In recent discussions of morality and wealth in relation to society, a controversial issue has been whether there is a similarity between morality and material wealth. On the one hand, some argue that making decisions based on what is best for oneself will lead to progress of wealth. From this perspective, the gain of an individual can be just as rewarding as a gain for a society. On the other hand, however, others argue that in order to fix societal problems, we must work as a collective society in order to enable change. In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, one of this view’s main proponents, “the possession of riches has been a hindrance to real growth” (563). According to this view, it is more common than not that the wealthier the person, the higher chance their morality skewed. In sum, then, the issue is whether or not there is a correlation between materialistic gain and one’s ethics.
My own view is that as a society we should gear our focus towards societal progress rather than individualistic progress. Though I concede that materialistic gain is enticing, I still maintain that there are many problems that can be helped with the monetary gains of wealthy individuals that are rewarding for both parties. For example, unemployment is a large problem in the United States and the cost of living continually increases, so as a society we need to step up to help those who are struggling via charity. Although some might object that everyone is entitled to do what they please with their earnings, I would reply that while that is technically true, it is bad ethics to believe that wholeheartedly because in general people would want others to act in kindness if they were the ones in a tough situation. The issue is important because as a society we have the ability to change, we just need to find a way to inspire enough people.
In recent conversations surrounding the standards of nations and their individuals, a controversial issue has been how a nation is measured on the morality scale. On the one hand, some believe that if an individual-which can be overviewed from a national scale- is wisely applying the resources they have been given, they will succeed for their boss, company, etc. From this point of view, dishonest actions are casual if they help reach a target, such as the case of a steward going behind his master’s back in order to secure his own future as told in the New Testament. From this example, the steward is praised, regardless of his deceitful actions because he made use of the resources granted to him by his master. On the opposing hand, however, others argue that turpitude, as displayed in Africa in the 1900s is the gun to a nation’s head. Gandhi acknowledges that “the orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses” (562). The essence of his argument is that, there is a worldwide opinion that shows how people don’t expect the wealthy to have high moral standards which allows nations to be qualified numerically rather than moral, which doesn’t showcase the true essence of countries today. In sum, then, the issue regards how society can change the way people view other nations, as well as their own, in favor of morality opposed to monetary or materialistic values.
My personal opinion is that in order to raise the standards of a nation, we must improve the morality of the individual. Where the New Testament provides ample evidence that oftentimes there are easier methods to accomplishing a goal, I still maintain that the progress of a nation needs to be judged off of its ethics and the ethics of each individual before that nation can be praised for any of its materialistic gains. For instance, one of the wealthiest men in the world, Bill Gates had a major individual success that resulted in a huge sum of wealth when he founded Microsoft. However, he is a man the nation should be proud of due to his family foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation that works to innovate through education, improve nutrition to reduce childhood deaths, as well as invest in the issue of poverty. Although some might object that since he has so much money he can afford to fund the majority of this foundation, I would counter by suggesting that if the wealthiest 1% of American, in particular, decided to aid in solving world problems even by small charitable actions, many of the problems previously stated would diminish. The issue is important because there is a solution to creating better national standards, society just has to realize how to set moral goals geared towards helping others rather than just individuals.
In recent discussions of the reasons for unmoral decisions, one topic that has sparked differing opinions surrounds competition between nations or individuals. One opinion follows the common phrase regarding how everything is fair in love and war. An example of this ideology can be shown when the steward, from Luke in the New Testament, learns that in order to individually prosper in the future, he must go behind the back of his master. As a result of the steward craving success, he makes the conscience decision to betray someone else, but even the master commends this action in the end because the steward learned how to utilize everything in his power to achieve his goal. A differing opinion, however, argues that there is always a need for more. This is categorized as competition. Gandhi, one of this perspectives’ main promoters, said that while “factories have risen on the corpses of men, women, and children…it has gone down in morality” (565). As claimed by this view, ethics are usually overlooked when there is a goal in reach. In this case, Gandhi refers to the competition of the industrial revolution and how the United States craved more and more production so many lives were lost because people would work whether building or sewing for hours on end, no matter how old or how young and while their goal of production soared, the nation’s morality plummeted. In close, then, the issue surrounds changing the ethics of society even throughout high pressure situations.
My own sight of this topic is that regardless of situational pressure or competition, moral standards need to be kept high. Though I recognize that every situation is different and like the situation of the steward there can be difficult times where the easy solution is not always the one with the highest ethics value, I still maintain that everyone should slow down for a moment and look at the full picture of every situation before making decisions because oftentimes the long term consequences are much worse than the hardships of accomplishing the goal completely ethically. For example, in 1911 a factory in Manhattan burned to the ground and over one hundred workers were killed. This is relevant because the fire grew in size as a result of shirt scraps not being properly disposed and increased fatalities as a result of a locked workroom door that kept workers from breaks. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company factory fire will forever be a prime example of how morals can resemble a life or death situation. While some might protest that this is an extreme example, I would object by stating that even one extreme example is relevant because it draws attention to the issue of how to alter the motivation behind unethical decisions.
In conclusion, then as I suggested earlier, defenders of individualistic gain can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that one can be successful based on unethical action without causing harm to others is contradicted by the fact that the only way to change society as a whole is to begin by ensuring strong individual morality to spark change. This concept can be shown through the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, where the Rich Man is considered a sinner and winds up in Hell whereas Lazarus, who is poor with a good heart ends up in Heaven. This is because according to Christ there is a judgement day and for the wicked and unethical people, this day will be harsh, but for the ethical, kindhearted people, it will be promising. Overall, similar to the beliefs of Gandhi, I believe that everyone should work hard and honestly to make a living for themselves and for their family, but should also consider charity to aid those less fortunate, whether through sparing money if feasible or even dedicating time and effort to improve the lives of others so we can improve society as a whole-together.
For an excellent podcast about Gandhi as a Spiritual Force, listen here:
http://mettacenter.org/ppr/gandhi-spiritual-force-podcast/
Featured Image from:
From the 914 to the 203 