Difference Between Morality And Coexism

Good Essays
Wealth and Progress Do Coexist Wealth and morality are two aspects of our daily lives that have played a role in our societies for centuries. We have seen multiple extremes were people subscribe to one or another. In our society, we have come to believe that these two cannot coexist. This argument of whether or not morality and wealth can coexist has become a social argument between the poor, who see nothing but injustice, and the rich, who are unable to understand the arguments of their opposition. Due to the two sides, the perceived lack of morality in wealth matters to the less wealthy individuals of society. Mahatma Gandhi states in (book name) his own opinion of the moral indifference in terms of wealth. He believes that when we make economic gains, we hinder our social progress. This social progress is described as our moral state. Despite Gandhi’s belief, I must disagree with him. Many societies do not decay socially because of wealth, on the contrary, our social progress is actually increased because of …show more content…
However, his arguments against wealth and their effects on social progress aren’t accurate. First, he states that material wealth corrupts morality and slows social progress. Yet, he doesn’t recognize that culture has risen with economic expansion, which we have seen during time periods such as the renaissance age. Secondly, Gandhi says that people with more wealth have more flexible morals, but he neglects the idea that there could be multiple factors that cause people, rich or poor, to be immoral. Finally, we hear the argument that our treatment of the environment shows the lengths in which we will be immoral for wealth. However, we have seen businesses turn away from harmful means of production to a healthier alternative. Ultimately, Gandhi is wrong when he says that wealth and morality cannot mix. Wealth does not decay or halt moral and social progress in the societies of the

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    We also have to not let money control our daily decisions and cause us to make unethical decisions. Similar to greed, competition can also be a major driving force in wealth inequality. Some people want to gain as much money as possible so that they can think of themselves as better as everyone else. This sense of arrogance causes people to be selfish with their money, which in turn causes the economy to suffer. Basically, the rich people want to keep getting richer which causes the poor to get poorer.…

    • 1864 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    On the contrary, he thinks that those who fall into the lower class should not be rewarded by the government through means of welfare programs. In his opinion, the act of taking money from the government without earning it is simply irresponsible. He thinks that when the government intervenes with economy in such a manner that they are simply encouraging poor behaviour. Browne’s opinions are similar to those displayed in Adam Smith’s book “Wealth of Nations”. Smith had a strong opinion that individuals should be free to work solely for themselves, and those who neglect to do so shouldn’t be rewarded for their lack of self interest.…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Lewis Lapham’s view on “the American faith in money” is not correct, and there are only opinions to back up his claims, not real facts. I disagree with his views, and everything he has said is very, very biased opinion and not facts from trusted sources. Lapham does this by stating that Americans are greedy and money is everything in the world to them. He also implies that without money, Americans are hopeless and have lost their happiness. First, continuing on the topic about the American people, Lapham uses Henry Adams quote from his autobiography: “Americans weren’t much good as materialists had they been so deflected by the pursuit of money that they could turn in any other direction.” Adams states Americans want to be remembered for the objects they once owned and not as the person they are.…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Herbert Hoover criticized Roosevelt’s New Deal because it harmed the liberty of the nation and he proposed to endow the business with more freedom. However, capitalism had its own disadvantages and it could not always run well. Therefore, moderate intervention of the government was necessary. Minnie Hardin admitted that the original intention of the policies on relief was good, but the policies did not work well when implemented. The reliefers took the relief for granted and wasted the taxpayers’ money.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Green Belt Movement

    • 1285 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Whenever the cost of opposing something exceeds the benefits, capitalism redraws the lines of what is and what is not waste. But the process evaluates not only the monetary costs of certain actions or commodities but also its sociopolitical and cultural implications. Much of the government opposition to the Green Belt Movement confirms Gidwani’s thesis that capitalism opposes commons for economic reasons. While it seems irrational for the government to refuse a positive action such as planting trees that provides cleaner air and more food, there is a hidden economic cost to the government. In the documentary, when president Daniel arap Moi…

    • 1285 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Preference Utilitarian Peter Singer maintains that it is a moral wrong for those in affluent countries to not do more to prevent starvation in other parts of the world. Singer formulates this argument in his paper ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’. Singer argues from the side of consequentialism, in particular Utilitarianism; an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. Several philosophers have countered Singer’s theory, claiming that our moral duties are lessened by the distance of those suffering in other parts of the world. Moreover, critics of consequentialism argue that it does not allow agents to act in accordance with their own needs.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, a flaw of this theory is that it is impossible to correctly determine the total harms and benefits of an action. According to the utilitarian defense, utilitarianism requires us to strive to maximize the amount of well-being in the world and to minimize the amount of suffering. A possible reply to this defense is the market failure reply. This reply states that it is not generally the case that the greatest good for the greatest number is achieved when corporations engage in free and open competition with the sole aim of enriching their investors. Another counterargument for the utilitarian defense is that solely focusing on profit will lead to a negative outcome due to the complexity of markets.…

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This is the argument that I find most compelling. Poor individuals’ desires are often ignored when experts make policy recommendations intended to enhance the economy of the entire nation. In collectivist nations, this is especially problematic, where autocracies that have been propped up by technocratic development experts perpetuate a cycle that silences individuals for the sake of the nation. Easterly argues that allowing individuals the protections that give them options for free speech, including free democratic elections would do a better job of increasing their political rights than just holding elections that could be strongly influenced by communal pressure or political blackmail from expert-empowered…

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I believe that communism hinders growth of production and development of nations and its citizens. Communism will not work in the present world, where technological advances are increasing at an exponential rate. Also, the shift in human nature between the proletariat and bourgeoisie could lead to conflict and violence. Communism is a recipe for failure because human nature is subject to change. Humans by nature will want to benefit themselves rather than one another, which leads to corruption of the state.…

    • 1455 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If the only people that get justice is the wealthy then there is only injustice to the percentage of people that are left behind. The people in this form of government do not care for one another, and it creates a temperance, there is no balance in this form of government it creates injustice conduct, since one class took over another. Finally, in Democracy is a better form of government, but they lack knowledge,…

    • 1440 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays