Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Americans seem to be losing a lot of sleep these days trying to decide how they feel about rich people. It seems to me that both liberal and conservative reasoning gets a little tortuous on this point.
In the abstract liberals hate rich people, but in practice they seem to love them, particularly the uber-wealthy (Hollywood stars, George Soros, etc.) who bankroll their favored causes and political campaigns. Conservatives, for their part, say lots of nice things about the rich when we’re discussing taxes and wealth redistribution. On the other hand, whenever we move to the subject of family life, they are quick to pour accusations of greed and materialism on those who puzzle about how to secure a solid income without neglecting caretaking obligations.
I thought it might be interesting, therefore, to approach the question directly. What is the relationship between virtue and wealth? I suspect that there are some ways in which virtue correlates positively to wealth, and other ways in which it correlates negatively.
On the positive end, industry and creativity make it easier to achieve financial success. In general, one must exercise great discipline in order to become rich. Also, the ambitious will need to avoid certain obvious mistakes. Addiction, a messy divorce, or a brush with the law can easily derail the grandest and best-laid of plans. Prudent financial management helps enormously, too. In general, then, we will find that people who amass great wealth are capable, productive, disciplined and able to make sensible life choices.
Now, let’s look at the negative side. I think the plain fact is that generosity and self-sacrifice tend not to propel people to the top. If you want to become fabulously wealthy, you must avoid significant communal or caretaking duties. Don’t have children (or if you must, only have them with a person entirely willing to subordinate other interests to your career); don’t accept an important role within a church or other communal organization; don’t agree to be responsible for ageing parents or grandparents, or others who are sick or vulnerable. Be prepared to sacrifice friendship or other family ties to your career. Also, it probably does help to be a little unscrupulous, if you’re clever about it. Some may protest that honesty is the best policy, but I think the truth is that dishonesty can be quite an asset in temporal affairs, if judiciously and carefully applied. I’ve known more than one person whose potentially glamorous career was dashed on the rocks of too much integrity.
Conservatives love to believe that virtue is rewarded in the natural order of things. This is sometimes true, but frequently untrue, and I think it’s important that we not shy away from the fact that vice is often rewarded in our society, and virtue punished. Not every (socially and morally) healthy choice “pays off” in terms of temporal success, and this should concern us, because it affects people’s choices in a negative way. (Parenthood is the obvious example of something that is not incentivized in our current system, which nonetheless is vitally important to our society’s survival). I think, for the most part, that we cling to the axiom that “the righteous will prosper” as our best line of defense against calls for government intervention. But, of course, government intervention is not the only effective means to creating social change. I think we conservatives could potentially be more consistent in our values if we were more prepared to criticize the rich.
- Comment (95)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Foxfier
Astonishing
What the heck does the Dictaror of Oilistan have to do with it and why are you trying to drag him into the argument?
. . . And no, I didn't compare random immoral rich guy to Teresa as you claimed.
You are right about that. I mistook that part of your argument.
But I still don't see how your random mythical Dictator of Oilistan has anything to do with my agument that a generator of great wealth, like Jobs, is a greater benefit to humanity than a shoeless do-gooder like Teresa. Jobs is a greater benefactor not because he accumulated great wealth, but because his inventions are the cause of greater well-being for a greater number of people than the redistributive activity of a Teresa, who produces little or nothing, but merely redistributes wealth created by others.
Perhaps we are arguing different points?
The inventors of chemical fertilizer, whether saints or devils, did more to alleviate hunger than the all the smug operators of food kitchens combined.
Apr '12
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Because that's what liberals are pushing when they use the terms.
Even though it's a perversion of the original theological meaning, we've got to deal with the situation that's on hand. Bugs the heck out of me, but that's what happens when folks are ready and willing to redefine terms on the fly-- and more than happy to drag religion in as a club, cutting off anything that doesn't suit them.
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
With regard to justice in the distribution of material goods, please say what "other methods of attaining a just society" you have in mind as alternatives to:
1. government control of production and/or redistribution accomplished by force of law.
2. allowing individuals freely to decide for themselves how to organize their economic affairs and how to dispose of the fruits of their own labor (i.e., a free market).
Apr '12
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Astonishing
Jobs is a greater benefactor not because he accumulated great wealth, but because his inventions are the cause of greater well-being for a greater number of people than the redistributive activity of a Teresa, who produces little or nothing, but merely redistributes wealth created by others.
