So, I wanted to carry over a debate made in the political mudpit about the ethics of being poor or rich.
In modern America, many people now equate wealth with strong ethical character. The wealthy are seen as being the hardest working, most disciplined, living up to their potential, and the most altruistic of citizens because they pay the highest tax rates. The poor are seen as lacking a work ethic, undisciplined, wasteful, and as a major drain on society. Many charismatic churches actually teach that wealth is an indicator of how virtuous a person you are, because God of course will reward you with a BMW for going to church and denouncing gay marriage.
Yet this hasn't been the case going back in either American or Christian tradition. Of course the early Christians believed that wealth was actually a major stumbling block when it came to leading a virtuous life and that being poor was actually living ethically. Furthermore, plenty of American leaders and scholars from Ben Franklin to Ralph Waldo Emerson to Teddy Roosevelt praised living a simple life and rejecting conspicuous consumption and pure avarice.
I do agree that poor ethical choices (such as becoming a drug dealer or refusing to get a job) can lead to poverty, and good ethical choices (such as working hard and showing personal discipline) often lead to wealth.
But if you look more closely at the debate, you realize that many of America's wealthy have either earned their money rather inethically or have inherited a fortune and used it to fuel a lifestyle of jetsetting hedonism. Meanwhile, many poor were born in rough circumstances and demonstrate strong ethical character. After all, the poor often give more of their incomes to the even more needy than do many of the rich. And living an honest life is probably much more difficult when you're poor than when you're wealthy.





Reply With Quote







