Are the poor morally superior to the rich?

[code1211]

Going to Thailand to engage with people who were sex trafficked isn't for poor people.

Buying up patents for common medicines and jacking up the price so people die isn't for poor people.

Perverting the political landscape with vast amounts of dark money isn't for poor people.

Cheating on your taxes and then hiring an army of accountants to hide it isn't for poor people.

So only those who pay for the fulfillment of their perversions or deceit or dishonesty or abuse are culpable?

Interesting.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So only those who pay for the fulfillment of their perversions or deceit or dishonesty or abuse are culpable?

Interesting.

That is certainly a dishonest take on my statement. Please show me where I posted that this group was culpable and other groups were not.

 

[code1211]

That is certainly a dishonest take on my statement. Please show me where I posted that this group was culpable and other groups were not.

You seemed limit your condemnations to only those who were paying the big bank for their transgressions.

I know from personal experience that various inconsiderate, cruel, hurtful and or dishonest things can be done by those with lesser means.

Just sayin'...

 

[OrphanSlug]

The rich certainly have the means and opportunity to sin more.

Your original question was "are the poor morally superior to the rich?"

In the context of theology, and narrowing this down to the Abrahamic Religions, we have some indications that there is more room for the rich to operate with less moral code but that does not mean an all or nothing condition. There is too much text from the period that looks at adherence to accepted moral code as universal concern regardless of having wealth or not.

And that makes sense in the context of the period that the majority of the relevant text was written. Intention seems to matter most.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You seemed limit your condemnations to only those who were paying the big bank for their transgressions.

I know from personal experience that various inconsiderate, cruel, hurtful and or dishonest things can be done by those with lesser means.

Just sayin'...

Take a look at the context of the conversation and try again. If your concern is that criticism is leveled to a particular group, then all you need to do is simply ask about a different group.

Occam’s razor and all that.

 

[code1211]

Your original question was "are the poor morally superior to the rich?"

In the context of theology, and narrowing this down to the Abrahamic Religions, we have some indications that there is more room for the rich to operate with less moral code but that does not mean an all or nothing condition. There is too much text from the period that looks at adherence to accepted moral code as universal concern regardless of having wealth or not.

And that makes sense in the context of the period that the majority of the relevant text was written. Intention seems to matter most.

A quick read or listen to the news of the day indicates that there are far more crimes and minor atrocities committed by the great unwashed than the elite.

Just sayin'...

 

[OrphanSlug]

A quick read or listen to the news of the day indicates that there are far more crimes and minor atrocities committed by the great unwashed than the elite.

Just sayin'...

As a percentage of the whole or a percentage of the income quintile?

 

[code1211]

Take a look at the context of the conversation and try again. If your concern is that criticism is leveled to a particular group, then all you need to do is simply ask about a different group.

Occam’s razor and all that.

Your post:

"Going to Thailand to engage with people who were sex trafficked isn't for poor people.

Buying up patents for common medicines and jacking up the price so people die isn't for poor people.

Perverting the political landscape with vast amounts of dark money isn't for poor people.

Cheating on your taxes and then hiring an army of accountants to hide it isn't for poor people."

 

[Slartibartfast]

Your post:

"Going to Thailand to engage with people who were sex trafficked isn't for poor people.

Buying up patents for common medicines and jacking up the price so people die isn't for poor people.

Perverting the political landscape with vast amounts of dark money isn't for poor people.

Cheating on your taxes and then hiring an army of accountants to hide it isn't for poor people."

The poor can't afford to do that stuff, so yeah, it isn't for them.

 

[code1211]

As a percentage of the whole or a percentage of the income quintile?

As a percent of the crimes committed.

 

[Deuce]

Morality was the first casualty of the I-Me-Mine culture.

*votes against every effort that would help other people*

 

[cpwill]

No. Being poor or rich does not make you more or less a moral person.

 

[aociswundumho]

Buying up patents for common medicines and jacking up the price so people die isn't for poor people.

Patents are legal monopolies provided by the state. Using violence to enforce monopolies is the real crime.

Perverting the political landscape with vast amounts of dark money isn't for poor people.

What about the politicians and bureaucrats who trade political favors for the money? Do you agree they are immoral as well?

Cheating on your taxes and then hiring an army of accountants to hide it isn't for poor people.

Poor people cheat on their taxes any way possible, and there is nothing immoral about doing so. Almost 20% of the world's economy is off the books.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Patents are legal monopolies provided by the state. Using violence to enforce monopolies is the real crime.

They are a tradeoff to encourage innovation and in general they are fine and proper. They should be properly regulated to avoid abuse though.

