Gandhi famously said "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." From an ethical point of view, it is extremely difficult to justify excessive wealth and inequality. In fact, most philosophers and all of the major religions caution against the pursuit of excessive wealth at all cost and prescribe sharing of income with less fortunate members of the community. For instance, the Koran bans usury and says that the rich should give away a portion of their money. The decision of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to give away their fortunes or to call for greater taxation of excess wealth is an example to the rest of the world's billionaires.Is there a moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality?
Are billionaires, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and other rich and famous people (see YouTube video), doing enough to alleviate the suffering of poor people or should they do more?
There is no moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. If the 100 most wealthiest people would give up their annual salary just once to wipe out world hunger FOREVER, it is quite mind boggling that these 100 people would not do it. They can potentially save billions of lives all across the world. Considering all the luxuries that these people have access to, it is sad to think that they would not be able to sacrifice some of it for the greater good of other people. I believe that the work Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Bono are doing is outstanding but they need all the other rich and famous people who are not contributing to contribute on their level in order to make a bigger impact. On that same note, they shouldn't be receiving all the blame. You at least see these people trying. Just based on the efforts that Bob Geldof and Bono went through to make the general public and politicians from multiple nations aware of what is going on makes me wonder how much more can they possibly do? Ultimately, it is up to all of us whether we are rich and famous or not to be aware and be part of making a difference through donations and using our skills and gifts to help those in need.
ReplyDeleteIf Singer is right, then it does not matter (from a moral point of view) that other billionaires (other than Bill Gates, for example) are not doing something to alleviate the suffering of poor people. If we accept Singer's principle (according to which, if one can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, then one ought to do so), then numbers do not make a moral difference.
DeleteTo ask someone to give up their wealth to help the world is a noble cause but the sense of obligation and necessity resonates differently for some than others. I do credit bill gates and other philanthorpic individuals is the desire to make a difference. We need to shift the responsibility to our leaders and government to create opportunities to encourage economic progression. We need to make a distinction between inequality and poverty and why it exists. Placing a reliance on wealthy individuals is not morally justified in that they do not have all of their assets in monetary form so how can they give to something in all cases. We have to look at why cycles of poverty exist, access to education and healthcare and working to improve our social norms in creating an environment that allows for a diverse workforce in gender and education level. Money wont solve the problem because when the money is no longer available these people still do not have the ability to learn and teach future generations which stifles why we have to be humans and interact with our environment
ReplyDeleteCouldn't they sell their assets (e.g., real estate, stocks, etc.)? The money can then be used not only to feed poor and hungry people but also to build schools, libraries, clinics, hospitals, and so on.
DeleteI agree with Leah's statement. It's up to our fellow leaders and government to create opportunities and try to save their countries. I really do no think its fair to only rely on Bill Gates and others like him to alleviate the poor and suffering . I think if we rely on them things will not get better. I think the wealthy people of today should have a choice in how much they want to give.
DeleteIf one is to give up their wealth to help others that is a great thing to do to help the world become a better place. However giving up one years salary or a ridiculous amount of your wealth is just crazy. That is the money you worked for and earned you can do what you want with it not be told you have to give a good amount of it up to help others. You should want to give up some of it but not all of it. It is at the persons personal choice to give whatever amount they want. I believe the wealthy deserves the money they earned simply because they were smart enough or talented enough to get what they deserved, it is not up to them to save the world it is up to the world to save the world and find a more economical way of doing it
ReplyDeleteIt is not an easy statement to make about the moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. Many of the wealthiest people in the world have more than enough money to live comfortably and to enjoy the better things in life. Wouldn’t it be more rewarding to them to know that what they are working for each year can be used to change the lives of those in need? Plain and simple if the 100 wealthiest people gave up their annual salary just one time they could eradicate world hunger forever. That’s all it would take to make a global change and touch the lives of many people. These individuals would still be wealthy and they could still live the lifestyle that they are living now. More rich and famous people need to come together with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and rocker Bono to start the movement and end world hunger. The basic needs of food clothing and shelter should be available to every person on this planet. The moral responsibility lies directly on the wealthy individual. They must come to the realization themselves, we can inform them of what they would be doing, but we don’t have a right to force them to give up that salary.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that excessive wealth and inequality can be morally justified. From the Utilitarian perspective it’s not right to have a select few people amass large amounts of wealth while the rest of the world is practically dying of hunger. The suffering of so many people overshadows the happiness of the few and results in a miserable society as a whole. Wealthy people may disagree with the notion that they owe something back to society, since they did not cause the hunger and poverty in the first place. However, they or their ancestors made their fortune living among other people in society, so they had help from others one way or another. A businessman needs employees to work for him and clients to provide services to; a movie star needs the crew to make movies and viewers to pay to see them, etc. Therefore, part of the success of the rich was made possible by other people or society in general. That means that if society is suffering, wealthy people should try to help within their means. The same can be applied on a larger scale. Even though the “rich” countries are not directly responsible for poverty in the rest of the world, a substantial part of the blame for the situation in regions like Africa or Southeast Asia is on the Western world, since the developed countries abused these regions for their resources and meddled in their governments to establish political influence. The Western world is not necessarily obligated to help the rest of the world, but it would be morally right to provide aid.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s not fair to say that people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffer, Bob Geldof and Bono should do more, I think they are trying to do a good job while many others with similar means are not doing anything to help the poor. Being rich and famous gives people influence in many areas, including politics, so it’s good that they are using their influence for a good cause. I think that instead of blaming people like Bono for not doing enough, we should try to change the mind of the more reluctant wealthy people. After all, if the annual income of a 100 richest people could solve poverty, bringing 1000 richest people together would make more influence and it would cost each of them even less. The more people get involved in this sort of change, the faster the poor regions will be able to resolve their problems and provide adequate care for their residents.
