Are the rich more virtuous than the poor?

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

This is one of the most unChristian and unCatholic notions I have read lately. Congratulations. It's also goes against common sense, most people's experience and obvious facts.

Could you elaborate? What precisely do you think "goes against common sense, most people's experience and obvious facts"?

[kama3]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

I seriously doubt that Murray has studied Marx in any detail.

So, you're saying he's simply unqualified to write about the subject.

PS - I personally find de Sade just boring.

[kama3]

Meanwhile, in Science magazine... http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...ch.html?ref=hp

To see whether dishonesty varies with social class, psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues devised a series of tests, working with groups of 100 to 200 Berkeley undergraduates or adults recruited online. Subjects completed a standard gauge of their social status, placing an X on one of 10 rungs of a ladder representing their income, education, and how much respect their jobs might command compared with other Americans.

The team's findings suggest that privilege promotes dishonesty. For example, upper-class subjects were more likely to cheat. After five apparently random rolls of a computerized die for a chance to win an online gift certificate, three times as many upper-class players reported totals higher than 12—even though, unbeknownst to them, the game was rigged so that 12 was the highest possible score.

So, Murrayism has been experimentally falsified. But wait, it gets better!

When participants were manipulated into thinking of themselves as belonging to a higher class than they did, the poorer ones, too, began to behave unethically. In one test, subjects were asked to compare themselves with people at the top or the bottom of the social scale (Donald Trump or a homeless person, for example.) They were then permitted to take candies from a jar ostensibly meant for a group of children in a nearby lab. Subjects whose role-playing raised their status in their own eyes took twice as many candies as those who compared themselves to "The Donald," the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In another test, participants were asked to list several benefits of greed; they were given the example that greed can help further one's professional goals, then asked to come up with three additional benefits. Again, lower-class subjects whose attitudes toward greed had been nudged in this way became just as likely as their wealthier counterparts to sympathize with dishonest behavior (taking home office supplies, laying off employees while increasing their own bonuses, overcharging customers to drive up profits).

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by kama3

So, you're saying he's simply unqualified to write about the subject.

Well, I'm sure he would not be "qualified" in the Soviet Union or Cuba. But it's less clear why you would expect social science research elsewhere to relate their results to the theories of Karl Marx.

Originally Posted by kama3

Meanwhile, in Science magazine...
So, Murrayism has been experimentally falsified. But wait, it gets better!

Yes, seen that. Very cute. But I think all you've realy done is demonstrate that you have not bothered to understand Murray's research.

[Jerry Miah]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Could you elaborate? What precisely do you think "goes against common sense, most people's experience and obvious facts"?

Sure, thanks for asking.

I am not replying to the Weekly Standard article because I don't waste my time with that place. I am just referring to this:

What if it really is the case that the poor are primarily suffering from bad moral choices and that efforts over the last century to relieve their suffering have only served to create the very moral hazards that have led them to make these bad moral choices?

1. Jesus wasn't just joshing when he said it's almost impossible for a rich man to go to heaven, and that the poor are blessed.

At the lower levels, there is nothing necessarily un-virtuous about making money or running a business. The lady who owns my favorite pizza place is one example. But it's as obvious as heck that to really make big money, it often (not always) means being the more ruthless, cut-throat person. Modern business is full of countless examples. Does anybody think Sam Wall of Walmart is rich because he's virtuous? Quite the opposite -- his business model is to intentionally target small businesses by undercutting them, running them out of business. He is also famous for some of the lower wages and worse conditions in the business.

You succeed in boardrooms and the corporate ladder (usually) by backstabbing and ***-kissing, neither of which is listed in the book of virtues.

No -- to be rich does not mean to be virtuous. Whereas to be virtuous in making money -- to say "I will not hurt anyone to be successful" -- is usually to limit the size of your business. (Again, there are exceptions to this rule. Some businesses grow large and the owners get rich for natural and/or lucky reasons not based on exploitation. But after a certain point, large business will mostly start very un-virtuous practices, in fact the always-expanding model of our system demands it.

Again, check what Jesus said.

2. Facts: Several studies recently showed that the wealthy, and that means anyone who considers themselves wealthy, were more likely to engage in dishonest, selfish or illegal behavior -- the wealthy are more likely to lie, cheat, steal and break laws.

Another study showed that actual psychopaths are much more likely to do well in Wall Street, and that chances are good that if you work in the Stock Market, your boss is a psycho (someone who has no real concept of right or wrong):

Studies conducted by Canadian forensic psychologist Robert Hare indicate that about 1 percent of the general population can be categorized as psychopathic, but the prevalence rate in the financial services industry is 10 percent. And Christopher Bayer believes, based on his experience, that the rate is higher.

3. Experience: I am sure everyone with experience in normal working jobs and in life can give plenty of examples of these two things above. It's common, for example, for businesses to find reasons to fire or lay off employers who have been around too long and are making too much money. This I have seen with my own eyes and I have personal friends or family members. This means the boss -- the one making more money -- benefits from a lack of virtue. This means the employee -- who did nothing wrong in this case -- has financial hardships, is "the poor" in your equation.

None of the above means the worker / "the poor" is necessarily virtuous, but it does mean that the the richer person in these cases is definitely less virtuous. Maybe this is how you should frame your question:

What if it really is the case that the rich are primarily suffering from bad moral choices and that efforts over the few decades to give them tax breaks and glorify them have only served to create the very moral hazards that have led them to make these bad moral choices?

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by Jerry Miah

Sure, thanks for asking.

I am not replying to the Weekly Standard article because I don't waste my time with that place. I am just referring to this:

While it would cerrainly be worthwhile to read the article, I can give you a simple summary of the issue. As noted in the OP and elsewhere, we are primarily talking about what Murray calls "American" virtues and what I have called "worldly" virtues. Someone, it may have been Murray, or someone else doing similar research, noted that, at least in the United States, escaping povery was as simple as:

1) Staying in school.
2) Getting and keeping a job.
3) Getting married before having children.

While the first and second are not generally thought in Sunday school, all three are certianly consistent with every theological and moral lesson that I am familiar with. Others have found similar correlations between church attendance and avoiding poverty.

What Murray further observes is that while the poor are tending away from marriage and church, for example, the rich are rediscovering such and that the two groups are moving apart from each other on many similar behaviors.

[Lochias]

There is no easy, simple, pat way to climb out of extreme poverty without a lot of outside help and assistance. Many times, this help and assistance is never forthcoming from those who could afford to help.

Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves, for whatever reason.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by Lochias

There is no easy, simple, pat way to climb out of extreme poverty without a lot of outside help and assistance.

Whether or not it is good to help the poor, this cannot be true otherwise we would all still be living in poverty.

Many times, this help and assistance is never forthcoming from those who could afford to help. Anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves, for whatever reason.

The point of Murray's research is to investigate why it is that poverty continues in spite of all the help that is given to the poor.

[Lochias]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Whether or not it is good to help the poor, this cannot be true otherwise we would all still be living in poverty.


The point of Murray's research is to investigate why it is that poverty continues in spite of all the help that is given to the poor.

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Anyone who has lived what you're conjecturing about will tell you the same, who has seen "all that help" do absolutely jack-squat for family members suffering from debilitating diseases that our mangled health-care system simply don't care about, who has felt gnawing hunger when things like food stamps are denied because "all that help" refuses to sign a piece of paper saying that the family should still qualify for food stamps.

You are wrong on multiple levels. You are wrong times infinity. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and only honest ignorance or deliberate obtuseness can excuse you.

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

I seriously doubt that Murray has studied Marx in any detail. I doubt he spent much time on Hitler or the Marquis de Sade either.

All right, this was silly enough to draw me back in. Just because Marxism, Marx's theory of government and solution to the problems he saw, is not taken seriously (and rightly so) does not mean that his analysis of the problems he saw are not taken seriously.

Marx is a tremendously important economic thinker who has had great impact on economic thinking. And to compare his writings to Hitler and the Marquis de Sade...that's completely asinine. Marx had legitimate thoughts about society that are very much worth reading, even if his proposed governmental system is wrong. There's also nothing hateful and violent in any of Marx's work on the scale of Mein Kampf; Karl Marx was cold in the ground well before the Russian Revolution.

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Well, I'm sure he would not be "qualified" in the Soviet Union or Cuba. But it's less clear why you would expect social science research elsewhere to relate their results to the theories of Karl Marx.

Good heavens, social scientists and economists should have studied Marx in detail! He's important to their field! That doesn't mean treating his work as dogma-that would be moronic. However, the issues and questions Marx raises are important parts of social science and economics; survey econ 101 courses spend a significant time on Marx, and anyone who wants to claim to be an expert in the field should be well read in him.

Claiming to be an expert in that area without being familiar with Marx is like claiming to be an expert on the Roman Empire without being familiar with Gibbon. Are there tremendous flaws in Gibbon's work? Yes, absolutely. Do you need to be familiar with Gibbon to intelligently discuss the subject? Again, yes, absolutely.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by Lochias

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Anyone who has lived what you're conjecturing about will tell you the same, who has seen "all that help" do absolutely jack-squat for family members suffering from debilitating diseases that our mangled health-care system simply don't care about, who has felt gnawing hunger when things like food stamps are denied because "all that help" refuses to sign a piece of paper saying that the family should still qualify for food stamps. You are wrong on multiple levels. You are wrong times infinity. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and only honest ignorance or deliberate obtuseness can excuse you.

Well, let's look at the two points in greater detail, then.

It can't be the case that climing out of poverty without help is as impossible as you suggest because people have been climbing out of poverty since time immemorial. The main means that people climb out of poverty is through hard work of one sort of another.

On the second point, this is certainly something that anyone genuinely concerned with poverty should be interested in: why is poverty so persistent? What keeps people in poverty in a world of opportunity?

[Simpleton]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...ap_633403.html

Although Charles Murray has studied American, not Catholic virtues, I think it is still worth asking: What if it really is the case that the poor are primarily suffering from bad moral choices and that efforts over the last century to relieve their suffering have only served to create the very moral hazards that have led them to make these bad moral choices?

This question isn't worth asking because it is ridiculous. The simple fact is there are going to be a large number of poor people who are poor because of bad moral choices just like there is going to be a large number of rich people who became rich from bad moral choices. Poverty and prosperity are not indications of one’s holiness or lack thereof.

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

Well, let's look at the two points in greater detail, then.

It can't be the case that climing out of poverty without help is as impossible as you suggest because people have been climbing out of poverty since time immemorial. The main means that people climb out of poverty is through hard work of one sort of another.

On the second point, this is certainly something that anyone genuinely concerned with poverty should be interested in: why is poverty so persistent? What keeps people in poverty in a world of opportunity?

Yes, hard work is a necessary component to climbing out of poverty (or to success in general). But it isn't a sufficient component. A hard working steel worker still lost his job in the 1980's. A hard working Okie still lost his farm in the Dust Bowl. You need to be in the right place at the right time (or more limitingly, you need to not be in the wrong places at the wrong times).

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by Lujack

All right, this was silly enough to draw me back in. Just because Marxism, Marx's theory of government and solution to the problems he saw, is not taken seriously (and rightly so) does not mean that his analysis of the problems he saw are not taken seriously.

Marx is a tremendously important economic thinker who has had great impact on economic thinking. And to compare his writings to Hitler and the Marquis de Sade...that's completely asinine. Marx had legitimate thoughts about society that are very much worth reading, even if his proposed governmental system is wrong. There's also nothing hateful and violent in any of Marx's work on the scale of Mein Kampf; Karl Marx was cold in the ground well before the Russian Revolution.

Originally Posted by Lujack

Good heavens, social scientists and economists should have studied Marx in detail! He's important to their field! That doesn't mean treating his work as dogma-that would be moronic. However, the issues and questions Marx raises are important parts of social science and economics; survey econ 101 courses spend a significant time on Marx, and anyone who wants to claim to be an expert in the field should be well read in him.

Claiming to be an expert in that area without being familiar with Marx is like claiming to be an expert on the Roman Empire without being familiar with Gibbon. Are there tremendous flaws in Gibbon's work? Yes, absolutely. Do you need to be familiar with Gibbon to intelligently discuss the subject? Again, yes, absolutely.

The main difference between Marx and Hitler was that Hitler was both thinker and doer wheres Marx left the doing to others like Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot. Marx is certainly important to historians (and those who continue to share his ideology) but there is no reason that someone doing research in social science or even economics should relate their work to his as kama3 demanded.