What about the politicians and bureaucrats who trade political favors for the money? Do you agree they are immoral as well?

Absolutely.

Poor people cheat on their taxes any way possible, and there is nothing immoral about doing so. Almost 20% of the world's economy is off the books.

Benefiting from being in a society while trying to cheat taxes is immoral. Taxes are the price of the advantages being part of society can being.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Incorrect, those things are available to rich people as well, however, the stuff on my list is not available to poor people.

Also, your points 2 and 4 are not actually temptations.

Behavior is always a temptation of some sort. Of course they are available to the rich. That wasn't the question. The question are the temptations of the rich available to the poor. The answer is yes.

 

[StillBallin75]

I think the better question is, why is our society set up in such a way that a lot of immoral people are the ones who end up rich or in positions of power, and what to do about it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Behavior is always a temptation of some sort. Of course they are available to the rich. That wasn't the question. The question are the temptations of the rich available to the poor. The answer is yes.

The answer is no, because one generally cannot be tempted by something one cannot reasonably accomplish within one's abilities or resources. The temptation therefore becomes about increasing one's resources or abilities in order to be able to act on that temptation. However, that, in this case, would turn the poor person to a rich person given the examples I cited.

 

[Bullseye]

The rich certainly have the means and opportunity to sin more.

And, of course, the means and opportunity to donate to myriad programs that help the poor. Oh, and create jobs so the poor can work their way out of poverty.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The rich certainly have the means and opportunity to sin more.

Only one sin is required to go to hell if you are not a Christian. But to answer your question, read the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said:

Matthew 5:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 6:

20 “Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.
22 Blessed are you when people hate you,
when they exclude you and insult you
and reject your name as evil,
because of the Son of Man.

23 “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven.
For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

 

[phoenix2020]

Going to Thailand to engage with people who were sex trafficked isn't for poor people.

Buying up patents for common medicines and jacking up the price so people die isn't for poor people.

Perverting the political landscape with vast amounts of dark money isn't for poor people.

Cheating on your taxes and then hiring an army of accountants to hide it isn't for poor people.

If you are constructing an argument based on probabilities, you would also need to account for whether differences in upbringing between rich and poor might preferentially encourage good or bad decision making e.g. are the wealthy more or less likely to inherit a strong moral compass as part of their childhood?

(I do not know the answer.)

 

[Slartibartfast]

If you are constructing an argument based on probabilities, you would also need to account for whether differences in upbringing between rich and poor might preferentially encourage good or bad decision making e.g. are the wealthy more or less likely to inherit a strong moral compass as part of their childhood?

(I do not know the answer.)

I don't need to account for upbringing, what a silly assertion.

I am simply stating its that the nature of temptation means that the one being tempted generally has to believe it is within their power to act on that temptation. If one is poor, the range of things they can do is more limited than if they are rich. If it is not within their power, its just "imagining scenarios" or "having fantasies"

 

[phoenix2020]

I don't need to account for upbringing, what a silly assertion.

I am simply stating its that the nature of temptation means that the one being tempted generally has to believe it is within their power to act on that temptation. If one is poor, the range of things they can do is more limited than if they are rich. If it is not within their power, its just "imagining scenarios" or "having fantasies"

OK, so you are not focusing on the probability of a rich person being more or less likely to do something immoral during a given time interval. I misunderstood.

 

[Slartibartfast]

OK, so you are not focusing on the probability of a rich person being more or less likely to do something immoral during a given time interval. I misunderstood.

The rich person may be an awesome person or may be a selfish evil asshole. If they are a selfish evil asshole, it seems likely they would act on certain temptations than the awesome person. However, certain choices are available to them that may not be available to someone with lesser resources.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

The answer is no, because one generally cannot be tempted by something one cannot reasonably accomplish within one's abilities or resources. The temptation therefore becomes about increasing one's resources or abilities in order to be able to act on that temptation. However, that, in this case, would turn the poor person to a rich person given the examples I cited.

You are assuming the poor have no riches. I would disagree. It's a matter of level of riches, not rich that can breed temptation. The parable of the talents where the one servant took the least given out and hid his treasure in the ground because he was afraid of losing it, squandering it away. He lost his talent and it was given to the one who had the most.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You are assuming the poor have no riches. I would disagree. It's a matter of level of riches, not rich that can breed temptation. The parable of the talents where the one servant took the least given out and hid his treasure in the ground because he was afraid of losing it, squandering it away. He lost his talent and it was given to the one who had the most.

Having no riches and low income is the definition of poor, so yeah.

The parable of the talents has nothing to do with it.