9

The findings overall led to the conclusion that wealthier people are less likely to act generously (and more likely to act selfishly and unethically) when given a chance. Other studies seemed to corroborate this idea.

This was in the news a while ago. In my experience, being wealthy enables people to have certain inviolable sense of self worth and security, which is actually a lot more damaging to them than it sounds (sometimes you do need to know that you - and the people around you - have f-ed up). Has there been any philosophical work into virtue and gratuitous wealth, especially in terms of negative effects.

  • 2
    "A new study calls into question earlier research suggesting that people of higher socioeconomic status are less generous and more selfish than others", GGM. Wealth and Virtue is a short survey of takes from Aristotle to Hayek, they are not all negative. Ward has a book Wealth, virtue, and moral luck from Christian perspective. – Conifold Nov 18 '23 at 10:01
  • thanks @Conifold sorry for my rudeness –  Nov 18 '23 at 10:47
  • 1
    Can you provide a specific link to the assertion that was 'in the news' please? – Robbie Goodwin Nov 18 '23 at 21:39
  • 1
    Beyond '(many) rich people have a sense of entitlement' what are you really Asking, please? – Robbie Goodwin Nov 18 '23 at 21:44
  • idk, just asking how it affects virtue according to philosophers, of religion or otherwise @RobbieGoodwin –  Nov 18 '23 at 22:07
  • 2
    Your quoted excerpt only tells us the people who are wealthier behave differently, not that they behave differently after becoming wealthy. As it stands, it's compatible with those given to certain behaviour managing to gain wealth afterwards. Do you know a larger text that makes clear studies have found these behaviours postdate wealth? – J.G. Nov 18 '23 at 22:48
  • thiis is not a psychology question @J.G. it's meant to illustrate –  Nov 18 '23 at 22:50
  • 1
    I don't know what you mean by "it's meant to illustrate". You mustn't conflate correlation with causation. In a world in which wealth doesn't corrupt at all, your question would warrant a frame challenge, but the finding that "was in the news" could still hold true. – J.G. Nov 18 '23 at 22:53
  • it's not an argument. it is a question "hey look some news items say this" @J.G. –  Nov 18 '23 at 22:54
  • I can show you as soon as you have finished cleaning. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Nov 19 '23 at 02:39
  • 1
    As Mignon McLaughlin wisely realized, *"There are a handful of people whom money won't spoil, and we all count ourselves among them."* – End Anti-Semitic Hate Nov 19 '23 at 10:47
  • @prof_ghost

    Really? When you don['t know, why are 'just asking' SE Members to do your research for you? Why not read some text-books, or even ask a search engine about how riches affect virtue according to philosophers, of religion or otherwise?

    If by contrast, you're merely trying to start a general discussion why not first read SE's rules of engagement and then Post for discussion some ideas of your own?

     – Robbie Goodwin Nov 19 '23 at 21:55
  • the same goes for any question @RobbieGoodwin about anything –  Nov 20 '23 at 00:36
  • Useful references have been provided in the comments. Christianity has certainly expressed this view in the New Testament. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Faith, hope, and charity, but the greatest of these is charity. All of these apply to wealthy individuals. The ability of wealthy people to corrupt power is obvious and immediate. There is also the negative effect of wealth accumulation on the poor and society generally. Marxism and other s – Meanach Nov 18 '23 at 14:28
  • prof_ghost that's surely true at this sort of primitive level. Still, why not first consider how relative a concept 'virtue' is and then that broadly the characteristics and inclinations, skills and talents that enable people to acquire wealth in the first place, also incline them to hold onto it? – Robbie Goodwin Nov 20 '23 at 13:30

5 Answers5

13

The accumulation of wealth — like the accumulation of every form of social power — has two prominent implications:

  1. It gives people greater social 'reach': the ability to impact more people at greater distances with less overt effort
  2. It allows people to insulate themselves from social consequences, using their wealth as social power to hold off, deflect, defer, distract, or otherwise prevent consequences from reaching them

Neither of these implications are bad in and of themselves, but each has consequences on the human psyche. The first means that casual, thoughtless, or ill-considered actions can have wide-spread effects. For example, Elon Musk made a series of impetuous, seemingly random decisions beginning with his purchase of Twitter, which have blithely affected hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Likewise, Union Carbide made a series of cost-reducing decisions in the '70s and '80s that inadvertently led to the Bhopal disaster, with over 500,000 people exposed to toxic chemicals. Wealth is a tool (like a piece of construction equipment) that amplifies the strength of the person wielding it. But unlike other tools, people rarely think they have to use their wealth in a calm, cautious, deliberate, and sober state of mind. This leads to an intrinsic callousness towards unintended consequences that can corrupt people.

The second implications has (in many ways) worse effects on the psyche. People who insulate themselves from social consequences naturally regress towards adolescence. In other words, they return to all of those behaviors that so annoy us in tweens: the aggravated, declarative sense of self-righteous self-importance; the emotional lability; the impulsiveness and lack of foresight; the sense of entitlement that leads to whining, winging, raging tantrums whenever they don't get their way. Adolescents are (hormonally speaking) driven by the Seven Deadly Sins — lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride — and slowly grow out of them by exposure to social consequences. Those who insulate themselves from exposure to society and its consequences tend to backslide, as one glance at current US politics should demonstrate.

