Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Wealth as such is not immoral in any worldview system, unless a person adheres to some radical religious beliefs, for example, makes the famous statement about the camel and the eye of a needle as his motto. Even such an ideology as communism does not affirm the immorality of wealth as such (recall that Engels was a businessman, Marx refused to marry his daughters to poor people, etc.).
Immoral in a particular system of moral coordinates can be the method and source of obtaining wealth, as well as the purposes for which it is used.
For example, for the vast majority of moral systems, wealth “on blood”, that is, obtained by direct deliberate murder of one or many people, is unacceptable. At the same time, it is only necessary for such a murder to become indirect (for example, people will slowly die from diseases due to pollution of nature). how so many moral systems will stop judging the rich killer.
It also happens otherwise. The moral system can condemn the way wealth is obtained, but allow its use if the received money is spent for the right purposes.
Communism, for example, denounces the wealth obtained through wage labor, because the entrepreneur never pays the employee the full value of his labor, and therefore steals someone else's labor. This is called exploitation. At the same time, communists agree to exploitation if it is carried out by the company in the interests of its own development and if the employee participates in management. How this is done in practice is a special topic, but I think the principle is clear to you. Communists also don't blame individuals for exploiting their neighbors if they take care of their employees and spend their wealth to overcome capitalism. Engels did just that. Other moral systems also constantly grant indulgences to the rich. Various religions forgive the criminal rich man if he spends on charity, builds a temple, and so on.
Let's summarize. You can decide whether wealth is immoral based on your personal beliefs and the moral system you have adopted. Accordingly, the manifestations of this immorality will immediately become clear to you. If you are looking for and can't find evidence of the immorality of wealth, then obviously you just don't think wealth is immoral.
Wealth in terms of material wealth-most often obtained not by one's own (parents) or light (obviously at first glance) labor-is considered immoral not by all people, but only by those in whom envy wakes up (I don't want to offend anyone). Being rich and “luxurious” is not immoral. If we talk about the former ,then “show-offs” and “show-offs” who lead a humanitarian consumer mundane lifestyle do not teach anything good by their example, and as a rule, they are often not happy. God is their judge! As for the second example , in my opinion, it is not considered at all pretentious that a person innocuously boasts about his own quality of life, if he has earned it and he has honestly earned it himself, or, perhaps, won it back. No one is to blame for the fact that people live in our beautiful country clearly better than (unfortunately) in Africa, or that life in Russia is “eating meat” for some, “cabbage” for others – in total, the whole country eats cabbage rolls. Let the state do this! You are not Mother Teresa, and you decide only in your environment, and you need to help yourself and your loved ones to strive for development and well-being. Karl Marx said that “war” in the “social strata” cannot be avoided. Such people can serve as an example: think and try and be motivated/disciplined and work to live a better life. And in general-let them live as they please, as long as ordinary people are not disturbed. Of course, today it has already become customary that the rich can live unscrupulously; break the law, and so on. But you, having got all these benefits, will not live like this:). So the problem is not someone's standard of living, but your observation, labels, and primary evaluations.