Rich people more unethical

Another reason why employers should not be allowed pre-employment credit checks. Your credit has nothing to do with being a good/honest employee.

There have been plenty of studies which prove this - not just this one. But for some reason, employers want to pull your credit. Let's face it, your credit will show a lot of info about you that's illegal to ask.

Originally posted by Alxandro
He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Another pro 99% thread and now I must ask, what is ethical about vandalizing and pooping in public?

edit on 29-2-2012 by Alxandro because: (no reason given)

99 % of the people do NOT do that.

-rrr

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by eboyd

 

Dear eboyd,

Wow! I really blew that one! Man, I'm sorry. I try to be clear, but I failed miserably this time. Please let me try to fix it.

haha, it's alright.

When I wrote about "cost-benefit analysis" I wasn't talking about money. Maybe I should have said "risk-benefit analysis?" Let me use an example from the article, cheating to win a prize. What's the benefit to doing that? Winning the prize, of course. What's the cost or risk, even if you get caught? The rich, might say "There is no cost, I don't care what they say, and I'm not going to go to jail for it, so it's all good."

The benefit stays the same if you're rich or poor, winning the prize. But for some, the cost is greater than the benefit, so they don't do the unethical action. The study seems to be saying that rich people find the cost of doing a bad thing to be lower than poor people find it.

ok, i see. yeah, without fully engaging my brain to think if i have any objections i will just say that i generally agree with you here.

As far as the Judaeo-Christian thing, that's one of the huge sources we have for telling us what's right and wrong. If a person believes that lying puts their immortal soul in jeopardy, they may be less likely to lie than someone who believes there is no punishment for a bad act. Universities are not hotbeds for teaching objective morality, rather it's more "Do what you think is best under the circumstances, follow your own heart, do what you will."

your argument suggests that objective morality, not specifically Judeo-Christian principles, leads to an ethical lifestyle. even if this is the case, you make no argument to suggest that other ideologies based on objective morality, such as Islam, Bahai, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc., do not result in the same ethical living. and as studies have shown, objective morality does not necessarily lead to an ethical lifestyle. if it was the case that it did, then studies on crime rates would show Judeo-Christian nations to be generally more ethical than those with larger populations of people who do not believe in objective morality such as atheists, deists, agnostics, pantheists, etc., but this is not the case. in fact, studies show the opposite. the countries with the lowest crime rates tend to contain more "organic atheism", or atheism which is not coerced upon the people through the government. now i will not conflate correlation with causation here, but suffice it to say that objective morality and Judeo-Christian principles have been shown by such studies to have little to no bearing on ethical living. what's more, studies also show that, among the population of atheists that live in the U.S., a very low percentage of that population are in prison. according to the link, the only populations that have less representation in prisons are followers of Hinduism, Santeria, Sikh, Bahai, and Krishna faiths. Christianity and Judaism, however, FAR surpass atheism.

I hope I've clarified myself a little, but thank you for pointing out that I was being fuzzy in the first place.

With respect,
Charles1952

absolutely. thanks for the clarification.

reply to post by eboyd

Dear eboyd,

This is wonderful, you'll get me up the level of homo sapiens in no time. I was hoping that my second try would fix my message, but it appears that I was only partly successful. I agree, again, that my expression was intolerably sloppy. I have no excuse, but as for an explanation may I point out that you seem to have considerably higher standards than the average ATSers who have allowed me to get away with such casual contempt for precision for so long?

I merged two related, but distinct arguments and one example into one paragraph.

1.)

As far as the Judaeo-Christian thing, that's one of the huge sources we have for telling us what's right and wrong.

The guide to what is right and wrong at a societal level, at least in the US, has several sources. There are variable sources which depend on your circumstances of birth and upbringing, such as family income, education, surrounding violence, etc. There are also sources which seem to blanket society with only occasional exceptions, the law, and the generally accepted religiously based moral code, in our case, the Judaeo-Christian.

These society-wide norms can be specifically described, and the correct behavior can be described in advance, for the vast majority of situations we may find ourselves in. To the degree that people accept and follow these society-wide norms, we have what can be considered to be ethical groups.

My question in cost-benefit analysis was meant to highlight the idea that certain groups see no cost in violating these societal norms. They either scorn public disapproval or are unitimidated by the punishment of laws.

2.)

If a person believes that lying puts their immortal soul in jeopardy, they may be less likely to lie than someone who believes there is no punishment for a bad act.

Eternal damnation, to those who believe in it, is the ultimate "cost," surpassing even the death sentence. This sanction can be applied to any believer, regardless of wealth or status. It is also a valid threat to anyone with a philosophy of a future, supernatural punishment.

Individuals can create an ethical structure for themselves, unforced by societal norms, but any system that is created by a man can be disassembled by that same man whenever the desire to do so is strong enough. (it can be a little like New Year's resolutions)

Having said all that, an inferior ethical system that is believed in and followed is better than a perfect one which is ignored.

3.)

Universities are not hotbeds for teaching objective morality, rather it's more "Do what you think is best under the circumstances, follow your own heart, do what you will."

In an effort to advance the idea that education might be the controlling factor in unethical behavior, I suggested that a University education might be a method of replacing the societal norms of objective ethical systems with personal, subjective, ones. With no belief in eternal consequences, one need only consider what man's laws might threaten. That, for many, is a feeble threat indeed.

Let me ask you to do me another large favor. Keep shooting me full of holes and critique me wherever you find me. How else will I ever grow into something useful. And you're a good shot.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by ANOK
I've always known this to be the case. To get wealthy in this world you have to be unethical imo. Capitalism is an unethical system leading to more and more self interest, at the expense of the community you live in. Do you want to live in a mansion surrounded by slums?