As I said, you're focusing on physical well-being, rather than overall well being. That's why GenericImmoralRichGuy is relevant.
Any perspective that looks at the work of Mother Teresa and thinks her good works consisted of giving away stuff that other people made is really missing the whole point of her labors. Taking a man who is dying in the gutter, cleaning the fecal matter off of him, making him warm and at least slightly fed for the days or hours that it takes him to die-- it's about treating him as a person, not a means to an end, not a tool.
If JobsandGates accepted it or not, they need Teresa and the more muscular of her sort to survive. You can't build if you can't keep your stuff. They couldn't have done what they did if they were disposable tools for the morepowerful.
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Contrary to what you might think, not celebrating Teresa does not prevent me from having a spiritual life. In that regard, the main discernable difference between she and I is, I don't need someone else to underwrite my spiritual life.
(And, a second difference is, when I have that rare urge to do something overtly charitable, I do it with my own money, rather than with donations collected from others.)
Speaking of similarities, Teresa and Stalin were alike in that they both owned nothing, yet lived with no essential need unmet, and took credit for redistributing wealth created by hard work and inventiveness of countless others, many of whom lived less well than they.
Jul '10
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Astonishing
Contrary to what you might think, not celebrating Teresa does not prevent me from having a spiritual life. In that regard, the main discernable difference between she and I is, I don't need someone else to underwrite my spiritual life.
(And, a second difference is, when I have that rare urge to do something overtly charitable, I do it with myownmoney, rather than with donations collected from others.)
Speaking of similarities, Teresa and Stalin were alike in that they both owned nothing, yet lived with no essential need unmet, and took credit for redistributing wealth created by hard work and inventiveness of countless others, many of whom lived less well than they. · 0 minutes ago
Good grief.
Donations collected from volunteers aren't Marxist redistributive scams.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 6:15amApr '12
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Astonishing
(And, a second difference is, when I have that rare urge to do something overtly charitable, I do it with myownmoney, rather than with donations collected from others.)
Not only do you manage to utterly miss the point, you keep acting like she wasn't living in rather poor physical conditions and working like a dog to improve the lives of those who cannot better themselves.
You're quite welcome to preen about how your choices are superior but please stop ignoring that she had "skin in the game" in a very physical sense. It's like when you tried to use "generous" to mean something besides "acting without expectation of reward."
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Foxfier
Astonishing
Jobs is a greater benefactor not because he accumulated great wealth, but because his inventions are the cause of greater well-being for a greater number of people than the redistributive activity of a Teresa, who produces little or nothing, but merely redistributes wealth created by others.
. . . As I said, you're focusing on physical well-being, rather than overall well being. . . .
No, I am not focusing solely on material benefits. As I indicated in a previous comment, the ingenious people who invented the technology that saved my life (hopefully saved my life; it's still somewhat up in the air) conferred a non-material benefit on my family and me just as much as the physical act of cleaning feces from a dying person. The gift of life itself is a great spiritual benefit.
What they for did for me, although not so poetic, is easily analogous to your example of Teresa cleaning feces from a dying body, because, but for their inventions, I would have died horribly, in a filthy bed that could not have been kept clean fast enough of the feces that would have flowed uncontrolled my cancer-rotted guts.
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Foxfier
Astonishing
(And, a second difference is, when I have that rare urge to do something overtly charitable, I do it with myownmoney, rather than with donations collected from others.)
. . . You're quite welcome to preen about how your choices are superior but please stop ignoring that she had "skin in the game" in a very physical sense. . .
I really don't know why I indulge interlocutors who use words like "dumb" to describe my ideas and words like "preen" to describe me.
Perhaps it's beccause I really am too generous. But seriously, I won't keep up this dialogue much longer under those conditions.
You know, I think we do mostly agree, if not about this then about most other things, so why not be nicer?
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Palaeologus
Astonishing: Contrary to what you might think, not celebrating Teresa does not prevent me from having a spiritual life. In that regard, the main discernable difference between she and I is, I don't need someone else to underwrite my spiritual life.
(And, a second difference is, when I have that rare urge to do something overtly charitable, I do it with myownmoney, rather than with donations collected from others.)
Speaking of similarities, Teresa and Stalin were alike in that they both owned nothing, yet lived with no essential need unmet, and took credit for redistributing wealth created by hard work and inventiveness of countless others, many of whom lived less well than they.