I think this issue falls within the grey area of right and wrong, so there is really no straight answer. Although it is very generous and nice that these billionaires are donating their money, I do not feel it is their responsibility. They worked extremely hard to prosper in the business world and should be able to spend their money how they please. In my opinion, if millionaires should be donating money, it should be ones outside of the business world. For example, Kim Kardashian worked a lot less hard for her money than did Gates or Buffet. If reality stars like her bought 50 designer bags instead of 100, just that money alone could make a tremendous impact.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe there is a moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. Like Peter, I believe that wealthy people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are prime examples of what the wealthy people in our society should be doing. If they are able to sacrifice even a little of what they make, maybe the problems in our world might be a little closer to being solved. Unfortunately, the majority of the wealthy people of our population don’t want the responsibility this issue holds. To the more wealthy people, with whom we ask to just give up one year of their salaries with the hope of eradicating world hunger forever, it seems an absurd idea because like Ryan says, they worked hard for their money. However, one year of their salary is like a penny to us “regular” people. So asking this of them doesn’t really seem like a big deal. I commend people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for trying to bridge the gap between our classes and raising awareness. But, pulling from Leah’s comment, we don’t have to only rely on our wealthy population because money won’t be around forever. The general population has to work together with our wealthy population in order to resolve any issue our world is faced with.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and other extremely wealthy people are doing enough to alleviate the sufferings of poor people. I think Bono and Bob are doing much more than those wealthy people. As Singer’s statement of “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”, Bono and Bob are helping others by using their fame and influence. Singer’s statement also come with the statement that if the sacrifice is less than harm and the video showed that forgiving debts of Africa did not cause much harm to the G8 nations. There are much that can be done, but there are many who does not act on it. As discussed in class if 100 richest people donate their one year’s income, it can end children dying from hunger and people dying without treatment, the end of poverty as Bono and Bob stated. Every year, the Forbes magazine announces world’s richest people and their asset, which keep on increase every year. Yet no news of them wanting to fight poverty.
ReplyDeleteI think it's great how people come together and set up donations, and come together for good causes. My only issue is, how do i know where the money is actaully going to? Sometimes its a scam and they are just in it for the money. So if i am donating a good amount of money a month i could be throwing it all away for no reason. Like when people were donating money for ALS and doing the ice bucket challenge. Well i read that out of all of that money being donated, only a little bit actually went towards ALS. Sometimes it is morally right to give back and donate money, but sometimes how do we know the money is actually going where they say?
ReplyDeleteCouldn’t billionaires who are worried about "where the money is going" set up their own relief organizations? They have the resources to do it. For example, Bill Gates has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
DeleteAnd also, modern redistribution does not consist in transferring income from the rich to the poor, at least not in so explicit way. It consists rather in financing public services and replacement incomes that are more or less equal for everyone, especially in the areas of health, education, and pensions. So, the result is going to be in front of any individual who will be enable to see that what exactly more/less happened with his/her money that he decides to give away.
DeleteTo the excessively wealthy, donating one year's salary would not require a radical change in their lifestyle. They are, according to Singer, not sacrificing anything of equal moral value to the suffering of the those who lack basic necessities. Thus they are morally obligated to share their earnings.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the rich deserve their immense wealth is flawed because it fails to take into account the circumstances of their "hard work." A poor farmer could work long hours in the fields and still not have enough money to live comfortably or provide for his family. How can we reasonably argue that he gets what he deserves?
There is moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. While the gestures of Bill Gates, Bono, and other celebrities are admirable, they are not required. Every individual has a right to acquire their own wealth and success, and then do with it as they wish. To those that say excessive wealth is not justified, I ask how do you define the word excessive? Who gets to make the ultimate decision on the amount of wealth that can be deemed "excessive"? Compared to the starving population in Africa, we are all excessively wealthy. Does this mean we should use our tuition money to feed them? I say no. It is not right to tell someone they are only allowed to acquire a certain amount of wealth and success, and anything past that objective "tipping point" must be given back.
ReplyDeleteIn general, it is not entirely true that one can do with one’s earnings whatever one wants. Citizens are required to pay all sorts of taxes.
DeleteI don’t believe there is a moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. I believe that wealthy people such as Bill Gates and other celebrities are prime examples of what the wealthy people in our society should be doing to make the lives of others better. If they are able to sacrifice even a little of what they make, it can help us get a little closer to solving our problems of poverty. The majority of the people of extreme wealth in our population don’t help out in ways that they should. Is it because they aren't aware of theses issues of poverty, or is it that they aren't willing to help others? I feel that it isn't right to ask a wealthy person to give up their 1 year salary because they do work hard for their money,however they could donate a portion of their salary to help others. People need to have more understanding and awareness of our social classes. We cant only rely on the wealthy population to do all the donating to help others in poverty.The general population has to work together with our wealthy population in order to make a stand to world hunger and poverty.
ReplyDeleteI do not think there is any moral justification for excessive wealth or inequality. If everyone was to follow the actions of wealthy individuals like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, we would be able to solve many of the problems we face as human beings, not just in our own country but in the world. The truth of the matter is though that this will never happen. The rich claim that they worked for this money and they have earned it, which is understandable. But the real truth is that money equals power and that is what the wealthy want. Let's say that the wealthy distributed their wealth and everyone was the same class. Then it would be much easier for them to be overthrown because they would be enabling minds that usually do not have the resources to grow. Ultimately this is what they are afraid, but donating one years salary or even a few months salary would definitely help out millions in need. Unfortunately we can't make this decision for the wealthy but what we can do is present them with the facts, good and bad, and hope they choose to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteThere is moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. It is not fair that there is an uneven distribution of wealth in the world, but that doesn't mean that it is immoral. As humans we rely on each other for survival, companionship however, if you are rich and you don't donate money, that doesn't mean that you are immoral. I am strongly against property and I believe that everyone needs help each other out if they have the means to do so. But it is not an obligation. For one thing we are a capitalist society, we are the free world, which means we have no financial obligations to anyone but our dependents and family members. Rich may argue that they do help the poor regardless of consent through taxes anyway. Regardless, you cannot force or label them immoral or say they have to give money to anyone unless they have some type of contract or responsibility to do so.
ReplyDeleteIf Singer is right, then they have a *moral* responsibility to do whatever they can to prevent suffering and death from poverty as long as they do not sacrifice something of comparable moral worth. Why can’t we say that billionaires have a moral obligation to prevent bad things (e.g., suffering and death caused by poverty) from happening given that they can do so without sacrificing something of equal moral significance?
DeleteThere is a moral justification for excessive wealth. People who have the drive, motivation, and are innovative enough to think up a products and successfully market it deserve to reap the benefits of their labors. Also people who are extremely wealthy, have the means to enact change. If people are excessively taxed (for supposedly for the greater good,) people might not be inclined to develop products, medicines, etc. because there's no economic incentive to do so. This would cause stagnation in the development of medicines and technology, therefore having a detrimental effect on society at large.-Brian King
ReplyDeleteBy the utilitarian principle, it is immoral for excessive wealth and inequality to be justified. For these things to be "justified," we are supporting mass suffering for the luxurious life of the wealthy few. At the same time, it is also immoral to state that the wealthy cannot keep what they have, continue to work for more money if they wish, or live the life they wish. To support this stance seems to indicate a punishment of the rich, which isn't moral in that the wealthy are not inherently bad in themselves. This is a difficult discussion, and one which I don't believe will be resolved in the short term. From my perspective, I believe excessive wealth and inequality is unjustified.
ReplyDeleteThere is no moral justification for excessive wealth and inequality. For there to be a possibility that the wealthy can end poverty and still have more than enough money, i think its absolutely ignorant for them to be doing the bare minimum to help. Yes, they do some things to help those in need and give to charities or feed the needy but they seem to only be doing enough to make themselves feel as though they are giving back to others so that others will know that they are doing at least something. But to withhold all this money that you'll never physically see in a lifetime, i think is ridiculous. Why not give it to others to help them better themselves and feed themselves?
ReplyDeleteInequality is not necessarily bad in itself: the key question is to decide whether it is justified, whether there are reasons for it. Social and economic inequalities are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society as it was stated in the 1971 formulation. Nevertheless, democratic modernity is founded on the belief that inequalities based on individual talent and effort are more justified than other inequalities—or at any rate we hope to be moving in that direction. This norm, more/less is deeply embedded in the American way of life. Most Americans believe that so long as everyone has equal opportunity, then inequalities in what people earn doesn’t really matter. For example: Bill Gates and Bret Favre deserve their high incomes because they didn’t cheat to get what they get, they worked hard, and they competed fairly. They get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Yet, this ideal circumstance in the distribution of income and other valued goods is not an entirely satisfactory principle. The ideal of equal opportunity, as most Americans feel is that everyone has at least a right to have their basic needs met, and at least some Americans believe that everyone has a right to live above the poverty level. Inequalities above that level may be justified on the basis of fair play, but everyone has the right to live above poverty and thus the fair shares attitude should prevent inequality from pushing people below poverty. Thus, above all, excessive wealth, which eventually gives the power in the hands of the elites and in return often producing inequality (ex: in the form of an erosion of any sense of mutual obligation among people, oppression and vastly disproportionate influence in political system etc.), is unjust and can be seen as an indictment of the way in which existing alignments of power block the social changes needed to reduce or eliminate the inequality.
ReplyDelete