The opposite is true. The poorer it gets, the higher the crime rate. The richer it gets, the lower the crime rate.
Socialists wear the world the wrong way around.

I personally think there is an even amount of ethical and unethical persons in each catagory.

Some sociologists have distinguished the Catholic based values and the Protestant based values.
The Catholic (more prevelant in Europe) regard poverty as being blessed by God, whereas the Protestant values (more prevelant in the US)regard affluence as proof of having been blessed by God.

To me they seem to be the perceptions that emerge depending upon the society being new or old.
In the case of the Catholic ethics, people are born into rich families. In the case of the Protestant ethics, in a newer society, affluence is won due to individual merit and work.

America is now getting older, and we are starting to get the generations born into money, who never have to earn it (à la Paris Hilton) very similar to the royal families of old Europe... so our perceptions are changing.

But ultimately? I think there is always a bit of each in each catagory (poor and rich). I know a lot of very rich people who are the most ethical and moral people I have ever met! And am sure there are many that aren't too.

reply to post by ANOK


I seem to recall something about it being easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle...

Or something along those lines....

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The opposite is true. The poorer it gets, the higher the crime rate. The richer it gets, the lower the crime rate.
Socialists wear the world the wrong way around.

This is really not about crime, per se, but about unethical behavior.

The wealthy simply are in a better position to get away with their crimes, or hide them from the public if they're caught. Their crimes are of a different nature. Crimes increase in poor areas simply due to poverty, lack of a future and the desperation that brings, which is ironically due to the unethical capitalist system. The majority of crime is property crime, which is perpetrated by capitalism.

Plus there are a LOT more poor people, so it's obvious there are going to be more poor criminals. But by percentage there are more unethical rich people.

How many poor people lately have been caught keeping a slave for 5 years? How many poor people had slaves before it was banned? How many poor people invade foreign nations in order to control the economy to their benefit?

Capitalism is organized crime, it allows the owners of capital to exploit labour. People are poor because of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system of accumulation that organizes production and social reproduction to extract surplus value. As it does so, accumulation generates those behaviors registered as crime by the state. This exploratory paper traces the impact of accumulation processes on urban variations in U. S. crime rates following the Second World War.

www.jstor.org...

Seen in light of this information, the media outcries make sense; fear is a great selling point for public support of incarceration. Most social services cut against the logic of capitalism; education, healthcare and social support in deprived areas do not generate profits. These services are crumbling whilst money is spent on prisons and policing. Repressing the working class and profiting from their enforced prison labour is far more efficient in capitalist terms than preventing social problems with better public services.

www.workersliberty.org...

In reality it's wealth itself that makes people unethical, it's like being a drug addict, people will do almost anything to make it and keep it. But it's the very system of capitalism that perpetuates this, and why capitalists themselves are not ethical and can not be ethical, as an ethical person is not going to be very successful and remain successful in the capitalist system. It's dog eat dog and you will do everything you can to maintain your privileged lifestyle. Poor people are simply trying to survive, not maintain.

This makes me wonder how much this has to do with Christianity?

A lot of people are under the illusion that wealth is a gift from God, and for someone to question the morality of wealth is questioning their faith?

If you have to admit capitalism is wrong would mean you have to admit you are a sinner, and not the good christian you think you are?

reply to post by ANOK
I followed the links but could not find the actual study. What was their "N"? How was their scoring achieved?

Honestly? This looks like another attempt at class warfare and a further justification to demonize the wealthy.

Originally posted by beezzer
Honestly? This looks like another attempt at class warfare and a further justification to demonize the wealthy.

Actually if you pay attention this is about capitalism, the system that allows and encourages unethical behavior.

The system of capitalism is why we have a class system to start with. It's capitalism that causes class warfare.
Capitalists practice class warfare on the working class, so are we supposed to just simply accept it?

US workers' real wages (money wages adjusted for the prices workers actually pay) have not risen from their levels in the 1970s. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data confirm that real wages continued to stagnate through 2009. Across the same 30-year period, the productivity of labor kept rising: the average worker produced ever more output for the average employer to sell. Thus, capitalists' revenues rose relative to workers' wages.

Capitalists used those rising revenues to intensify class war on US workers. First, capitalists weakened their adversaries by lending one portion of their rising revenues back to US workers as high interest "consumer loans."

Class War by Rick Wolff

Yes it's class war, class struggle, the only war we should be fighting.

Understand your history and you will better understand the present...

The profitable use of America depended on development of a working class. But concentration of workers has always cultivated a fear among employers that large numbers of workers might organize and become a counterweight or even a superior force to that of the employers. To frustrate the formation of a unified working class became a prime aim of American (and other) employers. Not only would this head off united worker action at the workplace. It would also deny workers access to political organization based on their economic interests. Weakness on this front would also stave off effective demands for legislation advancing labor's cause.

CLASS WARFARE FROM ABOVE, 1865-1920

The above is why political terms in ths US were appropriated and turned on their heads, to keep the working class from knowing the truth. Understand history, and the correct original definition of political and economic terms, and this becomes obvious.

reply to post by ANOK


Ahhh, got it.

It's an anti-capitalism study.

Well, sorry. I'm all about the free-market system. Capitalism is good, in my humble opinion. I hope to make lots of money some day. Hopefully soon!

Nevermind.

Originally posted by beezzer
Well, sorry. I'm all about the free-market system. Capitalism is good, in my humble opinion. I hope to make lots of money some day. Hopefully soon!

Well sorry, but capitalism is not free-markets, capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

It is only a free-market for those who own, and make their living, from their capital.

For the rest of us working people it is a controlled market. There is nothing ethical about people who own capital exploiting those who don't.

The term capitalism was first used by a French socialist, Louis Blanc, he defined it as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." It was later defined as the "private ownership of the means of production", the system that replaced feudalism.