Good grief.
Donations collected from volunteers aren't Marxist redistributive scams. ·
Good grief, I never said they were Marxist redistributive scams!
If I erred in any particular point of my actual comparison of Teresa and Stalin (as opposed to some notion you imported into it), please say what it was. You draw an unfounded inference.
If I say apples and baseballs are round, do not infer I say both are sweet.
But both Teresa and Stalin were redistibutionists; one claimed sainthood, the other did not.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 6:55amMar '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Well, this is getting late into the debate but here goes...
Don't know why folks have to keep draggin' Mother Teresa into debates like this.
Virtue has, IMHO, nothing to do with wealth. Virtue is entirely about how you use what you have - not just in the material sense but in the spiritual and psychological sense.
Wealth is no sin, but neither is it a sign of virtue. You cannot compare Gates and Mother Teresa except in the sense that each was blessed with talents, skills, and drives to improve their world in their own best way. Any comparison beyond that is foolishness as we do not live in a world where we must choose between them, and it is beyond all human ability to try to balance any scales between them. Judgement of their lives is beyond our realm.
We cannot look into their souls to see what drove them - could have been that MT was in it for the noteriety... or Gates was bored.
Mar '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Astonishing
Good grief, I never said they were Marxist redistributive scams!
If I say apples and baseballs are round, do not infer I say both are sweet...
But both Teresa and Stalin were redistibutionists; one claimed sainthood, the other did not.
Depends on your view of baseball...
But "redistributionist" is a fighting word to be used more sparingly as it means a person who believes in re-distributing goods as a way of life and a means to material equality and social justice. The word has a strong connection to Marxism, and calling someone a Redistributionist is effectively calling them a Marxist. Stalin was not really one, he was a monster. Redistribution was just a tool for power.
MT was not one either (unless she was an adherent of Liberation Theology, I honestly don't know) - you perhaps meant "re-distributor"? She certainly did gather resources and re-distribute them to the poor, but that doesn't make her a "Redistributionist".
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 7:10amNov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
I dragged poor Teresa into this because, as a conventional example of selflessness and generosity par excellence, I wanted to contrast the benefits she supposedly conveys upon humanity through her unpaid redistributive work with the benefits conveyed by the wealthy man who concentrates his efforts on remunerative productive work. For the latter example, I dragged into the argument poor Steve Jobs, because he can represent the mean and selfish wealthy man par excellence. I think it is an enlightening comparison.
( It would not seem kind of me to drag around dead people in such fashion, but then again, I might feel honored to be dragged around thusly some day. I know my arguments aren't popular, but I obviously don't write them to be "liked.")
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
skipsul
Astonishing
Good grief, I never said they were Marxist redistributive scams!
If I say apples and baseballs are round, do not infer I say both are sweet...
. . .
But "redistributionist" . . . means a person who believes in re-distributing goods as a way of life and a means to material equality and social justice.
Does not that apply to Mother Teresa, if not in theory, then in actual practice?
Isn't that what she actually did, as a way of life? She collected $millions and redistributed it. Along the way, she did wash a few behinds, so we are informed. Fair enough. But guess what?!?! I've washed others' filthy behinds, too. For free. And not just babies' behinds. Grown up ones. Nobody is nominating me for sainthood!
skipsul
. . . She certainly did gather resources and re-distribute them to the poor, but that doesn't make her a "Redistributionist."
And Willie Sutton certainly did gather resources from banks by robbing them, but that doesn't make him a bankrobber.
I would wish to chat all night, but if I'm not going to do some remunerative work, as opposed to making these charitable contributions, I must go to bed.
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
I do not say free markets are perfectly just, only that they are more just--that a system allowing individuals freely to organize their own economic affairs and to receive and dispose of the fruits of their own labor is, in practice as opposed to theory, more just than every other alternative.
The word for persons not allowed freely to receive and dispose of the fruit of their own labor: Slaves.
Besides supporting freedom, rewarding labor, and distributing wealth more justly than any other system, the free market also creates more wealth to distribute in the first place, thereby raising the general level of material well-being of all.
Is it better that a lesser total quanity of material goods be divided "more justly" according to an imposed standard of justice, such that the wealthiest live modestly and the poorest live wretchedly, or is it better that a much greater quantity of goods be divided "less justly," but such that the wealthest live maginificently, yet even the poorest live well?
History shows free markets provide the latter, while all other systems provide the former.
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
In fairness, I do take your point about the implications of my use of the word "redistributionist".
But in that same vein, shouldn't we care less what we call people (Teresa a saint; Jobs a selfish evil man), and instead look more at what their labors actually contribute to the possibity of human happiness?
In that regard, by increasing the material well-being of humanity generally, Jobs does more through his selfish remunerative labor than an army of Teresas can do by collecting and disbursing wealth they had no part in creating.
Blessed Teresa bathes a relatively small handful of the poor and sick, while Evil Jobs and his "ilk" discover how to produce soap and medicine and food more cheaply so thousands, nay millions, can live and work and eat in good health, and afford to buy soap to bathe themselves.
Which one contributes more to the possibility of human dignity?
Unashamedly, I say Jobs does more.
Mar '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Astonishing
But in that same vein, shouldn't we care less what wecallpeople (Teresa a saint; Jobs a selfish evil man), and instead look more at what their labors actuallycontribute to the possibity of human happiness?
In that regard, by increasing the material well-being of humanity generally, Jobs doesmorethrough his selfish remunerative labor than an army of Teresas can do by collecting and disbursing wealth they had no part in creating.
Which one contributes more to the possibility of human dignity?
Unashamedly, I say Jobs does more. · 4 hours ago
Well, I never called Jobs "evil" - that's a moniker I save for the truly deserving (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Obama) - maybe others called him that in this thread.
The difference between Team MT and Team Jobs on this point, however, is that you're using a strictly materialist evaluation. God help us all if that's all we are judged by. MT's work was in saving souls, which, if you're a Christian, are each infinitely more valuable than any worldly goods. (cont.)
Mar '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Furthermore there will always be those who are unable or unwilling to take advantage of material advances in the world. It doesn't matter much what computing advances have been made if they're inaccessible to you due to your own poverty (and that poverty could come from many sources, including foolish governments, lack of education, or squandering your own life). That's the segment MT sought to help. The people she served would rarely, by their own efforts, been able to use the material advances brought by capitalism.
Put another way, electricity does you no good if the wires don't reach your house - MT served as the conduit for those last miles into the poorest areas of Calcutta.
All that being said, however, comparing Jobs and MT is itself a false choice. We don't have to choose between them.
We don't have to pick the existence or the works of one over the other - this isn't Mac vs. PC. We're not choosing either Charity or Capitalism - only Socialism forces that choice.
Mar '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
Astonishing
Which one contributes more to the possibility of human dignity?
Unashamedly, I say Jobs does more. · 5 hours ago
A final point here is that you've referred to the possibility of human dignity. MT worked on the actuality of individual humans.
Capitalism (and the improvements to capital) take time to have their effect. For the urban poor in the 1980s it mattered nothing that Jobs was creating the first Macs. The odds were pretty good they'd not live to see that fruit (so to speak) without MT helping to keep them alive. Their descendants, however, are alive and able to buy iphones and thus directly benefit.
This goes back to my original point - wealth is incidental to virtue, virtue is measured by what you do and what you are within the parameters of your own talents, abilities, and resources.
By your own standards Jobs must be a better man than you because his inventions have directly or indirectly helped more people, and this is absurd. You are not Steve Jobs (unless, like Elvis you're not really dead, just in hiding). Your virtue will be judged only by what you've done with what you've had.
Nov '11
Re: Does Virtue Make You Rich?
skipsul
Astonishing:
. . . by increasing the material well-being of humanity generally, Jobs does more through his selfish remunerative labor than an army of Teresas can do by collecting and disbursing wealth they had no part in creating.
Blessed Teresa bathes a relatively small handful of the poor and sick, while Evil Jobs and his "ilk" discover how to produce soap and medicine and food more cheaply so thousands, nay millions, can live and work and eat in good health, and afford to buy soap to bathe themselves.
Which one contributes more to the possibility of human dignity?
Unashamedly, I say Jobs does more.
. . .
The difference between Team MT and Team Jobs on this point, however, is that you're using a strictly materialist evaluation. . . .
No, my evaluation is not "strictly materialist."
As I keep explaning over and over and over and over "
By discovering and deploying methods to make soap and food more efficiently, the capitalist has produced those goods more cheaply, so that the poor who previously would have gone unfed and unwashed can now afford to feed and bathe themselves, which allows them to live a life of dignity and independence.
Dignity and independence are not "material" goods.