to retain it?” (Smith, 2017, para. 7). In that way, the author proposes that wealth should be distributed based on moral qualities. However, after considering its implications, one will have to agree that the proposed strategy will not work due to the lack of internal change that it will produce. Even if people from poor backgrounds will obtain the money, they will not manage them.
The redistribution of wealth will not imply the transfer of skills in financial management to the impoverished; thus, people who will obtain that redistributed money will likely waste them. The idea of redistributing wealth based on unclear moral qualities instead of clearly defined skills will likely fail.
The author argues that those who earn much money must pay for those who are not such fortunate. “If you have got $3 billion, and you give away 1, you are still incredibly wealthy, and thus still harming many people by hoarding wealth. You have to get rid of all of it”, explains (Smith, 2017, para. 5). Still, it is unethical and even wrong to leave the own richness from the individual perspective. As mentioned, individual skills cannot be transferred with money; one must learn them before being able to earn money. From that perspective, people who were able, based on their skills, to earn money should get rid of them for the sake of those who do not have those skills. Roughly speaking, one can see that it is similar to mere robbery.
In conclusion, though the problem of inequality is real and dangerous, it cannot be solved by simple redistribution of affluence. All people are different in attitudes, skills, and opportunities, and those differences cannot be solved by simple redistribution, only by education. Wealthy people earn their money primarily due to their skills, efforts, and persistence, and taking away their money is similar to robbery. Responsible management of the global capital with the focus on supporting those in need while encouraging development is a much better proposal. For this reason, creating equal opportunities and improving the quality of education will be required rather than using simple strategies such as redistribution of wealth.
Wealth Inequality in America is an issue that is known to most people; however, the reality of the scale of the disproportional wealth distribution among Americans can shock anyone nevertheless. Before watching the video, I was aware and deeply concerned about the problem. Having watched the video, the realization of what the situation truly looks like is terrifying. It is difficult to imagine such an amount of wealth belonging to only 1% of the American population.
I believe that Davis-Moore’s hypothesis cannot explain the issue of wealth inequality. Their theory attempts to explain the situation based on the idea of functional necessity, meaning that the jobs that are the most difficult or the most necessary require the highest reward. Defining the most difficult or necessary job is arguable; however, most would assume it to be a medical doctor due to the required education and responsibilities. It could also be a teacher, a stressful profession that defines and educates future generations. Nevertheless, they are not the most paying jobs nowadays; they have not rewarded accordingly to their difficulty or necessity. Marx’s theory is a better explanation of the wealth inequality in America. It defines two classes of society: the property owners and the laborers that work for them. Since the laborers do not work for themselves but to enrich already wealthy people, they do not increase their wealth. This theory ideally explains the current situation of the American economy.
The issue of wealth inequality in America should not be left as it is. Many politicians, philosophers, and economists have been addressing the issue and coming up with many possible solutions, such as additional taxation of the wealthy part of the population. However, these solutions are usually not welcomed; some people view them as socialistic or communistic. Some believe they will become rich and therefore do not want to be additionally taxed; some do not see this as an issue at all. These views and many other complications prevent America from solving wealth inequality.
The documentary “In Sickness and in Wealth” (2008) from the cycle “Unnatural Causes” discusses the connection between wealth and health. The authors explain that when people have sufficient resources – namely, money and power – they are able to sustain their health well. People who experience financial struggles and face many stressors, such as low-paying jobs, bad living conditions, environmental dangers, and other worries, suffer from significant deterioration of their health.
The film (2008) addresses the social problem of inequality in healthcare – how wealthy and powerful people have access to quality care while financially challenged populations do not. Inequality has many facets, and the accessibility of medical care is one of the most important and acute ones.
The Whitehall studies show that British civil servants who belonged to higher social class had less risk of dying from various diseases than those who came from the lower class. The conclusion of the studies was that good health is directly related to higher social and economic status.
The wealth-health gradient shows the correlation between high income and social status and health. People who are able to afford a good education and later secure a high salary live longer than those who do not have these opportunities. The bar graph shows how access to good healthcare, food, entertainment, and, generally, a good life declines from the wealthiest to the poorest in a constant slope.
These four people are examples of key social and economic classes through which one can observe the correlation between income/power and health. Jim Taylor is the healthiest of the respondents, and he is also the wealthiest and the most powerful one, being the CEO of a big company. The interviewees’ health declines along the line, with Mary Turner at the bottom, who has the poorest health condition of all and also happens to be an unemployed mother. The documentary shows how the degree of power and the level of income influence one’s life by using these four people as examples.
The data comparison shows that different areas of the city house very different classes of people whose life experiences vary tremendously. Lower classes experience significant stress due to underpaid jobs, lack of affordable healthcare, worries about their children’s future, and unsuitable living conditions, which contribute to their poor health. Meanwhile, higher social classes live in perceived safety that facilitates a much less stressful life and helps maintain stable health.
Income inequality, gender pay gaps, and discrimination are the primary reasons for these differences. People who lack education or are graduates of less prestigious colleges, those who come from poorer backgrounds, women, and racial and sexual minorities often experience discrimination, especially in the working field.
When a person is “in control of their destiny,” they have significantly more freedom in what they want and are able to do. For example, a person who has a stable passive income does not have to worry about the consequences of losing their job or those who have a car do not have to spend a lot of time on public transit. The feeling of safety that comes with a high-paying job, good support group, and other resources reduces stress, which in turn positively affects their health.
While in the past 60 years, the U.S. policy regarding healthcare has improved significantly, there are still many inequalities that need to be addressed. Moreover, the constant battle between Democrats and Republicans has also negatively affected these policies – the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a prime example of that. The current policies do not provide enough social security for vulnerable populations such as ethnical or sexual minorities.
Future policies should address the most acute issues that affect American society. Those are equal and more affordable access to food, healthcare, and college education, better housing opportunities for financially challenged populations, elimination of gender and racial pay gap, and provision of stronger civil rights.
The human species vary greatly in various perspectives ranging from intelligence, size, milieu, and social status. Social status pertains to the different categories of famous people and rich people. Famous people include rappers and singers, actors and actress, producers, television and movies stars, models, chefs, teachers; any person can be famous (reComparison contributing writer, par. 2).
Comparatively, there are variety of rich people who have gain their wealth status through delusion, legacy, diligent work, live insurance policies regarding the death of family member or by hitting the lotto (par. 2).
Social ladder
In determining a person’s social status, many factors are considered. These factors include personal monetary value, a person’s family, who you know as well as how you tumbled upon your fame or money. There is a wide variation between the famous movie idols and politicians. A movie idol will earn a high opinion and admiration from the public, whereas a famous politician will command a big scope of fans when they are still in the limelight (par. 3).
Although millionaires and billionaires form the crest of the social status, in the young generation’s mind they fall short of fame since they seldom appear in the information media preferred by them. This is evident by the fact that a public spokesman can enjoy a higher social position relative to other private millionaires, if s/he is well-known (par. 3).
The futuristic perspective of being rich to being fame
Ironically the famous persons as well as rich persons can at any time lose their fame and money. Nevertheless, when an individual who is famous loses his/her social status, some small degree of their fame still remains. The expression “fifteen minute of fame” applies for those persons who have been put in the limelight by publicity experts converse to those who have been espouse glorious or those regarded as fascinating by the masses; their work and career will still persist regardless of the reason for their fame (par. 4).
On the other hand, the rich can restore back his/her money after losing, by persistent hard work or by applying the same initiative that facilitated their success initially. According to those who are not rich, achieving a rich status has some mystery attached to it. Money goes to those who focus their thoughts to gaining wealth by applying very distinct steps which they uphold will result in success. The essentials of financial success are to some extent aligned with the laws of cause and effects (par. 5).
Conclusion
Being rich does not necessarily mean you are famous; conversely, being famous does not essentially mean you are rich. A rich person can lose his money any moment whereas a famous person can only have his fame diminished to some degree determined by the cause for the fame.
Fame makes the social status easy to scale on the account of the big number of people know you, while a rich person can by his/her way up the social status. Although money can make one rich, it cannot necessarily make you famous; instead being famous is not a materialistic aspect of the society since any person can do something to become famous (par. 6).
Work Cited
re Comparison contributing writer. Being Rich vs. Being Famous. reComaprison – Compare it Yourself. 2010. Web.
Wealth brings far more significant problems than depriving people of beauty. This is because once the rich in society set eyes on a given item or property, they will do anything within their means to ensure that they get it irrespective of the adverse effects that their actions may have on the lives of the poor.
This essay seeks to analyze the other adverse effects that wealth can bring to society apart from the aspect of the destruction of beauty. To this end, examples from modern day living shall be drawn and coupled with proper explanations to illustrate the weaknesses of wealth-driven society adequately.
Wealth leads to the creation of frustrated individuals in society. For instance, a wealthy man driving on a highway through the countryside will see a large farm with animals grazing peacefully, and instead of appreciating the calmness of the region, he would probably see how he could turn the farm into an out-of-town shopping mall.
The owners of the land may not be willing to part with their property, but this rich man could easily come with ridiculously vast amounts of money and ensure that he has convinced them to leave. Eventually, high story buildings will go up and concrete structures replacing the trees. In this instance, the rich man would have interfered with the beauty of the land.
However, and even more disturbing is that he would not care where the farmer and his family relocate to because it is almost apparent he (the rich man) is not going to offer them an alternative settlement. Consequently, the farmer may find himself in an urban region where the costs of living are very high, and in time at all, the money he had received from the sale of the land will have gone into rent and food.
With time the farmer and his family will have to go back to the rich man to look for menial jobs at his shopping complex and in a way signing to lifetime slavery. From this example, it is easy to see that wealth also ends up creating a few happy persons at the expense of many frustrated individuals.
The acquisition of wealth results in the breaking of family and societal linkages. An individual will generally tend to relate very well with members of his extended family as well as his neighbors as long as they don’t have a lot of money. However, once this individual lands an extreme amount of wealth, he will turn on the people that he used to share good times with and convert them into his laborers.
In a way, he will strive to ensure that even the people who helped him get where he is don’t get the opportunities that would make them arrive at his level. A good example is a way politicians in third world countries behave. Before the election, they will meet with the people, share meals and even relate positively with them.
They would spend a lot of time pledging to improve the lives of poor citizens as soon as they get elected. However, once they get to the office, they move into posh houses and buy huge cars with dark windows to ensure that the people who elected him/her do not get to know of his whereabouts.
If a person, even his/her uncle wants to meet him to seek some slight help, the now-elected Member of Parliament or counselor will demand that they make appointments with his secretary and most of the time he/she will not make an effort to see whether the matter was attended.
The desire for wealth also brings with it very many societal vices. One good example is corruption and bribery within public service. Individuals who work for the government are generally always complaining that they are not well paid. Since they are in the office for most of the day, they do not have time to do something else on the side, and this leads them to come up with ways of getting the extra dollar while still at work.
So instead of following a given protocol while serving individuals who come seeking assistance from their offices, they will do things slowly and sometimes withholding certain relevant documents only to release them once the client has promised to give a few extra dollars to get the work done on time.
The same applies to police officers who can catch an individual in the midst of committing a crime and instead of arresting him/her, they let the person go after receiving a huge amount of money as a bribe. This desire for wealth is the primary factor that drove western countries to invade the nations in Africa during colonial times.
The colonialists discovered that Africa had a lot of natural resources and since they (colonialists) had the tools for accessing things like minerals, they invaded the countries, turned the natives into their slaves and shipped all the mined products to their mother nations.
In conclusion, it is easy to see that the adverse effects of wealth in society are much more than just the destruction of beauty. As has been shown above through various examples, wealth can lead to the development of many unwanted characteristics in individuals which sometimes leads them to lose all sense of humanity such that they see other individuals as lesser humans. I, therefore, agree with the fact that apart from the destruction of beauty, wealth also generates many adverse effects in society.
The every day indulgence of any country determines its categorisation as either poor or rich. Many nations especially from Europe and America have well established systems of governance, which allow them to be categorised as rich. This paper gives the factors that determine the categorisation of a nation as either poor or rich.
It outlines issues like infrastructure, availability of natural resources, and income levels, amongst others as the factors that distinguish the richer nations from the poor ones. Richard, Hercot, Ouedraogo, Delvaux, Samake, Van Olmen, Conombo, Hammonds, and Vandermoortele (2011, p. 43) reveal that poverty is the central focus of all the nations.
Any nation that wishes to be rich has to address issues like “Poverty, health, education, nutrition, gender equality and the environment” (Gyorkos, Joseph & Casapia 2009, p 645). Otherwise, being rich continues to be a dream that can never be realized.
Infrastructural development
The infrastructure of any country is a pivotal point that determines the country’s development level. Countries with fully developed infrastructure are considered richer since the developed infrastructure present ensures continual supply of human wants to the population.
As Kohler and De Haan (2010, p 103) confirm, “No country has managed to reduce poverty without increasing the use of infrastructure”. On the contrary, the infrastructurally struggling countries are majorly drawn from the developing nations. The infrastructures in this case include health provision, education and transport and communication facilities among other infrastructural developments.
Rich countries have well developed health provision facilities. Health provision encompasses the well-developed health insurance schemes that enable better provision of health facilities to the population without discrimination. Racine, Proctor, and Jewell (2012, p. 90) suggest health service as a key indicator of development.
In most of the poverty-stricken countries, health provision has been a nightmare: a devil fought by crocked tools. The richer countries like the United States of America have invested heavily in the provision of health. This has included the personnel development through the training of doctors.
The poverty-stricken countries have not been able to train enough doctors for the provision of health facilities to the ever-increasing population in the foresaid countries. The establishment of health facilities has been poorly established and maintained in the developing countries especially those found in the African continent.
The literacy level in the poor nations is something worth mentioning. Poor countries have not been able to establish good education systems to counter the issue of literacy. With the high population, the countries found in the poverty-stricken continents especially in Africa have only been able to provide education facilities to a small group of their entire population.
The schools that were established earlier on have not been maintained well to the standards they were intended. The issue of literacy has contributed strongly to the decrease in the personnel in these particular nations. Therefore, the line between poor and rich nations is tone depending entirely on the literacy levels.
Technological advancement acts as a major contributor of the development of countries. The developed countries have well established and developed technology systems that contribute majorly to the provision of essential services. The poor nations have not been able to invest heavily in the technological development.
This has instead hindered the provision of essential services to the population. Poverty, according to Awojobi (2011, p. 160), has been the technological incapacity of the nations. Communication systems depend entirely on technological advancement. Developed countries have invested well in this sector by ensuring that the transport sector is well established.
Communication systems in the developed countries are well established compared to the ones found in the developing countries, which are poorly developed. This has hindered the circulation of information in the developing countries. The transport sector in the developing countries is badly off. The road transport in the developing nations is very demanding compared to how the situation is in the developed nations.
In this sector, the distinctive line can be drawn between the richer countries, which have invested in the technological advancement, and the poor countries that have poor developed technological systems.
Natural resources
The distinction between the poor countries and the developed countries can be established considering the availability of the natural resources, as well as the extent of their exploitation. Nations with adequate natural resources are rich. The richer countries based on the availability of the resources depend majorly on the ability to extract the natural resources.
Nations that have been able to extract their natural resources have crossed the bridge: they are now considered developed. In this regard, “MPI introduces penalties for countries with unbalanced values” (De Munro, Mazziotta & Pareto 2011, p. 2). Natural resources may include the availability of geographical features, which are harnessed for tourism attraction. The developed nations have invested well in the technology.
This enables them to detect “the availability and extent of natural resources in their countries” (Marlier & Atkinson 2010, p. 286). Through government investment, nations develop strategies that assist them in extraction of the resources. Of late, some of the developing countries have been able to discover the availability of natural resources sitting within their territorial grounds.
The major distinction that comes out at this point is the speed at which developed countries are able to discover the natural resources in their countries and subsequent speed of extraction of the same in the developing nations.
Income level
There is a very big distinction between income levels in the developing nations compared to those in the developed nations. Developed nations, especially those in Europe and America, experience higher income levels compared to those in developing nations especially in the African continent. Most of the individuals especially in the African continent live below the dollar need a day.
Quintano Castellano and Punzo (2011, p. 94) suggest the manifestation of low insufficient well-being as low income. On the same ground, one-half of the world’s 6.5 inhabitants live on the equivalent of the one dollar a day. The poverty levels are very high with one quarter of the world presumed to live on the equivalence of less than a dollar in a day.
As Nolan and Whelan (2010, p. 305) point out, “poverty is rich in countries that rely on household income”. On the contrary, the individuals of the developed countries live much better. For instance, on average, people in the twenty richest countries earn about forty times much than those in the poorest twenty countries.
The rich countries are able to counter the issue of employment opportunities compared to the poor nations, which strive in the en-employment environment. The unemployment situations drive the poor nations to lower their standards of living especially in the hard economic situations.
The issue of low living standards has led to brain drain in the poor nations. The United Nation Development Program has estimated, according to its Human Development Index that, in 2010, the top richest countries were Norway, Australia, New Zealand, United States and Ireland all of which come from Europe and America.
With the same statistics, the poorest nations were Zimbabwe, Congo, Niger, Burundi and Mozambique. A close look reveals that the mentioned nations come from the African continent.
Food and nutrition
The distinction between the rich and poor nations can be attributed to their ability to feed their population. As Couch and Pirog (2010, p. 218) confirm, “Poverty thresholds and measures of available resources should be symmetric”. The developing nations are considered poor since they do not have well-established policies that can assist in countering the problem of food security.
Most of the populations from the developing nations feed on poor nutritious foods. This contributes heavily to the poor health of individuals from these nations. This is a clear indication that the difference between poor and richer countries can be based on the ability of the nation to provide good nutritious food to its population. However, in most cases, the poor nations are hit by famine.
Population growth rate
Population growth in most of the poverty-stricken nations is very high in relation to that of the richer nations. The richer nations have the ability to put in place mechanisms to counter the population growth. As observed by Niwemahoro, Musabanganji & Banamwana (2011, p. 169), “demographic pressure remains in the heart of strategy for a better living”.
The poor nations have not been able to initiate the programs that are geared towards family planning. This scenario has necessitated the ever-increasing population growth in these nations. Most nations in the African region have suffered the wrath of this, thus, affecting their gross domestic product.
Political instability
Political stability is a factor that distinguishes the richer nations from the poor nations. The richer nations have very strong political stability that initiates freedom among the citizens. Human rights “can lead to greater accountability” (Banik 2010 p. 34). The poor nations are characterised by the lack of freedom and oppression among its citizens. “Political and economic power fuels armed rebellion” (Marlier & Atkinson 2010, p. 286).
The media, as an institution, is established to keep checking on the government. Hence, its infringement means that the rotten in the government will go unchecked. The political stability acts as an attraction measure to the investments from other countries.
Nations hit by political instability do not encourage women and youth empowerment, which acts as a cornerstone to development. Garces-Ozanne (2011, p. 27) indicates, “Aids given to countries with poor policies have no impact”. In many instances, political instability has consequently led to security concerns in the nation, thus, affecting the foreign investment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, poverty levels in the country depend entirely on the practises and indulgences of that particular nation. Nations that have well established laws of government coupled with well-structured ways of managing their natural resources have developed and crossed the line of poverty. As it is confirmed, “poverty reduction is one of the most important global humanitarian challenges” (Carr, Kettle & Hoskins 2009, p. 87).
Osberg and Lian (2008, p. 419) suggest that the poverty line of one dollar a day indicates absolute deprivation. The political stability is wanting in the many poor nations. These are mostly found in the Sub-Saharan Africa. Political stability attracts foreign investors into the country.