Ted Wrigley
  • 19,410
  • 2
  • 22
  • 55
  • I don't think your reference to the Bhopal disaster supports "led to the deaths of 500,000 people". I had never heard of it before, and was shocked by the number. The article summary says "Deaths: At least 3,787; over 16,000 claimed; Non-fatal injuries: At least 558,125". Of course it doesn't affect the core of your argument, but it seems like "led to the injury of over 500,000" or "led to the deaths of around 10,000" would be more accurate. – preferred_anon Nov 19 '23 at 11:08
  • 1
    @preferred_anon: My bad, I remembered it from a long time ago, and just skimmed the info uncritically. I'll fix it. – Ted Wrigley Nov 19 '23 at 16:08
1

Does wealth corrupt or are those who are good at obtaining wealth naturally predisposed to be cunning with their money and resources? That's often how they became wealthy in the first place. While being generous is a good thing, being too self sacrificial doesn't pay for your retirement or kid's education.

On the flip side, if you're poor you're much more reliant on community and charity for survival. Giving is very much in your interests because you need a network. Where if you're worth a couple million you just don't really need to worry or think about it.

Cdn_Dev
  • 1,050
  • 7
  • 20
0

There has been research on psychopathy which you might find interesting. I think CEO's are 5 times more likely to be psychopaths than the average person. Since psychopathy is not aquired (you're born with it), it suggests that our economic system rewards those who are already 'corrupted' to begin with.

Jumboman
  • 382
  • 1
  • 5
  • are you a psychopath? –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:02
  • @prof_ghost No, is this a reference to the TED talk on psychopathy? – Jumboman Nov 20 '23 at 13:20
  • 1
    you are not "born" with psychopathy. you are born with disposition to it. monozygotic twins are not all the same trait phenotype. you are grandiose, but it could be anything i guess, perhaps even situational hah –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:22
  • @prof_ghost Although both biological and environmental factors play a role in the development of psychopathy and sociopathy, it is generally agreed that psychopathy is chiefly a genetic or inherited condition, notably related to the underdevelopment of parts of the brain responsible for emotional regulation and impulse control. The most-important causes of sociopathy, in contrast, lie in physical or emotional abuse or severe trauma experienced during childhood. To put the matter simplistically, psychopaths are born, and sociopaths are made. https://www.britannica.com – Jumboman Nov 20 '23 at 13:28
  • chat gpt says the same and understands as much. it's not like blue eyes, man –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:29
  • also to those downvoting, I would like to understand why. OP asks for research on the relationship between ethics and wealth. I provide a valid direction for OP to research. Why the downvote? – Jumboman Nov 20 '23 at 13:30
  • "incline (someone) towards a particular activity or mood". it was me: because you are rewriting chat-gpt. anyway, psychopathy cannopt be diagnosed before 18 (IIRC) and so you are not "born" a psychopath, indeed –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:31
  • @prof_ghost yeah because chatGPT is trained on online enceclopedia, smartass. Besides, for your question it hardly matters whether it is hardwired or softwired; what matters is that people usually aquire/develop psychopathy before they become wealty/CEO, not after. This proves my point about the incentives of our economic system. Did you only ask the question to argue or are you actually interested in the answer? – Jumboman Nov 20 '23 at 13:33
  • so what 4% of thje rich can be accounted for: what about the other 96% (i know you love stats) –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:34
  • @prof_ghost Well since we've used full-on psychopathy to establish that our economic system rewards those who were already anti-social, rather than turning the rich into anti-socials, it might be helpful to know that up to 30% of people display some level of psychopathic traits. Our economic system rewards those people too, so they, too, will disproportionally be found among the wealthy population. Any more questions? – Jumboman Nov 20 '23 at 13:39
  • that's bad science, especially linking it to genotypes, but whatever –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:40
  • @prof_ghost if you're not interested in answers, don't ask questions. It's rude and doesn't respect others' time. – Jumboman Nov 20 '23 at 13:41
  • i am interested in answers, and i found yours disappointing. sorry, i will not keep voting if it offends you –  Nov 20 '23 at 13:42
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. –  Nov 20 '23 at 14:04
0

Money is not really the source of corruption. With proper monetary policy, money would go to those with most merit and create a true meritocracy. (This is not what we have, yet.)

Money corrupts when people get money without earning the value inherit in it. If I make a billion dollars for pumping oil out of the ground (say a million dollars of expenses to do so), that value came mostly from the resource, not my hard labor and innovation. But the market will still give me a billion dollars because the resource I exploited is worth that amount.

So what happens psychologically when things are so warped between earnings and wealth? You have the extreme depravity, imbalances, and social diseases you see in the West which exploited the resource perhaps more than anyone else. People don't care about the suffering of other people is what happens because they can afford to escape it easily. It needs fixed.

Marxos
  • 766
  • 3
  • 12
0

Chartiably, wealthy people get lied to a lot, and this means they habitually take sides against anyone who might undermine them, often siding with the actual liars etc., as that's vanity for you.

Marx calls this alienation, how the capitalist class are internally at war with each other (just as they exploit the working class).

Obviously, that doesn't make them universally despicable, but it does accentuate certain vices, which may not flatter them, exactly.