The Morality of being Super Rich

[SuuT]

The discussion would get too lengthy if I continue replying to every point so I'll go for the root:

It wouldn't be philosophy if we could do it in a day. Some philosophical debates are thousands of years old.

As stated previously, the creation and possession of wealth is not a moral issue;

Yes, so you've said; but you have not risen to justify the axiom. But here would be my response to what you would need to say to remain consistent with it: Any activity which endeavors the requirement of interdependent human activity has inherent moral components insofar as man is the moral animal.

The timbre of your axiom is very similar to: 'believe in Christ - he is truth'.

the only moral implications are in the way which is it created and acquired.

If what I said above is true, then this cannot be.

You appear to be conflating piracy with capitalism. If you do not accept the fact that capitalism is the only system under which men are free to live peacefully and prosper or fail by their own doing, that is one thing; if, on the other hand, you do think this in a broader sense but still somehow hold contradictorily cynical views of the system, that is what is causing your problem.

You seem to have an incomplete understanding of capitalism and have filled the holes with your sense of life. You are experiencing a conflict between your worldview and the reality which your mind perceives. Adjust the former and it will align with the latter.

Maybe you can tell me why I was a thumbsucker, Dr. Freud...?

You are conflating your Socialism v. Capitalism match with Loki with the question at hand and running with those scissors:

1.) I am what most people would consider a 'wealthy' man, so my grasp on Capitalism can't be too awfully sloppy. But, while this might be interesting, it is also irrelevant.

2.) However firm my, or your, grasp on Capitalism is, while perhaps interesting, is also irrelevant.

3.) Whether or not I even know what any form or method of currency even looks like - is irrelevant.

Your axioms, if taken to the point of an argument, are a straw man. They, collectively, are also a genetic fallacy as Warren Buffet himself could say all of the things that I have said, and ask all of the questions I have asked, and there would be no proposed answer to those things whose foundation would be the knowledge, or lack thereof, of Capitalism in theory, or, Capitalism in practise.


I need not ever have held a dollar or a dime in my hand to question and ruminate on the morality of one having so much money that he or she is able to lose one million dollars an hour - and have their life substatially unchanged.

The issue is whether or not this is moral. And again, I say no.

[Csongi]

Immoral to have any kind of money............Its a really interesting perspective......If everyone's own decision what kind of money are you having in your life..............Many people chose much less money to save them self to be to reach and getting to be keept away from the real intresting sensitive high quality and positive places of the Universe.....


Actually I think a few people definitely predestined to be that much reach, and they are probably suffer from any side effect coming together with a too much money.....



: )



Never get to be the slave of them, or working for them, and maybe after then maybe most of the humans are happier and luckier then them around you in the everyday life.......





Csongi

[Liffrea]

Personally if someone wants to make their life’s goal the acquisition of wealth then what business is it of mine? What I object to is that in today’s world success, happiness and purpose are largely defined by what you own, how much money you have and the latest “fashion”. If people want that, more power to them, where’s the small print that says I have to play the game and I’m to be abused as a “failure” because I choose not to?

I don’t care for money, never have, and I’ve had times when I’ve had so much of it I could wipe my arse with it and times when I didn’t have a penny to my name, it never made the slightest difference to my constitution. I’ve walked out of jobs where I sat on my arse eight hours a day for stupid money, I didn’t see the point of it, I’ve worked for nothing because I saw purpose in it. To those who live by ££££$$$$$$$ I would seem crazy, fair enough, but I still don’t see why I have to play the game, objects and things mean very little to me and, at the end of the day, that’s all money ever buys, it doesn’t buy love, respect nor honour.

[Black Turlogh]

There's nothing immoral about having money, by my own standard. In truth, I don't feel that the wealthy have any responsibilities that the poor are exempt from. To be as generous and charitable as our circumstances allow is a duty that we are all charged with. Though it's obviously true that the wealthy can generally afford to give more than can the impoverished.

As a side note, I agree with Liffrea. Those who attribute great purpose to the pursuit of material wealth have my pity.

[Wotan88]

Welcome, it's my first post on this forum, I hope I'll spend nice time discussing with intelligent people here.

Sorry for digging one month old thread, but I'd like to share my opinion on this topic with you.

I have nothing against collecting money, being prominent economist, etc. but I am opposed to materialism and hedonism. Money and material goods are part of our life, we should use it to achieve our goals. But it shouldn't be goal itself to collect it.

