Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Resolved: It Is Immoral to Pursue Extravagant Wealth
Leah Libresco is one of the most interesting writers in the blogosphere. After graduating from Yale with a degree in mathematics, she matriculated into the real world. She started a blog on the Patheos atheist channel that shot to the top of the charts. Libresco was quickly hired by the Huffington Post. She rose to prominence because of her unique way of arguing for the atheist position.
After several years of challenging believers with tough questions, Libresco shocked the blogosphere with her conversion to Catholicism. She now runs the blog Unequally Yoked and writes at FiveThirtyEight. She runs the podcast Fights in Good Faith for Real Life Radio.
I came across a review of her new book, Arriving at Amen: Seven Catholic Prayers That Even I Can Offer, at the American Conservative, and was captivated by the reviewer’s explanation of her quirky and sometimes flat-out weird theological point of view. My curiosity thus piqued, I visited Libresco’s blog, then made my way over to her podcasts, where I found the May 2 edition: What Duties Come with Wealth. It was great fun!
Libresco begins with the famous teaching of St. Basil the Great, who wrote:
When someone steals another’s clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor.
Using this as a starting point, Libresco moves to a discussion of wealth as power and as opportunity. There’s no question that the rich, particularly the fabulously rich, have enormous power to influence the world by caring for the suffering, or by acquiring enormous control over the lives of their fellow human beings. A man with the wealth to feed the hungry can also enslave the masses by allowing them only a few morsels in exchange for their obedience. This is common in the third world, where corrupt and ruthless men plunder the resources of private charitable organizations and allow only a few scraps to reach the desperate mob. What greater control can any man have than a monopoly on simple survival?
On the opposite side of the coin, the rich possess the power to improve the current state of affairs by giving lavishly to the impoverished or engaging in philanthropic endeavors designed to feed the hungry or cloth the naked. Historically, the rich have been patrons of the arts, preservers of natural beauty, and promoters of literature, art, science, philosophy, and a host of other noble ventures. Of course, the misers have always been with us. Midas has long been condemned for his selfishness. But that takes nothing away from the generous rich.
As I listened, I was reminded that questions about the uses and abuses of wealth have a long pedigree. For Plato and Aristotle, wealth was only a means to the ultimate human end as a rational animal. According to these Greek philosophers, men properly pursue wealth only to the extent that they achieve sufficient comfort to allow for contemplation of the ultimate human good: maximization of the intellectual and moral virtues. Aristotle argued that wealth has only so much value as it promotes health — both material and moral. I suspect that, in the modern idiom, Aristotle would promote an upper middle-class lifestyle: It’s appropriate to have a Mercedes, but maybe not a Ferrari. I vaguely recall that in the Eudemian Ethics, he called the relentless pursuit of money swinish.
Early Christian thinkers often came down on the side of St. Basil. Taking their cue from Jesus, they argued that archetype of the good Christian wealthy man was his willingness to sell his goods, give them to the poor, and follow Him. This didn’t necessarily mean that a Christian was prohibited from becoming rich. After all, Joseph of Arimathea was rich, and he is praised in the Gospel’s for his unselfish act of donating his elaborate tomb to Jesus. The question for a rich Christian is whether he is sufficiently detached from the world that the surrender or loss of his wealth would still leave him blessed.
St. Augustine famously said, “Happy the man who has everything he desires, provided he desires nothing amiss.” One way to interpret Augustine is to apply moral rules to his declaration. For example, we might criticize a man who spends his money on concubines because promiscuity is a consequence of lust, and lust is one of the deadly sins. But we might also consider Augustine’s admonition as a condemnation of excess concern for money as money. To use a modern example, Augustine might have seen the collection of high priced cars as something amiss: a form of idolatry.
In medieval times, great attention was placed on the dangers of excess, especially to the political and legal system. Averroes saw the rise of greed as a danger to the community because — and we see this in our day — wealth can corrupt even the best of men, and they will often use their power to subvert the law, and even impoverish the people, in a search for greater and greater wealth and power.
Aquinas followed Aristotle to some extent by explain that wealth is merely a means to man’s highest good which is blessedness or holiness. For Aquinas, as for Aristotle, wealth was largely a utilitarian tool for achieving perfection, and the pursuit of money for the sake of ever-greater material satisfaction was a dead end for human beings created in the image and likeness of God. Indeed, immoderate pursuit of money may kill the soul:
Whereas in the desire for wealth and for whatsoever temporal goods, the contrary is the case: for when we already possess them, we despise them, and seek others: which is the sense of Our Lord’s words (John 4:13): “Whosoever drinketh of this water,” by which temporal goods are signified, “shall thirst again.” The reason of this is that we realize more their insufficiency when we possess them: and this very fact shows that they are imperfect, and the sovereign good does not consist therein.
