Affluence is morally corrupt (example inside)

[camille]

From this 2013 Atlantic Article:

**Why the Rich Don’t Give to Charity
The wealthiest Americans donate 1.3 percent of their income; the poorest, 3.2 percent. What’s up with that? **

Lower-income Americans are presumably no more intrinsically generous (or “prosocial,” as the sociologists say) than anyone else.** However, some experts have speculated that the wealthy may be less generous—that the personal drive to accumulate wealth may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support. **Last year, Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, **“the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.” **

There is an alternate theory:

In a series of controlled experiments, lower-income people and people who identified themselves as being on a relatively low social rung were consistently more generous with limited goods than upper-class participants were. Notably, though, when both groups were exposed to a sympathy-eliciting video on child poverty, the compassion of the wealthier group began to rise, and the groups’ willingness to help others became almost identical.

If Piff’s research suggests that exposure to need drives generous behavior, could it be that the isolation of wealthy Americans from those in need is a cause of their relative stinginess?

Finally, as per your OP example:

Wealth affects not only how much money is given but to whom it is given. The poor tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to support colleges and universities, arts organizations, and museums. Of the 50 largest individual gifts to public charities in 2012, 34 went to educational institutions, the vast majority of them colleges and universities, like Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley, that cater to the nation’s and the world’s elite. Museums and arts organizations such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art received nine of these major gifts, with the remaining donations spread among medical facilities and fashionable charities like the Central Park Conservancy.** Not a single one of them went to a social-service organization or to a charity that principally serves the poor and the dispossessed. **

[Sitnam]

@Robert163

What?

You claim affluence is morally corrupt. That’s a claim. Then in the sentence I quoted you claim there is virtue in some unspecified amount of intention to do good with your wealth.

Different positions. Pick one.

[Gatopescado]

Corrupt is nice. Try it.

Oh, sorry. That’s right, you can’t.

[Robert163]

@Joey_P

In that case, I think you started your OP out wrong. If what you meant to say was ‘I don’t like that some people are poor and some people are rich’ then you shouldn’t have started out by saying you don’t think people should have hundred thousand dollar cars and then complain that others are nitpicking your concrete examples.
When the only thing your OP states is that you don’t feel it’s right for people to have $100,000 cars while other people are homeless, I think it’s fair for me to A)ask how expensive of a car one is allowed to have before you have a problem with it and B)not read your mind about what you meant to ask.

Well, actually, I said, or at least implied, it was wrong if people were homeless. I think it is wrong that people are poor but I’m not making that argument. That argument is too abstract and undefined, the concept of “poor”. But the concept of homelessness is a reality, with clear, unequivocal, undeniable suffering attached as a consequence. And to answer your question of, how expensive is too expensive, well, I don’t know. But two reasonable minded people could come to some conclusion to that question. But since I seriously doubt that you agree with my basic premise, I doubt it’s even worth trying to discuss exactly is or is not expensive.

[Robert163]

@Sitnam

You claim affluence is morally corrupt. That’s a claim. Then in the sentence I quoted you claim there is virtue in some unspecified amount of intention to do good with your wealth.

Different positions. Pick one.

no

[curlcoat]

@Robert163

Really wealthy people can afford cars in excess of 100K. (For just one example). My next example, homeless families in America. 100K is enough money to pay rent for rent for a 2 bedroom apartment for 7 families for a year*. Or, one family for 7 years. I can not morally justify leaving 7 families homeless for a year while some rich person drives around in a car that is nothing more than a luxury.

*The average 2 bedroom apartment in the USA is $1169. That is $14,028 a year. 100K divided by 14,028 is 7.13.
http://www.myapartmentmap.com/rental_data/

Why should people work to get money for a car they want if you are only going to take it from them to give to others? Why is what the homeless families want more important than what the person with 110K wants?

[Sitnam]

@Robert163

no

Whatever makes sense in your world, sparky.

[Joey_P]

@Sitnam

You claim affluence is morally corrupt. That’s a claim. Then in the sentence I quoted you claim there is virtue in some unspecified amount of intention to do good with your wealth.

Different positions. Pick one.

Actually, we can do better.
The tittle was “affluence is morally corrupt” that’s 1 subject.

In the OP he listed several examples which, IMO, don’t support the thread title, I think they’re supposed to, but he made no argument that “Really wealthy people can afford cars in excess of 100K” or “homeless families in America” supports his position of " affluence is morally corrupt. They weren’t even really sentences. For all he knows, people with $100,000 cars regularly donate money to homeless charities. I’m calling that a second topic.

The whole redistribution of wealth thing, which is what I think he’s really after, that’s a third thing. It could sort of fit in with the second topic, but he got mad at me for quibbling over details upthread when he claimed I was making up concrete examples, so we’ll make this it’s own subject.

So there it is, which thing are you talking about. Like I said earlier, we can’t read your mind.

[Joey_P]

@Robert163

no

Well, I’m glad I typed all that up before I saw this reply. I was honestly trying to help out your thread. I’ll bow out now. Not wasting my time on this anymore.

[Sitnam]

@Joey_P

Actually, we can do better.
The tittle was “affluence is morally corrupt” that’s 1 subject.

In the OP he listed several examples which, IMO, don’t support the thread title, I think they’re supposed to, but he made no argument that “Really wealthy people can afford cars in excess of 100K” or “homeless families in America” supports his position of " affluence is morally corrupt. They weren’t even really sentences. For all he knows, people with $100,000 cars regularly donate money to homeless charities. I’m calling that a second topic.

The whole redistribution of wealth thing, which is what I think he’s really after, that’s a third thing. It could sort of fit in with the second topic, but he got mad at me for quibbling over details upthread when he claimed I was making up concrete examples, so we’ll make this it’s own subject.

So there it is, which thing are you talking about. Like I said earlier, we can’t read your mind.

“No.”

[Robert163]

@curlcoat

Why should people work to get money for a car they want if you are only going to take it from them to give to others? Why is what the homeless families want more important than what the person with 110K wants?

Why should people work to get money for a car they want if you are only going to take it from them to give to others?
It is my position that a society where people worked harder to help each other than on getting a better car is a better world for people to live in.

Why is what the homeless families want more important than what the person with 110K wants?
Because homelessness has direct negative benefits and alleviating suffering should be more important than furthering unnecessary excess. In terms of morality. I guess most people agree that alleviating suffering is good when it is in abstract terms and no sacrifices have to be made. But what is moral is not changed by what is desirable or convenient.

@Sitnam

Whatever makes sense in your world, sparky.

I’d be glad to answer any direct criticism or claim.

[Sitnam]

So it’s the good stuff, huh?

[Robert163]

@Joey_P

Actually, we can do better.
The tittle was “affluence is morally corrupt” that’s 1 subject.

In the OP he listed several examples which, IMO, don’t support the thread title, I think they’re supposed to, but he made no argument that “Really wealthy people can afford cars in excess of 100K” or “homeless families in America” supports his position of " affluence is morally corrupt. They weren’t even really sentences. For all he knows, people with $100,000 cars regularly donate money to homeless charities. I’m calling that a second topic.

The whole redistribution of wealth thing, which is what I think he’s really after, that’s a third thing. It could sort of fit in with the second topic, but he got mad at me for quibbling over details upthread when he claimed I was making up concrete examples, so we’ll make this it’s own subject.

So there it is, which thing are you talking about. Like I said earlier, we can’t read your mind.

I am aware, of course, that wealthy people give to charity. That doesn’t change the fact that a 100K car can give a homeless family a place to live for seven years. I think that is wrong, it is immoral, unnecessary luxury is being placed over real world, real life suffering. You could make the argument that it does not matter if people suffer. And, I would disagree.

[Robert163]

@Sitnam

So it’s the good stuff, huh?

What?

[Velocity]

@Robert163

Really wealthy people can afford cars in excess of 100K. (For just one example). My next example, homeless families in America. 100K is enough money to pay rent for rent for a 2 bedroom apartment for 7 families for a year*. Or, one family for 7 years. I can not morally justify leaving 7 families homeless for a year while some rich person drives around in a car that is nothing more than a luxury.

OK, so what are you recommending?
Should we have an income cap and limit households to, say, no more than $250,000 of income per year, per household - any income beyond that gets forfeited to the government to be distributed as welfare?

[Sitnam]

@Robert163

What?

no

[Robert163]

@Velocity

OK, so what are you recommending?
Should we have an income cap and limit households to, say, no more than $250,000 of income per year, per household - any income beyond that gets forfeited to the government to be distributed as welfare?

I don’t want a society where people are not allowed to accumulate excess. I want a society where excess is frowned upon and wealth and extravagance are viewed with skepticism and distaste instead of something to be worshiped and chased after. I think that if people thought of the suffering of strangers with the same regard the thought of the suffering of their loved ones, family and close friends, if they saw all people as being close to them instead of only a select few, we would be living in a much much better world. I realize, of course, that the world is too big and it’s problems too large. One person can’t even begin to make a dent. But, we can change our attitude towards wealth, excess, and what is really important.

[Sitnam]

@Robert163

I don’t want a society where people are not allowed to accumulate excess. I want a society where excess is frowned upon and wealth and extravagance are viewed with skepticism and distaste instead of something to be worshiped and chased after. I think that if people thought of the suffering of strangers with the same regard the thought of the suffering of their loved ones, family and close friends, if they saw all people as being close to them instead of only a select few, we would be living in a much much better world. I realize, of course, that the world is too big and it’s problems too large. One person can’t even begin to make a dent. But, we can change our attitude towards wealth, excess, and what is really important.

Wow, you just totally blew my mind.

[Velocity]

@Robert163

I don’t want a society where people are not allowed to accumulate excess. I want a society where excess is frowned upon and wealth and extravagance are viewed with skepticism and distaste instead of something to be worshiped and chased after. I think that if people thought of the suffering of strangers with the same regard the thought of the suffering of their loved ones, family and close friends, if they saw all people as being close to them instead of only a select few, we would be living in a much much better world. I realize, of course, that the world is too big and it’s problems too large. One person can’t even begin to make a dent. But, we can change our attitude towards wealth, excess, and what is really important.

OK, I totally agree. Society needs a huge adjustment in priorities, and avarice is an ugly thing.
But…I don’t see this wealth-chasing attitude going away anytime soon. It’s human nature, IMHO.

[Robert163]

@Sitnam

Wow, you just totally blew my mind.

ummmm… did you really mean that or were you being sarcastic?