I think that such anti-materialism lies deeply in European soul (in contrary to Semitic people's mentality) - just study mythologies of ethnic European people. There is always a myth depicting lust for money as being negative attitude and we should listen to our ancestors.

That's why I despise people such as Mr. Gates...

[anonymaus]

Money and material goods are part of our life, we should use it to achieve our goals.

...

That's why I despise people such as Mr. Gates...

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interac...py_individual/

Go on?

[skyhawk]

Welcome, it's my first post on this forum, I hope I'll spend nice time discussing with intelligent people here.

Sorry for digging one month old thread, but I'd like to share my opinion on this topic with you.

I have nothing against collecting money, being prominent economist, etc. but I am opposed to materialism and hedonism. Money and material goods are part of our life, we should use it to achieve our goals. But it shouldn't be goal itself to collect it.

I think that such anti-materialism lies deeply in European soul (in contrary to Semitic people's mentality) - just study mythologies of ethnic European people. There is always a myth depicting lust for money as being negative attitude and we should listen to our ancestors.

Good first post too ...........

That's why I despise people such as Mr. Gates...

I don't so much despise the man but I am highly critical of the system that creates men like him............if that makes sense.

Bill Gates ( along with others ) owes all his wealth to the rolling out to the general public of an almost entirely funded , highly desirable , commodity...........the PC.

The PC is a development made possible by military research and development.........which is almost entirely public funded.........defence spending...........in fact quite a lot of the must have consumerables of the techno type( and age) have their roots in the same origin.

Unfortunately..............for most people who paid in at any rate.........the enormous wealth from this development went into private pockets.........a classic case of privatizing profits whilst socializing costs.

If the state itself had of invested and promoted its own baby we wouldn't be talking about whether or not it is immoral to be in Bill Gates shoes( and associated golden balls..........excuse the language ) and might be wondering what good the state could achieve with the extra money.........obviously assuming you had a functioning system of controls over the excesses of disgruntled rich people who have now missed out.......... but they might have to just settle for being rich ( for the greater good )..............lifes so unfair

As for the question of whether or not it is immoral for people to be unbelievably rich ?

From my personal perspective .........absolutely.

I don't think most people have an issue with people doing well for themselves, even becoming what you might call wealthy ( it's such a relative term ) or rewarding personal industry..............but I think those who have any inclinations of , or leaning towards putting people before profit, or some semblence of wishing for a degree of social justice will be most likely to find the situation of a Superrich elite hard to accept.........however I think that their reasons are noble and worthy of a genuine respect............regardless of whether it is a rational or irrational, views will vary, conclusion.

[Lenny]

I think that such anti-materialism lies deeply in European soul (in contrary to Semitic people's mentality)

Great post Wotan -- Your absolutely right, IMO.

There is a thread floating around right now discussing why Islamic societies are always poor (except for their free oil wealth) -- some prominent person has written it's because Islam (and all nonEuropeans) lack(ed) the idea of a Corporation.

I think that idea is interesting, but I think if one digs deeper they will find that comes more from the European Spirit (and especially Germanic-Protestant, i.e. 'Protestant Work Ethic'). Selfless hard work -- the desire to do quality work and take pride in it -- causes a society to advance; greed causes stagnation.

Why Are Europeans Richer Than Muslims?

[anonymaus]

Selfless hard work -- the desire to do quality work and take pride in it

Did you actually think that through before you said it?

[Wotan88]

I agree with you, Lenny and Skyhawk!

@Skyhawk
Maybe word "despise" was too radical from my side, but you know, what I mean. I'm just not too fond in such people. You've said it nicely, I couldn't say it any better.

@Lenny
Jan Stachniuk had very interesting idea about that. I said something about him in other thread. He was main ideologist of pre-WW2 Polish national socialism. He stated, that human should be heroic. Stachniuk's concept of heroism is quite similiar to Nietzsche's concept of master morality. Stachniuk said that to be heroic, you don't need to fight with dragons and rescue maidens. One can be heroic in his everyday life, for example in work. Heroism is based on concentration on your goal, trying to achieve it in best possible way, destroying obstacles on your way. It was rooted in positivist thought - working hard not only for yourself but also for improving global "organism" (country) was perceived as heroic by him.
I find this idea very interesting and mostly agree with it.