Like Augustine and Basil, Aquinas viewed the ownership of property as provisional. Once a man has earned enough to satisfy his needs and acquire appropriate comforts, the rest of his fortune is owned by the poor. The man of means is, therefore, merely a trustee for his suffering brethren. Calvin is reported to have said, “Wealth is like manure; it works best when it is spread, but stinks when it is in one big pile.”
With the dawn of the Enlightenment, the classical view of wealth as solely a means to a higher end was reevaluated, especially by John Locke. The acquisition of property was no longer a mere means to an end, but a component of happiness itself. I don’t want to overstate Locke’s case, especially since it’s been years since I’ve read any of his books, but the famous phrase that man’s rights were “life, liberty and the pursuit of property,” seems a far cry from the views of Aristotle or Aquinas.
Kant, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill all have interesting things to say about wealth, but, because Aristotle, the Christian thinkers, and Locke pretty much set up the problematic, I’ll gloss over them except to quote Kant’s famous line: “We are enriched not by what we possess, but by what we can do without.” I don’t know what Aristotle would say to that, but the Christian thinkers would surely agree.
By comparing the bare bones of all the arguments about wealth found in the forgoing philosopher’s, I arrive at the question: which view is correct?
Is, as in Aristotle, the pursuit of wealth only a means to the final end of man, and hence the relentless pursuit of money and the things it buys, contrary to man’s ultimate good and therefore immoral?
Does accumulated wealth belong ultimately to others, and therefore as in Aquinas, held only in trust, which means that a preoccupation with wealth as a good in itself, immoral?
Is, as in Locke, the acquisition of wealth a good in itself?
I state these questions based on my own somewhat idiosyncratic reading of these thinkers, so the reader should feel free to argue against my interpretation — especially since I’ve not gone back to read them in detail because this post isn’t designed to be scholarly (and because I’m lazy).
I tend toward Aquinas’ view that property is a gift from God, and that life is stewardship, which requires not only the conservation of the things of the world, but also demands that whatever we have is to be used in the service of others. I would add, however, that such service comes in all shapes and sizes. While we might criticize Bill Gates for hanging on to so much wealth, we should also see that he has arguably lifted millions out of poverty, something he could not have done had he spread his earnings solely by giving them away. After all, from a purely material point of view, Gates has contributed far more to the common good than Mother Theresa.
Lastly, I must confess to an inherent hypocrisy in my position. I live a comfortable life. I have relatively few wants, so what money I have at my disposal is somewhat more than I need. I don’t give away most of my excess, and if a million dollars suddenly fell into my lap, I’d probably find more personal uses than I might give away.
I offer this post as a way to while away the weekend. If you have nothing better to do, I invite you to weigh in. If you do have better plans, you are doubly blessed.
So how about it? Is it immoral to pursue extravagant wealth?
Published in Culture, General, Religion & Philosophy
Is this a question where the means matter more than the end?
If you amass great wealth by providing a useful product or service then your wealth is a reward for benefiting society.
If you amass great wealth through illicit means, like theft or corruption, then your pursuit of wealth is damaging.
well, I’d say that moochers and looters disregard all moral obligations. that leaves the producers to carry the full load.
I’ve long felt that the government usurped the best qualities of charity with welfare programs by removing the interactions and accountability generated between the givers & receivers in charitable relationships.
Thank you, I drew it myself. I thought I’d better take down my photo when I realized my posts on certain threads can be seen by non-members. If some people in my industry see what I really think, my career could actually be damaged. I never thought I’d say that in America, but there we are.
Jules, you’re darn right about the government killing off what’s best in people by usurping our choices to help. When there’s no one else between another person’s starvation and your desire to be good then you open your darn wallet. When you’re taxed at a high rate ( for increased food stamp receivers ) and nickel and dimed by every new regulation it is less than motivational to give.
Well done, Right Angles!
Rico-member, Pencilvania is also an artist…the fox with the cello avatar, which she drew herself.
I have a multi-color magnet sculpture on my fridge that reminds me of your drawing.
Yes, for many reasons, it is best to keep your face off the internet.
Ah yes, the love of money. Rand addresses that one, too:
That how it looks and feels on our side. On the recipient’s side, there is no one to encourage or admonish them to change, to improve, to strive. Just an EBT card, some milk, cheese, an apartment and an ever-changing job tutorial.
It is impossible for government to provide that–and by separating the sharing and the encouraging, the government has done tremendous damage to people, to individuals. The downward spiral in our society reflects that damage, like a hemorrhaging and infected wound.
That is not to say that there caring individuals within the governmental structure don’t exist, it is just that they are not empowered to encourage or admonish, since they are agents of the government.