References
Awojobi, O & Bein, M 2011, ‘Microfinancing for Poverty Reduction and Economic Development; a Case for Nigeria’, International Research Journal of Finance & Economics, vol. 1 no. 72, pp.159-168.
Banik, D 2010, ‘Support for human rights-based development: reflections on the Malawian experience’, International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 14 no. 1, pp.34-50.
Carr, R, Kettle, P, & Hoskins, A 2009, ‘Evaluating poverty-environment dynamics’, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, vol. 16 no. 2, pp.87-93.
Couch, K & Pirog, M 2010, ‘Poverty measurement in the U.S., Europe, and developing countries’, Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, vol. 29 no. 2, pp.217-226.
De Munro, P, Mazziotta, M. & Pareto, A 2011, ‘Composite Indices of Development and Poverty: An Application to MDGs’, Social Indicators Research, vol. 104 no. 1, pp.1-18.
Garces-Ozanne, A 2011, ‘The Millennium Development Goals: Does aid Help?’, Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 44 no. 2, pp. 27-39.
Gyorkos, T, Joseph, S, & Casapía, M 2009, ‘Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in a community of extreme poverty: local vs. national disparities in Peru’, Tropical Medicine & International Health, vol. 14 no. 3, pp. 645-652.
Kohler, M & De Haan, D 2010, ‘A Motivation for Energy based Poverty Indicators’, Perspectives of Innovations, Economics & Business, vol. 6 no. 3, pp. 103-107.
Marlier, E & Atkinson, A 2010, ‘Indicators of poverty and social exclusion in a global context’, Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, vol. 29 no. 2, pp. 285-304.
Niwemahoro, C, Musabanganji, E, & Banamwana, L 2011, ‘Fertility Preferences and Level of Family Planning in Rwanda: Case of Huye District’, Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics & Management Sciences, vol. 21 no. 21, pp. 34-9.
Nolan, B & Whelan, C 2010, ‘Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyze poverty and social exclusion: Lessons from Europe?’, Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, vol. 29 no. 2, pp.305-325.
Osberg, L & Kuan, X 2008, ‘How Should We Measure Poverty in a Changing World? Methodological Issues and Chinese Case Study’, Review of Development Economics, vol. 12 no. 2, pp.419-441.
Quintano, C, Castellano, R, & Punzo, G 2011, ‘Measuring poverty and living conditions in Italy through a combined analysis at a sub-national level’, Journal of Economic & Social Measurement, vol. 36 no. 2, pp.93-118.
Racine, L, Proctor, P, & Jewell, L 2012, ‘Putting the World as Classroom: An Application of the Inequalities Imagination Model in Nursing and Health Education’, Journal of Transcultural Nursing, vol. 23 no. 1, pp. 90-99.
Richard, F et al 2011, ‘Sub-Saharan Africa and the health MDGs: the need to move beyond the “quick impact” model’, Reproductive Health Matters, vol. 19 no. 38, pp.42-55.
The issue of the incompatibility of moral values and wealth goes constant leitmotif throughout the history of humankind. This topic is also relevant in the new decade since, over the past ten years, economists have observed an unprecedented income gap between the rich and the rest of the population. This review of the literature will consider works on moral values and their relationships with the factor of wealth.
Moral Values
First of all, the fundamental question is what is meant by the term moral values. Hartmann (2017), in his book, identifies such concepts as goodness, nobility, the richness of experience, purity, justice, wisdom, courage, and self-control as moral values. Connors (2017) defines such essential moral qualities, the ultimate goal of which is to achieve happiness, like honesty, fire, hard work, confidence, and perseverance. However, can wealth, along with the social environment, nurturing, and life experience, be one of the determining factors in the formation of moral values?
Wealth as a Determining Component of Moral Values
There are two conflicting opinions regarding whether wealth is a decisive basis for the emergence of moral values. Adermon, Lindahl, and Waldenström (2018) believe that wealth does determine the ethical aspect, in particular in the matter of inheritance, “because grandparents are more important in the younger life of parents and grandchildren” (p. 503). Greaves and Ord (2017) agree with it, in their work they believe people are in a state of “moral uncertainty” and everything determines the context, since “we are forced to act now” (p. 164).
Nevertheless, the results of both Sherman’s interviews, published in the New York Times (2017) and the Guardian (2017), show that wealth does not affect the formation of the moral component. Another important issue within the framework of the topic is whether wealth affects an already formed complex of individual moral values.
The Impact of Wealth on Moral Values
Negative Influence of Wealth on Moral Values
Many researchers note that wealth does affect moral values, and often it has a negative effect. For example, Schier, Ockenfels, and Hofmann (2016) found out within the framework of the dictator game that people often do not observe their moral principles when it comes to high stakes. Peshin (2018) notes in his article that “rich people are notoriously non-empathetic” (para. 4). Ryan, in his book, agrees with this statement and emphasizes the growing egocentricity of wealthy people.
