Someone on another board suggested that morals are a luxury that are mostly unaffordable to members of lower socio-economic classes.
Is that true? My knee-jerk response is, no, but then again, I can think of situations - like the Man in the Iron Mask (was it?) situation in which the starving peasant stole the bread because he really had no choice - in which one could argue that only people with some money can afford to uphold morals in society. And then look at the black market in some countries, and how many people make their modest livings in illicit ways, like prostitution or graft, and even then they have miserable lives.
I would agree to some extent that morals are relative. But I would not extrapolate that such a deprived condition could exist that would excuse all actions which we now consider immoral.
Take the Iraq war; an unreasonable fear of WMD’s drove Bush to do what he himself considers a last resort. Absent the belief that an attack with WMD’s was imminent, he presumably would not have engaged in a war that he knew would kill hundreds of innocent civilians, which would certainly be an immoral act if it was unjustified.
But I do not think that even extreme fear or deprivation absolves us of the moral responsibilties for the most heinous acts committed under duress. Starvation does not justify killing the weakest and cannibalizing them.
Sure seemed like a good idea at the time.
IAND, But certain extreme physical conditions can render one incapable of normal, (rational?), thought processes. Often when someone’s is involuntarily rendered incapable of normal, (rational?), thought, their morality of their actions are assessed differently.
In some instances, I’d that some morality isn’t available to those struggling with some survival needs.
Alfie Doolittle, Eliza’s father in My Fair Lady, holds similar views, and argues them at length with Professor Higgins. His reasoning is, like the OP’s, that those with money can afford to have morals. Those without can’t. Of course, that’s belied by Eliza’s own sense of morality, which causes her to have fits when forced to undress and bathe by Higgins’s household staff.
And I believe the novel the OP is reaching for is Les Miserables*…
I’ve always found rich people to be more immoral than poor ones, in general. You can have all the money in the world and still be a wretch, and you can be dirt poor and be squeaky clean morally.
The book of Proverbs says better to be poor than a liar.
Most people wouldn’t know morality if it bit them in the ass.
Yet Christ turned to the “good thief” and promised him his eternal reward for his belief.
I dare say the average citizen of Iraq and Afghanistan has a sounder code of morality than the average American or British resident. Because we’ve given up morality for the worship of the almighty dollar. Which is all we make, anymore.
And yet Christ threw the moneychangers out of the temple.
And then there was that David dude of got all hot and bothered about Bathesheeba, and arranged for the death of her husband. What a role model he was?
Sampson and Delilah. Damn, no wonder we all had long hair for a decade.
Most farmers I’ve known have been far more moral than most bankers.
Do you live by a set of beliefs? Really live by it. Do you really love your neighbor as much as your own pitiful self? Are you unwilling to cast the first stone? If you see a man drop a $50 bill, do you grab it and run after him, or do you grab it and run away?
How many truly wealthy or truly poor people do you really know? Do you even know them well enough to comment on their morality? The notion that morality and wealth are correlated in any way is complete bullshit.
And hroeder - Do you judge morality by a persons ability to follow some set of rules written 2000 years ago? Do Afghans or Iraqis have a supperior moral code because they have a set of beliefs while at the same time looting their own country?
nisosbar - You are refering to Les Miserables. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread and was sent to prison for some unreasonible amount of time.
It is the old Ethics Class 101 scenario - is it ok to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? Well the answer in a free society is, of course, no. If I am a shopkeeper, what would happen if I allowed every crackhead and crumb-bum to take food at will from my store? I would soon join them.
The real question is, what actions is an individual justified in commiting in assuring their personal survival. Stealing food is forgivable. Am I justified in killing and robbing some dude on the street so I can buy another day’s worth of food? What about killing to gain access to the last lifeboat or parachute?
I would say that it is imperative that you steal a loaf of bread rather than allow your family to starve to death.
My father was that shopkeeper and there were times when he remained silent when people took milk for their children. He understood from his own childhood what it was like to go without.
There were one or two strangers that came through town who tried to rob him of money, but he had the respect of the people who lived there and didn’t think that people would rob him blind.
He died a reasonably wealthy man.
This free society certainly seems to support moral relativism. How else can we justify war? That’s why I don’t understand most fundamentalist Christians who say that the Ten Commandments are absolutes not to be broken, but we must support the war in Iraq and those who made the decision to take us there.
I have seen no difference in morals between the poor and the rich that I have known.
I don’t believe that there is an “average” Iraqi or an “average” American, but I think that the exclusion of women from the government in exile in London is immoral. (There are only 3 women in the 65 member body. Even Saddam did better than that.)