I have to investigate more, but I think this may be part of Ben Carson’s ‘platform.’
or love as putting it above all other things…
we may have variants in our definition.
it is a multi-colored, iron-like figure about 3-4 inches. Striped cat with a fishing pole, and a string with a fish. It is quite sturdy and filled with character. and simply adorable.
Do you have a website? If you don’t want to post it, you can PM a link.
There is a difference between loving something and lusting after it. Your description of “love” sounds more like lust to me. Or at least codependence.
Huh… interestingly, that may be one of the best things you can do for the poor. The data seem to point towards direct gifts as one of the most effective forms of altruism. Being as productive as humanly possible and giving it to the most needy may be one of the best ways to help the poor. Still, even if this is true, it is supererogatory. There is no moral imperative to give to the poor, but it’s likely still a really really good thing to do.
In reality, open borders, which doesn’t require the actual giving of anything anyone actually owns (but would cause a loss of earning potential in some people), is the most likely way to increase world GDP and thus “help” the poor by not actively hurting them.
My meaning had no lust involved.
Maybe I should have said ‘or love as in treasuring it above all other things.’
We can agree to disagree on the finer points.
Interesting. Exactly which section of the post qualifies me to write for Slate? There is zero, nada, nothing in the Op which so much as hints at an argument for government intervention. Moreover, I tried to set the terms by referencing thinkers who’ve shaped the debate over the centuries. I discussed Locke because he sets the initial conditions for a new formulation of the question of wealth acquisition. Although my description was necessarily brief, I believe I’ve given an accurate sketch of the Lockean position. You seem to suggest that Ricochet should be free of such discussions. That seems odd. One fundamental conservative intellectual principle is that we should spend at least as much time considering our opponent’s positions as we do our own. In this post I attempted to set out the terms for arguing all three intellectual positions. I would prefer a debate as opposed to a string of ad hominems.
As for your final sentence, I have to admit that I have no idea what an “endowment” might be.
I am far beyond that; I’m implying that the question itself is highly offensive to capitalists.
BTW, endowment means “gift.”
Ayn Rand is an interesting figure. Her various works of “philosophy” are basically plagiarized from Aristotle and, to some degree, Aquinas. There is no a single new idea anywhere in, for example, An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She might just as well have pasted together the Aristotle section of a first year philosophy text.
Rand often bragged that she was a student of Aristotle, but she was absent the day his Ethics was discussed. Aristotle’s philosophical psychology was based on the premise that, as a rational animal, the highest human goods were in pursuing truth and moral excellence in a manner suitable to a human being. Wealth was for him a means, not an end in itself. Unlike Rand, who saw worldly success as the high point of human existence, Aristotle believed that man should pursue goods that are far greater than material things, e.g., the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, of love and friendship, as goods of the soul. Rand’s atheism seems to bar her from accepting these higher goods as higher goods.
Obviously, Aristotle was neither a Christian or a Jew. He did not believe in a personal god. The Unmoved Mover takes no notice of human beings–in fact cannot–because to do so would require that it lower its dignity. Nonetheless, Aristotle believed that by his very nature man is called to things that are good in themselves rather than mere means I would argue that one of the greatest causes of so many of our current discontents is that we conflate means with ends all the time, and thereby subvert the good. Welfare is a good example. The old poor laws were at least ostensibly designed to help the needy while they got back on their feet. The need of society to maintain order was a second purpose. Now that welfare is about “lifting the poor out of poverty,” the original ends have simply gone away, and we have a dependent class which, because its needs are met by the government, remains poor. In addition, public order has been compromised because the dependent class essentially occupies a substantial portion of the public square–literally and figuratively.
Worse yet, there is no end in sight. And I don’t think there will be until we reach critical mass, and either abandon the poor entirely, or return to first purposes.
Why offensive to capitalists? Have we reached a point where it is politically incorrect to ask about the nature of wealth acquisition? Are you suggesting that those who raise such questions should be censored? This sounds dreadfully close to the “shut up” position of the left.
Thank you for your definition of endowment as gift. But it raises more questions than it answers. A gift requires both a giver and a receiver. A true gift requires an intentional act: A confers something on B as an act of friendship, appreciation, or love (taken in the sense of desiring the good of the other as other). The receiver must engage in the intentional act of receiving the gift without assuming a duty of reciprocity. Otherwise, the act of giving and receiving becomes an exchange.
So, who is the giver? Who is the receiver? And what motivates each of them?
1. No, in fact we’ve reached the point that it is politically incorrect to assume the role of an acquisitive capitalist sans apologies and moral self-flagellation.
2. The gift is the right to pursue wealth in a free enterprise system prescribed by natural law and legally instituted by our Founders.
What a fascinating discussion.