According to Ryan (2019), “is that as a person’s level of wealth increases, their feeling of compassion and empathy go down” (p. 188). Greenfield (2018) also notes that wealth is destructive not only for moral values but also for work ethics and national identity. Such changes to the code of ethics often lead to harm to the entire community.
The Harmful Effect of Negative Moral Values
The enormous damage from such ethics and moral principles is experienced by the economic and legislative aspects of the state. The most obvious example of this kind of harm to the economy is the phenomenon of tax evasion by the rich, investigated by Saez and Zucman (2016). Chomsky, in his work, indicates that rich people are interested in creating social insecurity among workers for their further enrichment (2017). Also, Pistor (2019) argues that adverse changes in moral values caused by abuses lead to the abuse of existing business and legislative systems, namely legal coding. Yet, some researchers indicate that wealth may contribute positively or at least neutrally to the changes in moral values.
Positive and Neutral Influence of Wealth on Moral Values
Paradoxically, but wealth may help broaden the individual’s moral horizons. Ally (2015) proves it by personal experience, arguing that rich people are more trusting, optimistic, open-minded, hardworking, active, and purposeful. Also, Smith and Kouchaki (2018), studying the issue of initial neglect of moral standards, came to the conclusion that this kind of “break” can lead to moral humility and the further development of virtuous behavior. Further research in this area will help develop new principles of work ethics for the rich.
Conclusion
As researchers point out, fundamental moral values are universal, and the phenomenon of wealth can be a determining component of their formation and change. These changes have negative, positive, and neutral sides and directly affect the lives of all people. Surveyed works investigate the current component, exploring both current trends and past phenomena necessary for comparative and Meta-analyzes. However, these questions are not asked from the perspective of a qualitative study of the rich and famous people, namely does rich or famous people have more moral values or less. Future research into the current work ethic of the affluent will help fill that gap in existing knowledge.
References
Adermon, A., Lindahl, M., & Waldenström, D. (2018). Intergenerational wealth mobility and the role of inheritance: Evidence from multiple generations. The Economic Journal, 128(612), 482-513.
Pistor, K. (2019). The code of capital: How the law creates wealth and inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from capitalized income tax data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(2), 519-578.
Schier, U. K., Ockenfels, A., & Hofmann, W. (2016). Moral values and increasing stakes in a dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 107-115.
The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, found in Luke chapter 16 starting from the nineteenth verse to the thirty-first, has an original meaning that is pegged on it. This paper seeks to bring it out after careful investigation of the social and intellectual conditions that used to be present in those days of the Old Testament. I will be looking at the pattern of living during those periods of time and use that to explain more about the events of the parable as they unfolded. It is also going to incorporate the intellectual and social conditions of the New Testament.
This was not really a parable because though traditionally known as one of the literature genres it belongs to falls under Biography. A parable can be said to be a fable that has a moral behind it. It is used with factual objects of things that can happen in real life like the only difference is that the story cannot be traced to a particular period. It can be said to be fictional because the user makes up characters and forms a story that is factual to bring out a lesson. Parables incorporate a visible world and take us to comprehend the invisible things of God. Another characteristic of a parable is that besides appealing to the imaginations and feelings of Man, it also sparks an interest in the ‘intelligent reason of man.’ Jesus’ parables were demonstrated using human relationships that control human beings.
He also used natural phenomena that his audience could easily relate to so as to explain the things that were unfamiliar to his audience. It can conclusively be seen as a way in which Jesus directed Man’s thought processes from the physical world to the spiritual one. ()More still, a parable can be defined as ‘an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.’ This ‘parable’ belongs to the biographical literature genre because it is an event that happened a long time ago. The mentioning of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets clearly takes us back to the times of the Old Testament. In the times of the Old Testament, Moses and prophets were used by God to communicate with the people. Jesus is God, and God is omnipresent, meaning that even then, Jesus was alive and can be said as having witnessed this story. It is not fictional in any way because the characters used are really only that they were alive at some past period of time. They passed on to another life. This Biography cannot be said to be parallel to present-day life, as a parable would be, but speaks about LifeLife before and after death. No one can really relate with LifeLife after death.
To get a clear picture of this biographical work of Jesus, it would be of utmost importance to relate to the characters as they used to be in the Old Testament or in the earlier centuries. Starting with the 24th verse of Luke, chapter 16, we are shown how the rich Man used to dress in purple linen and every day lived in luxury. During those days, there were some social groups of people that were known as aristocrats and social marginals whose social gap was really big. In this verse, we are told of how the rich Man used to dress in purple linen and enjoyed a life of luxury each and every day. This Man is clearly depicted as an aristocrat whose standard was very high. Fine purple linen was clothing that was worn on special occasions by people of the noble class, such as priests. (Exodus 21). Every day of such dressing and of luxury living must have been a costly affair.
The fact that the rich man feasted on sumptuous meals every day makes one believe that he did not have a problem hosting his fellow aristocrats because there was always plenty of food. The word feasting denotes abundance and variety of food. The rich man looks like an aristocrat who had the potential to organize symposiums at any time without any prior arrangements. Verse 20 of the same chapter Lazarus, a beggar covered with sores, is laid at the Rich Man’s gate. He brings out a sharp contrast between him and the Rich Man. He can be compared to a social marginal who longs to have a life like that of the rich Man because further down in verse 21, he is said to have desired what ‘fell from the Rich Man’s table. With reference to the first term paper, close proximity to an aristocrat upgraded one’s social class. This seems like a deliberate move by Lazarus so that he could also be upgraded. Outside the rich ma’s gate was the closest that he could get because there was a gate that barricaded him from being nearer to the Rich Man. At this time, what got so close to Lazarus were the dogs. The latter could lick the sores of Lazarus, which means that they were the ones that were close to him. This boils down to a picture of being downtrodden. People may have looked down upon Lazarus due to his association with dogs.
The death of the beggar in verse 22 symbolizes the end of the miserable LifeLife that the beggar was leading and the commencement of a new one. He can be compared to Mycillus, a social marginal who was promised to spend some time at a symposium. The death of the rich Man also symbolizes the end of his lavish LifeLife and the beginning of one that is full of torment. This can be illustrated by problems that the rich Man had to grapple with, that is, an adulterous wife and a slave who is sexually perverted. The rich Man’s going to hell can be represented as the onset of his tribulations when his wife was proved to practice infidelity. In verse 22, the beggar, upon dying, was carried by angels to Abraham’s side; he did not, first of all, get buried. Contrary to this, the rich man was buried first when he died. Nobody carried him to any place near anyone.
The two characters had something in common, which was death. However, the LifeLife afterward was different for each of them. Lazarus seems to have an aristocratic life after death, while the rich man seems to have a marginalized one. Roles seem to have changed for both characters. Abraham can be seen as a veteran aristocrat, while Lazarus is a young one. Lazarus is reserved for a seat next to Abraham, which shows how significant he is. On the other hand, the rich man is very far away from the two. This is because he has now become a social marginal and cannot get close to the aristocrats. Verse 24 speaks of how at some point, the rich Man requested Abraham to ask Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in cold water and then dip it on his tongue.
This illustrates how Lazarus is living in an abundance of resources. Just like he used to desire the breadcrumbs that fell from the rich Man’s table, the rich Man now desires that just a drop of cold water could drip on his tongue from Lazarus’ fingertip in order to cool him fromanhe heat he was experiencing. The rich Man wished that he could join Abraham and Lazarus, but this was not possible because there was a great barrier between them. This can be used to show the disparity that existed between those who made it to heaven and those who went to hell, or that which existed between the he,avenly aristocrats and their Social marginal counterparts. Abraham in verse 25, reminds the rich Man that during his LifeLife on earth, he enjoyed all his good things while Lazarus received only the bad things and that this was Lazarus’ moment of rejoicing and vice versa for the Rich Man.
Further, in the 26th verse, Abraham speaks of a great chasm that had been fixed between the two sides that that movement to either side was not possible. Earlier on in the parable, we find how difficult it was for poor Lazarus to move from where he had been to the Rich Man’s house. There was a gate that divided them so that none of them could have access to the other. The rich man in verse 27 begged that Lazarus be sent to his brothers so that they could repent and be saved from the LifeLife that was full of tribulations. His request was declined, and instead, he was told that the siblings should listen to Moses and the prophets. This compares to the point at which the aristocrat known as * started complaining of how the social margins like Metycyllus envied him, not knowing how bad things followed the aristocrats. The rich man had now realized that the high class of LifeLife he had been living had its many demerits and only wished that his siblings knew it. The brothers must also have been aristocrats, while the prophets and Moses were social marginals.
The rich man is almost sure that the brothers will not listen to Moses and the prophets in verse 30. He knows that the brothers will not make it because he had lived in the world with them and was just like them. He knew all too well that they could not have socialized with Moses because they were not coming from the same social class. Abraham ends up saying that even if a dead person rose from LifeLife, the brothers would not listen to him as long as they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets.
Cynical philosophy is a discipline that was invented by a philosopher known as Diogenes. It is based on the principle that says ‘The minimum is the optimum’. This cynical philosophy can be likened to the parable because it shows how someone who is rejected later or gets a good life. Lazarus, in his LifeLife on earth, had the least because he was a beggar, but in the end he was celebrating. He did not go through a burial but went straight to the good LifeLife. Cynical philosophy was not highly regarded because the philosophers were seen to be lying to young aristocrats.
The rich Man’s request that Lazarus be sent to his siblings to warn them so that they can be rescued from ever experiencing such suffering was denied. This is very ironic because the rich Man was used to having everything done at his request, but this time around the former beggar cannot be sent because he has achieved another class. The refusal was acceptable because allowing it would have meant that spirits of the dead be involved because it would have meant dead people appearing to people.
In conclusion, I think the original reader was supposed to get the meaning that LifeLife on earth is not permanent. The reader is supposed to be generous to the poor and the sick because not giving a helping hand means that there is no support.One common thing between the rich and the poor is that they all die and have a destiny.
Works Cited
R. E. Trench, Notes on the Parables and Miracles of Our Lord Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), p. 8.
The Holy Bible. New International Version. Luke 16:19-31.
God intended that humans would be the custodians of everything, including the wealth he entrusted them. Being a good steward denotes that a person should strive to multiply what they have for the benefit of the human race. Sometimes believers fail to understand what to do when interacting with those in poverty. There are many organizations and volunteers that have already tried to give donations and help those in poverty, but their efforts have failed to produce the desired outcomes. Such charitable work sometimes causes more harm to the people and fails to resolve the issue. Herman Chinery rightly states that he has never known a country that developed on aid; all the First-World nations become great from trade (Scionka, 2012). His analysis indicates that aid is the wrong track for saving Africans. Although the bible encourages giving to the poor, such strategy should only be used as crisis management, after which they should be encouraged to use their talents and trade for prosperity.
Christians should seek to transform the lives of people, not just help them and leave while they are in their dilapidating state. Anielka Munkel states that Christians are called to reflect the character of Jesus Christ by not neglecting the plight of the poor (Scionka, 2012). One way of doing so is initiating entrepreneurship like the rich man who called ten of his servants and asked them to engage in business until he returns (Holy Bible, 2004, Luke 19:13). Entrepreneurship breeds prosperity, unlike donors who are not necessarily interested in seeing the growth of local business.
Conclusively, understanding the nature and destiny of people is the foundation of the Christian response to poverty. Therefore, believers must solve the puzzle of expressing their desire to work with what will ultimately have an enduring positive impact. They should seek to establish business ties with the poor by buying from them to encourage hard work and multiplication. God intended for the multiplication of wealth through work and investment, not donations. Therefore, it is essential that as the rich try to help, they align with God’s word.
References
Holy Bible: New living translation. (2004). Tyndale House Publishers.
Wealth inequality can play an important role in how people see themselves, their status, and their achievements. For individuals who do not have much money, comparison to wealthy people may be emotionally harmful. The information presented below will show that wealth inequality can lead to aggressiveness and inappropriate behavior, as well as make people feel bad about themselves.
However, one can argue that imbalance does not affect all people’s mental health because many of them have no economic problems. The research question of the paper is: Does wealth inequality lead to a poor mental state in individuals? The main thesis of this paper is that because of wealth inequality, individuals can start to show problems with self-esteem and self-respect.
Effects of Wealth Inequality
Several arguments support the idea that wealth inequality can lead to a poor mental state in individuals. First, Vedantam, Shah, Boyle, and Cohen (2019) show that wealth inequality can have a psychological effect on people. For example, the authors report that people can become sad or aggressive when they witness inequality. Second, imbalance of any kind can lead to a poor mental state. The study by Yu (2018) shows that people are sensitive to inequality on all levels because they do not want to feel different from each other. Third, wealth disparities are directly related to depression, which means that they affect individuals’ mental health highly (Patel et al., 2018).
However, there is an alternative point of view on the topic. For example, Sommet, Morselli, and Spini (2018) agree that wealth inequality may harm individuals’ mental health but add that the problem is not important for people that do not have financial problems. Unwealthy groups of the population may feel unhappy and have a negative emotional reaction when they compare themselves to others. However, many people who have economic stability do not experience such problems (Sommet et al., 2018). It means that wealth disparities may not lead to a poor mental state in all people; they only affect some individuals.
Although this perspective is reasonable and should be considered, one has to understand that the majority of the world’s population is not wealthy. Neate (2017) reports that 1% of the richest people in the own world half of their wealth. It means that the rest of the global population may have economic problems that make them unhappy, cause negative feelings, and lead to a poor mental state. In addition, Sommet et al. (2018) note even some of the wealthiest individuals may have a feeling of guilt or fear of losing their financial position, which can also lead to a poor mental state. It means that wealth inequality is a large problem that can affect all groups of populations, including those who do not have economic problems.
Conclusion
The analysis of the topic shows that wealth inequality can lead to a poor mental state in all groups of individuals. This problem can result in sadness, unhappiness, aggressive behavior, and depression. The possible objection to this idea is that many people do not have economic problems. However, studies show that even wealthy people can be affected by wealth inequality. The reason for it is that they may feel guilty about being in a good economic position or be afraid to lose it. In summary, wealth inequality is an important problem because it can result in a poor mental state of both poor and rich people.
Patel, V., Burns, J. K., Dhingra, M., Tarver, L., Kohrt, B. A., & Lund, C. (2018). Income inequality and depression: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the association and a scoping review of mechanisms. World Psychiatry, 17(1), 76-89.
Sommet, N., Morselli, D., & Spini, D. (2018). Income inequality affects the psychological health of only the people facing scarcity. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1911-1921.
Vedantam, S., Shah, P., Boyle, T., & Cohen, R. (2019). Why no one feels rich: The psychology of inequality. Web.