• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the Rich more unethical?

Are the Rich more unethical than middle-class/poor?

  • yes

    Votes: 11 34.4%

  • no

    Votes: 21 65.6%
  • Total voters
    32
one becomes greatly wealthy, by taking big risks.

and when you feel you're able to take such a bet and win over & over, its much easier to contemplate committing crimes.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Goes back to what I try to teach young Marines. Before you do anything you believe may be in the gray area, think about what would happen if everybody did it. That goes with something as simple throwing a cigarette butt out the window while you're driving down the road or stuff as major as fleecing the welfare system or exploiting 3rd world labor. Of course, almost everybody is doing the last two and look where we are.
Click to expand...

Yep. If it can be done, someone will do it. Sadly.

But you give good advice.
 
Another lame attempt to create a pseudo moral imperative to control what others earn. I'm sure the 99%'s will jump all over this.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Another lame attempt to create a pseudo moral imperative to control what others earn. I'm sure the 99%'s will jump all over this.
Click to expand...

I think you're making a leap. Maybe you've just bought into the class warfare hyperbole?

:coffeepap
 
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
 
megaprogman said:
Ultimately its about risk analysis. Being rich presents less risk for bad behavior and often an inflated sense of self importance based on research on how power affects the brain.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that Mega. it's not that the wealthy face less risk per se, the risks are different. The poor face risk if they have a driver's license and speed, run a red light, get caught DUI, and pretty much any other crimes because they don't have the means to pay the ticket without a substantial financial burden, yet they will not face insider trading charges or other compliance issues. The speeding ticket to the wealthy man is a wink, nod, and check written but he faces the charge if he doesn't hire a driver. The poor and most middle class don't have access to high financial crimes unless we are speaking of scamming or identity theft. I've seen insurance agents go to prison for some stupid stuff because they let their hunger get the best of them, they were on the cusp of being wealthy and blew it by doing things like issuing fake insurance policy certificates and pocketing the proposed premiums, selling multiple forms of the same policies, etc. all illegal and something only one with the professional license faces, same with doctors(double billing medicare, malpractice, falsifying medicine prescriptions, etc.). The wealthy tend to have different risks but not necessarily less.

This being said it's not a poor/middle/rich rather who chooses to do things properly and who chooses to use flawed ethical practices.
 
Thunder said:
one becomes greatly wealthy, by taking big risks.

and when you feel you're able to take such a bet and win over & over, its much easier to contemplate committing crimes.
Click to expand...

We do live in a Risk/Reward society. I think your point is debatable. I say that because I think it depends on the insider connections with market and financial groups that a person might have. But more importantly, I think it's necessary to "also" have the political connections one might have to gain "special" favors.

Now keep in mind. The connections don't necessarily mean that an individual is actually doing ILLEGAL things, but by the standard of common sense and is involved in trading or business activities not privy to all people, might be engaged in what most would consider to be unethical activities, which I call cronyism or legal corruption.

As far as "most people" who are aggressively involved in risk/reward endeavors to generate income...I'm sure there might be a population within such a group who might border on unethical behaviors...but I can't guess that percentage would be.

JMO...
 
Boo Radley said:
I think you're making a leap. Maybe you've just bought into the class warfare hyperbole?

:coffeepap
Click to expand...


Well, we have a thread about how France may go to a 75% tax on the "rich" and two posts before mine claimed being rich is like a gateway drug for crime. So, I'm going to say I'm not making too big of a leap.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Well, we have a thread about how France may go to a 75% tax on the "rich" and two posts before mine claimed being rich is like a gateway drug for crime. So, I'm going to say I'm not making too big of a leap.
Click to expand...

First, we used to have the wealthy pay more than here, you know, in the good old days, and now they whine about 38%.

But we're not France, and I'm not sure gateway is the word used. But I may have missed it. Would you say Gateway is a predominate theory, or more that with greater opportunity comes greater likelihood?
 
winston53660 said:
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
Click to expand...

...however, it does not literally mean the hole in a sewing needle. Like this:

220px-Eye_of_a_Needle.jpg

The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate.
Click to expand...

Eye of a needle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Basically, some could misinterpret that saying as it being impossible for a wealthy person to go to Heaven.]
 
Last edited:
<disclaimer: I did not read all of the previous posts on this topic>

I think the first thing you have to do is define "unethical". Is committing ANY crime "unethical"? Is taking advantage of ones position of power at the expense of another "unethical"?

I define it as the willingness to break a law or to take unfair advantage of another person. By my definition, neither side is more unethical than the other. That is why I voted NO.
 
Krhazy said:
Are rich people more unethical? - CNN.com[/FONT]
Click to expand...
There are times that I think education is overrated. Times that we tend to over-think things. This is one of those times.

I don't believe that rich people are any more or less unethical than poor and middle-class people. In my experiences poor and middle-class people are just as unethical and just as prone to rationalize their actions when deep down they know they're wrong. The only difference is *how* they do it and *what* the unethical behavior is. Rich people tend to have more options and resources in which to be unethical, thus their actions have a more far-reaching effect into the rest of society. Poor and middle-class people are more limited in what effects their unethical actions can do to others outside their immediate circle.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
funny though - because I've heard that exact same thing said about the poor who are on welfare.

How can the poor and reliant and rich and self sufficient both have this same view?

Is that saying that those in the middle don't ever think this way?
Click to expand...
Because PEOPLE tend to take whatever they can get away with... subject to whatever is within their individual immediate grasp.
 
lizzie said:
I doubt that the rich are actually more unethical, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were a little smarter (generally) and able to bend the rules for their advantage. That being said, the linked study indicates that self-interest is the same thing as greed, which I don't buy into. Self-interest is a normal human impulse.
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: This is my own distinction between 'greed' and 'self-interest'.

Self-interest: Taking what you need, in the literal sense of the word, as a matter of survival. Yes, it is a normal human impulse, as as such is absolutely necessary.

Greed: Taking more than you need, without regard for future use(s), simply because you can.
 
Thunder said:
one becomes greatly wealthy, by taking big risks.

and when you feel you're able to take such a bet and win over & over, its much easier to contemplate committing crimes.
Click to expand...
The prison population tells a different story.
 
Hare said:
The prison population tells a different story.
Click to expand...

It could just as well prove his point. The wealthy rarely go to prison. And when they do, the prison is often nicer.
 
Certainly it's unfair to the rich folk in general are "unethical" in a general sense.

Money has been known to make certain people greedy, immoral and at worst sociopathic. On the other hand, the very rich have also put vast sums of money towards the betterment of humanity.

It's more the person than the money, but money is power, and power can corrupt.
 
Boo Radley said:
It could just as well prove his point. The wealthy rarely go to prison. And when they do, the prison is often nicer.
Click to expand...
He was attempting to correlate the wealth of an individual to a propensity for criminal activity. Unless the vast majority of rich folks are criminals and have not been outed yet, the prison population tells a completely different story.
 
I have not read this thread, so I do not know if this has been brought up, but....

It is not necessarily that the rich are more unethical, but rather they have more opportunity and more temptation to act unethically. Underlying this which could also skew the data is that people who act unethically are potentially more likely to become rich (and no I am not saying that rich people are unethical, just that if you act unethically the road to becoming rich can be easier). This also varies on what is defined as "Rich".
 
marduc said:
I have not read this thread, so I do not know if this has been brought up, but....

It is not necessarily that the rich are more unethical, but rather they have more opportunity and more temptation to act unethically. Underlying this which could also skew the data is that people who act unethically are potentially more likely to become rich (and no I am not saying that rich people are unethical, just that if you act unethically the road to becoming rich can be easier). This also varies on what is defined as "Rich".
Click to expand...

SO, do you define ignoring laws as unethical behavior?
 
Chiefgator said:
SO, do you define ignoring laws as unethical behavior?
Click to expand...

no. laws do not define ethics. They are separate entities and it is possible for a law itself to be unethical.
 
marduc said:
no. laws do not define ethics. They are separate entities and it is possible for a law itself to be unethical.
Click to expand...

Personally, I disagree. Ignoring a law or standard is unethical, in my definition.
I do agree that some laws themselves are unethical.

This entire debate is flawed until an agreed upon definition of "Unethical" is supplied.
 
Chiefgator said:
Personally, I disagree. Ignoring a law or standard is unethical, in my definition.
I do agree that some laws themselves are unethical.

This entire debate is flawed until an agreed upon definition of "Unethical" is supplied.
Click to expand...


Well there are two basic definitions ..one that is based on an overall sense of right and wrong -which can be subjective, and is more fluid, and another that pertains to the rules and regulations governing a profession.

I view ethics more as an (admittedly subjective) adherence to doing what is right. Ethics supersedes the law IMO, and while the law often mirrors what is ethically right or wrong, and often serves as a guideline, and in many cases seeks to define ethics, it is too absolute and inflexible. I cannot think of a good hypothetical, but there can be gray areas where the more ethical road could potentially involve not following a particular law. In general not breaking the law is ethical behavior, but in those gray areas where following the law goes against your sense of right and wrong, or where the law itself is unethical (as you yourself admit can be the case), then it is possible that the ethical path is NOT following the law.

The article did kind of define ethical as the subjective definition i am using when it mentions lying and cheating, and from the experiments conducted and questions posed (granted I am not referencing the actual study) such as cutting off other cars, or not pointing out a cashiers error I also get the impression that they were driving at the former more subjective definition as well.

YMMV
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom