Does wealth or distinguishment correlate with virtue or integrity?

Affable

I'll use academic success as my primary example of distinguishment but do refer to others as expansively as you wish.

So, we all know the term 'nobility' to describe the upper classes, and this raised this question in me.

You can answer with reference to experience, subjectively, or your objective reasoning, or ideally both.

My own personal view, with subjective experience, is not strictly, though those who do come out with things of substance in life do tend to have an authenticity or give a **** about something. But thta's different to succeeding in measurable or material terms, which are more 'purely' competitive arenas.

ChocolateSauce

In short, no, although I will say that it is much easier to stick to one's high minded ideals when they're well above the breadline.

Chi chi

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

In short, no, although I will say that it is much easier to stick to one's high minded ideals when they're well above the breadline.

You can't test someone's virtues when s/he is rich. The worse the living condition is, the more real portion of one's personality would reveal. Only when someone is forced to give up something can you see his real values towards priorities in life.

philologos

Definitely not. I would consider the poor and humble to be more virtuous than one who is wealthy for the most part, although there are exceptions. The phrase goes, "where your treasure is, there your heart is also" rings true for me.

ChocolateSauce

Chi chi wrote: »

You can't test someone's virtues when s/he is rich. The worse the living condition is, the more real portion of one's personality would reveal. Only when someone is forced to give up something can you see his real values towards priorities in life.

I think the opposite is true, to a point. A person in extreme hardship, whose survival was at stake, might do things they would otherwise never, ever do. They wouldn't want to, but they might feel like they have no other choice. I don't think this kind of action is an accurate reflection of their integrity. I also think you most certainly can test the virtues of a rich person. Why couldn't you?

Joe1919

Is it possible that we can be different people at different times? For example, I would describe myself as being reasonable and civilized when left alone and everything is OK. However, if I become tired or agitated, I can become a different person. I can even surprise myself.
Do we not have different moods and different modes of being?

I often think that this idea that the human is a reliable unified 'self' has its problems. We all change and crack a little under stress and in different situations.
I think we all are capable of doing nasty things if put under enough pressure.

silverharp

circumstances would seem to be a big factor here. Take Diana and that Amon Goeth character from Shindlers List. Under other circumstances they would have very unremarkable people

Chi chi

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think the opposite is true, to a point. A person in extreme hardship, whose survival was at stake, might do things they would otherwise never, ever do. They wouldn't want to, but they might feel like they have no other choice. I don't think this kind of action is an accurate reflection of their integrity. I also think you most certainly can test the virtues of a rich person. Why couldn't you?

For example, someone offers you money or food to do something for him, something immoral. If you are rich, then it is easier to reject this offer. But if you are poor, then rejecting this offer is much harder. It might even cost your life sometimes and starves you to death if you don't accept this immoral offer.

So, if the extremely poor people stick to his/her principle and resist this tempetation, isn't this a better demonstration of his/her good virtue?

Chinese literature likes to praise people sacrificing the life to retain dignity. People are equal when comparing souls, rather than properties.

Chi chi

My favourate quote is from the novel Jane Eyer:

"Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am souless and heartless? You think wrong! I have as much soul as you-and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty, and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you. I am not talking to you now through the medium of custom, conventionalities, or even of mortal flesh: it is my spirit that addresses your spirit; just as if both had passed through the grave, and we stood at God's feet, equal -- as we are. "

af_thefragile

For my personal answer, No.

Some of the wealthiest people are the ones with the least virtue and integrity.

Some might say its due to their lack of virtue, they have managed to acquire such wealth. Could be true in the case of most politicians/bureaucrats and some celebrities in our society.

ChocolateSauce

af_thefragile wrote: »

Some of the wealthiest people are the ones with the least virtue and integrity.

Some might say its due to their lack of virtue, they have managed to acquire such wealth. Could be true in the case of most politicians/bureaucrats and some celebrities in our society.

And some of the poorest people are the most violent scumbags. I don't think there is truly a meaningful correlation between wealth and ethics. I said it was easier for the wealthy to keep their high-minded ideals, not their ethics. I perhaps should have been precise.

ChiChi wrote:

For example, someone offers you money or food to do something for him, something immoral. If you are rich, then it is easier to reject this offer. But if you are poor, then rejecting this offer is much harder. It might even cost your life sometimes and starves you to death if you don't accept this immoral offer.

The wealthy person in this case is also doing an immoral thing. I think that there is a degree of leniency that can be allowed to desperate people who do bad things. It certainly doesn't absolve them, but it cannot be ignored.

So, if the extremely poor people stick to his/her principle and resist this tempetation, isn't this a better demonstration of his/her good virtue?

A rich person would never be put in the situation of having to lower themselves to survive, so you can't compare them.

Chinese literature likes to praise people sacrificing the life to retain dignity. People are equal when comparing souls, rather than properties.

Not just Chinese literature. It is a theme throughout the literature of many civilisations. Shakespeare is one prime English-language example of a writer who addresses themes like this all the time.

mehmeh12

People do what they have to in order to get their own way. Virtue is only relevant when actions that are deemed 'virtuous' correlate with your own end goals. Nice people do finish last.

Affable

Re violent scumbags who are poor, it could be said they have more raw humanity, they are less in control. It's the manipulation and falseness, toadying etc and willingness to compromise which has allowed people to climb socially.

Rainbowrapids

I don't think that there is a correlation, and I say this based on the fact that there are no examples that came to mind after some brain-wracking!

Sometimes rich/educated/uneducated/poor people act well, sometimes they act badly.

That said as it's typically the rich who write the history books/perspectives on things, they might shine more brightly after the situation than they did at the time IYKWIM!

Ethics/right and wrong courses of action to take are subjective though, aren't they? I often wonder about where conscience comes from after a lengthy debate in work one day with my boss and two colleagues. My boss posited that as I don't ascribe to a particular religion I don't have the same moral compass. That surprised me as I'd never realised that for some people it was important to have a prescribed list of rules (in this case the ten commandments) to behave in a particular pattern.

For some reason up until then (the age of 29 in my case) I thought that people (generally speaking, not in morally ambiguous situations where either course of action is arguable to the individual chosing the behaviour) considered the behaviour, the resultant outcomes and made a decision by weighing up the gain and the loss, then took a decision (which could be an impulse in the case of an affair) and behaved.

In this case my boss was fixated on the ethics of being in a relationship and having an affair/monogamy, and felt that as he was married in the eyes of God he would break a rule by having an affair, whereas I as a unmarried non-religous person could have one without a care in the world - interesting theory, false though!

Upbringing and parents help in guiding our moral development, but then that can't be the whole of it because I've met people who have grown up in most difficult circumstances and are stellar at moral decision making. Likewise I've met people who have had what would appear like text-book moral development who make somewhat more dubious choices.

TBH I don't seem to have any answers on this I'm afraid!

Chi chi

In Marxism, it Does.

In Marxism the proletariate and bourgeoisie are distinguished by properties they own. And each class which is distinguished from each other by properties is bound with certain human virtues, according to Marxism.

Sounds like the commandments in the fiction Animal Farm by George Orwell:

"Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy."
"Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend."