Is it immoral to be rich?

Regardless of whether or not you have "earned" massive wealth, the question is to what degree are you permitted to retain it.

The question of getting and the question of keeping are distinct.

Take this example, let's say I come into possession of a whole lot of EpiPens and I encounter a child experiencing a severe allergic reaction.

Do I have a moral obligation to help the child?

Maybe I worked hard to make the money to buy them or maybe I stole them. It doesn't really matter how legitimate the acquisition is. What matters is what you do them. On seeing the child, I can choose to throw them in the garbage or give one to the child to save its life. Although it's my legal right to throw them away is it morally right?

Instead of arguing the morality of acquisition of wealth, start talking about the retention of wealth when we are in a world with so many in need.

This idea comes from this article.

Comments

When did "progressive" become a bad word?

I see the term "progressive" used in a negative context more often than not. It's used to describe people on the fringe. Since when did progress become a negative thing? From a political standpoint, progressives are tired of things not working. They are tired of political inaction on the problems that face society today. They want thing to move forward, which is the original sense of the word. "When did "progressive" become a bad word?" In Canada, one of the leading political parties is the Progressive Conservatives. They realize that being conservative does not mean keeping the status quo when the status quo is not working. The world is changing whether we like it or not and we need to be progressive to deal with these new realities. Today's problems can't be fixed with yesterday's solutions.

Drip down economics

The term "drip down economics" essentially means that the rich are given bigger meals in the hopes that the rest of us have a better chance of catching some scraps.

The amateurization of politics

In an article titled Activist groups are ‘amateurizing’ our political candidates , the authors make a point that a concern is that "the groups are magnets for amateur candidates." He is right. They are amateurs. That's the way politics was meant to be. People from communities who were elected to represent their communities in Washington and then return home to pass the torch to another person who was committed to community or public service. They were very much connected to their communities and could represent their needs effectively. The political system breaks down when politics becomes a professional career. We can see the detrimental effects of this shift as politicians stop servicing their communities and start servicing the businesses and individuals who can support their professional career. And since their salary is limited, they start accepting bribes from the wealthy. Of course, doing so is only self-serving and doesn't serve the people who they supp...

Politics

Search This Blog