I haven’t known that many rich people, but I’ve known a quite a few from the upper-middle class on down, and across the scale, degree of morality seems to vary around a bell-shaped curve.
I would say though that in extreme cases, poverty can test one’s morals: most people could be induced to steal to feed their young children if there were truly no other choice.
Willie Keeler, the turn-of-the-century baseball player for the original Baltimore Orioles, retired with a nice nest egg for his day. He once observed that “any man can be good, if his money holds out”.
I find the idea preposterous. Poor people may have a differently-nuanced moral code from rich people’s, but not less of one.
And if you have a reasonable, well-considered moral code, it needn’t change because of money.
Let’s take the shopkeeper/bread example, and a basic rights scenario.
We’ve got several rights and duties involved here. A child, I submit, has a right not to starve if there is food nearby. A parent has a duty to ensure that their children are fed. A shopkeeper has a right not to be stolen from.
If the shopkeeper refuses to give bread to the child, then the child’s right to eat comes into conflict with the shopkeeper’s right not to be stolen from. At that point, we must compare the conflicting rights. Surely the child’s right to eat (a right to live) trumps the shopkeeper’s right not to be stolen from.
Does this mean that every lazy mofo suddenly has a right to steal bread? Of course not. The mofo can get a job. Indeed, the parent in the above example, if he can, must work in order to feed the child – assuming that doing so doesn’t interfere with his other duties toward the chidl.
But assuming we have decided that our family won’t wait for a job. Who shall we steal from? Whoever has the most because they can afford to give it away? Other poor people? And if I am justified in stealing, am I also justified in committing murder to ensure my own survival?
That is your father’s choice (assuming he owned the store). Personally, I would rather pass on my generosity to my workers who come in and labor on my behalf instead of some freeloading bum, but that’s me.
It’s moral utilitarianism, not relativism. Relativism says that we should respect a dictators murderous leadership because that is the culture of his society. Utilitarianism says that we are justified in starting a small war now to overthrow a dictator if it will prevent a larger war later.
IIRC, if you commit homicide to ensure your own survival it’s generally called self-defense. Acts of homicide in self-defense are justified, and thus not murder.
I’m not talking about self-defense. ie defending myself from another attacker. I’m talking about going out and killing some random person to rob them so I can buy food for my starving family. Or bashing the Pope, the rabbi and the Irishman (or however the old joke goes) in the head so I can steal the last parachute. Is it ok to be the guy in the disaster film who only cares about his own survival?
I think part of the debate, at the very least, is about relativity of morals. Is it ok for a poor person to steal food to feed his children, even though it would not be allowed for most other people? If you say yes, you support a relativistic moral view in which the situation and circumstance you are in can determine what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for you.
Personally, I don’t think that’s the case, but that’s simply me. The problem with a morally relativistic view is that when do you draw the line? How can you manage to uphold any sort of order in a large group of people if the rules can be changed depending on your current situation? So, I would say that it is immoral for a poor man to steal bread from a shopkeeper. I’m not sure if I would say it was wrong for the shopkeeper to withhold help since he was perfectly capable of doing so, but it definitely would not be the ‘good’ thing to do.
the poor man must do everything in his power to obtain food for his child, this includes stealing from the shopkeeper with these thoughts in mind: by choosing the illegal method he must face the consequences of getting caught and further worsening the situation faced by his child.
on the other hand, the shopkeeper must do everything in his power to protect his interests, this includes doing what is neccessary to stop the shoplifting of his breadstuff, failing which he will face the consequences of losing propective sales and encouraging pilferage in his shop.
they both follow the same golden rule and can co-exists in the same society. in addition, should the shopkeeper feel empowered enough as to be charitable, he can contribute towards charity such as donating leftover bread to those in need, and pointing out such resources to the poor man instead of encouraging him to steal implicitly.
btw is the golden rule relativistic?
“do not unto others what you would not others do unto you.”
Taking something that does not belong to you is theft, starving or not. Punishment and accountability is where the line is drawn. Stealing is against the law. Laws are necessary. Justice involves fairness, law, and understanding.
Maybe my view is distorted, but I see no honor in starving if there is no other way of survival other than stealing food. I would say that in this case, the dishonor would be in withholding the essential because of ownership. The concept of ownership is man-made, not natural. Because it is man-made, it is open for interpretation.
If there is so much scarcity, or, if somebody must starve, then I think both men must be allocated equal rations…hoping that one of them would invent an alternative.
Morals are not relative. We all know that cheating, stealing, dishonesty, and generally harming others is wrong. Some are stronger than others in living up to these standards. Makes no difference whether you are rich or poor.