A couple of thoughts in no order (and they’re not terribly deep, when it comes to philosophers I’m unqualified to speak – though I did have a crush on Howard Roarke for five years waiting to meet someone like him)
1) I think Bill Gates did more good running Microsoft than running his foundation. I have run a small business for 20 years with zero employees that in the 80s would have taken five employees. Thank you Bill Gates and your peers. I have sold tools at a lower cost to other small business owners, enabling them to be more competitive in the service they provide. Winning!
2) In the past five years I’ve watched my sister go from riches to virtual rags. She’s no dummy and was blessed with a wonderful work ethic. At the age of 56 she knows that if she loses her job she could pack everything she cares about in a small box, move to wherever she wants, work at a coffee shop and be happy.
True freedom. It’s been a long road and I’ve never seen her happier.
3) A friend just inherited a small sum from her father and wants to pay off her mortgage. She wants to own the home she lives in and the land it sits on.
Property rights. Where would we be without them?
4) Conclusion. It’s a big world. There’s room for all of us.
Good. So it seems we can agree that while the debate topic is offensive to some capitalists I should not be prevented from inviting a debate.
Remember too that the issue is structured around a resolution, i.e., the subject of the debate. The title is not a conclusion, but an invitation to argue. I set out my position in the OP as a starting point. I also explained that I am dreadfully lax in following my beliefs.
I’ve got to retire now, but look forward to future comments when I get up.
A single minded pursuit of extravagant wealth is immoral; pursuing wealth while living the rest of ones life is not. Work is a great thing. Work is not the only great thing.
Morning Mike,
Arthur Brooks has said that his studies on happiness suggest that an modest upper middle class income (100k+-) correlates with the most happiness, and that greater incomes do not correlate with greater happiness. This income could be easily achieved with a couple who both teach. However it is not the average Joes who commission sculpture or symphonies, it is only the folks we would consider 1%ers. I am not sure we or the poor will benefit from giving up Ferraris or the tombs of the Medici’s.
In Uganda many of the hospitals are short of gauze, oxygen, Rx paper, common drugs, yet the patients are never left alone without the companionship of family, various relatives, folks from the village. What “goods greater than material things” should we give them? And if we give them the material things from the Western world will they become a less tight knit community? If we give them the knowledge to become more Western and provide their own wealth of material goods, will their interdependent community survive?
Financial success is wonderful; it makes life easier, and lots more things possible. Where we get into trouble is when our happiness and sense of self worth become inseparable from our bank balances. Money comes and money goes- it is transient and temporal. I’ve always advocated looking to life beyond this thing or that. Look beyond the wedding to the marriage; look beyond the child rearing to the empty nest; look beyond being a couple to when you might suddenly be single or widowed; look beyond the time when you have to the time when you have not. At the end of the day we must be able to be happy with just ourselves and those that are permanent fixtures in our lives. If you need money to be happy, then it will be a sad, cold day when it is all gone, and no one around you cares for you now that you cannot advantage them any longer.
No. It is also immoral to force that wealth to be redistributed among the poor, no matter how needy. True charity comes from voluntary giving, not forced altruism.
It is also wrong to believe or teach that any wealth above and beyond what is necessary for life “is owned by the poor.” This is the excuse for collectivism, and I don’t mind saying that those great philosophers were dead wrong . . .
Correct, because the goodness from being charitable has two winners: the giver and the receiver.
When charity is mandated, it is not longer “charity” because the dynamic of the giver’s freedom to give is removed.
If life itself is a gift of God (per Genesis), than one might assume that what comes with this gift is at least part of what permits one to succeed, however success might be defined. Of course, if one creates one’s self, then one is beholden to none.
Love God first. Love others second. Those are to be my top two priorities.
If they are, I’m probably not going to pursue extravagant wealth for its own sake. I might acquire extravagant wealth as a result of doing something to contribute to society — something consistent with those two priorities. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing — but then again, my use of that wealth must also be consistent with those priorities.
Christianity doesn’t leave much room for the pursuit of wealth above all else. And yet it speaks of wealth as a blessing. The greed that leads someone to take advantage of others is condemned strongly, but wealth itself is a good thing, a gift from God.
I appreciate Annefy’s perspective; it’s a great good to be able to provide others the opportunity to work hard & provide for themselves & their loved ones. I’ve never gotten a job from a poor man.
When Jesus was travelling around Israel calling her back to Himself, who was paying the bills? Largely, it was affluent women who had become disciples and put their money where their hearts were. That allowed Jesus to focus full-time on teaching and preaching. A large financial gift (gathered in some cases from modest circumstances) allowed Paul to stop having to make tents during the day & allowed him to focus on teaching and pastoring.
I make zero correlation between the size of your bank account and your spiritual condition. I want to see what you do with your life. I can’t see inside your heart, but can see where your feet go.
At the end of the day you will be asked what you did with the blessings God gave you. For, fat privileged First Worlders the answer will most likely be one of these:
Whose answer pleases God the most?