Why do lower class people have looser morals?

Question

If anything, you'd think having less money would make them more moral. And I think that's how it even was in the old days. But today? And how does money affect morality anyway?

starmoishe you didn't have to point that out. I know there's plenty of rich immoral people. What I meant was why is there so much crime and loose behavior in the lower classes these days? In middle class suburban neighboorhoods you'll see a lot less of that.

Answer 1

Well I think u are referring to the ignorant lower class with no money right? In this day and age u r right....most just seem to be trash. They wouldnt rise above their condition even if the money was there. They would blow it and be broke in no time.....because they are also ignorant and unable to do simple things like manage their money....or unwilling....Also alot are on drugs and alcoholics. Sad but true. Everyone who snapped at you is just trying to be MORAL. lol Since this is a moral question I can see how that would be. But the truth is the truth. Very few low income people have any class or morals, they are dramatic addiction crazed and generally pathetic. Many have "good hearts" but they cant maintain long enough to be consistant about it. And everyone dont be rude to me because of my response because I only make 1000 a month and I am not a slut, drug addict, theif, drama queen....or any other number of moral deficiencies.

Now to continue the small thesis on the subject. People with money do not escape human nature. They can be just as morally debase and anyone else. But statistically the "lower class" as well all fear to say....IS more crime ridden and Jerry Springer prone.....

Just because u dont have money doesnt mean u need to behave this way. It is possible to ahve a good life without being rich, but like all good things, you have to work for it, feel it in your heart, not just think it but live it. Turn Knowledge into wisdom.

Have a good night

Answer 2

depends how you determine morals, and that's the point. When a class is in power it is able to determine what morals are, and it determines them as being what it is, and what the other classes arent. The upper classes are neccessarily the classes that are in power: their power is what gives them privelige.

Each class will think it is somehow better than the others - the lower class will say it's more hard working or honest or down-to-earth etc. The upper class will say it's better because it is more educated and cleaner knows more about wine. But only the upper class has the power to have these morals validated by law, or religious institutions or the media, and so upper class morals become THE morals, rather than what they are - morals applicable to a particular social situation and not applicable to any other. Money affects morals because money equals power.

This is how it was "in the old days" as well. Read a bit of Charles Dickens if you need reminding that the powerful considered the weak morally lacking before our generation. Try Aristotle if you want to go back further.

Answer 3

I see that you're a genius so I'm going to put this in simple terms that you can easily understand. But first, a question. What do you consider lower class? Am I mistaken or do you think low income is synonymous with lower class and lack of moral fiber. Do you think that less money points to less morals? And who or what do you consider moral. President Bill Clinton would seem to be fairly well off considering how much he charges for a speaking engagement. But then again, what he did with Ms. Lewinsky in the hallowed halls of the White House seems to be the very definition of unscrupulous behavior. Or perhaps you consider Senator Foley an upper class person. I don't really care how much money he has, he belongs in jail with all the other upper class child molesters.

O how about Madonna. She owns more homes than I have ever lived in and yet she saw fit to go into Africa and adopt a child away from his widowed father. Should she not have found a way to help that man raise his own child. It appears that she wants more children but can't afford the stretch marks.

Angelina Jolie clearly didn't mind taking Jennifer Aniston's husband. Tom Cruise's newborn was illegitimate, although no one seems to care.

For all their money, none of these people possesses the morals the average motel housekeeper does. When I was a motel housekeeper, making very little money, I didn't notice an effect on my morals.

I make less than 12,000 a year, but I dare say that I an my family have more class or manners than anyone who would pose such a biased questions. Good luck to you in your future.

ps. Money can't buy character or integrity.

Answer 4

Define "looser morals" and then we may have something to discuss. Depending on your definition, there is probably no correlation between socio-economic status and "morality". Recent news stories have enough in them to suggest that a lack of moral sense is also present in a number of prominent people who would be considered in the higher echelons of our society.

Also, you may be affected by a "visibility effect". If you're not aware of something, it may not affect your viewpoint. Even if you're aware of it, you can choose to acknowledge it or not. Certainly many people can identify with having an "Uncle Harry" who seems to like his beer just a little too much or an "Aunt Sarah" who just doesn't quite seem to find the right - man. These people may be alcoholics or be of an alternative sexual orientation but these conditions are not acknowledged as we don't want to deal with our feelings if we do.

Answer 5

Are you kidding! The rich have the worst morals. The more money people have the worse the moral values. Why, when they are bored they have money to do what they want. Check the divorce rate of the Rich and Celebrities. It is probably double everyone else. How many of them cheat on there spouses but they use clever names to cover it up. How many police are paid off to protect there children. Get your facts straight.

Answer 6

Its the opposite. More money equals less morals. Two weeks ago my job got robbed. Our companies owner came down to talk to us. I'd say hes worth about 2 million. Our owner was talking about driving would be robbers away from our store and made the following comment "Heck drive them away from THIS store, they can go car jack an old grandman or something". I really think he was serious when he said this.

Answer 7

It's the end which shapes the means, it is the means which shapes the other person. People strive to attain that which they believe gives them strength and value by comparison, they learn from what is to know and the market presents what is knowable to them. It is encouraged in the youth to achieve financial independence before marriage; that is the priority. Failing to keep to it does not produce the moral person.

Answer 8

I think they have had less oppurtunities to get good education and also to be in contact with decent people. Although the economic situation is not the whole problem but it still has got some effect but in the days of global village it is hoped this kind of gap be eliminated.

Answer 9

Well, you obviously have a pretty loose moral code of your own and by the way you refer to the "lower class" as "them" I assume you're middle or upper class. So what gives? Are you just an exception to your own rule?

Answer 10

haha. this is soooo funny. i cant tell whether it is a serious question or not. The girl may have had several sexual encounters in the past but unless you want your son to meet a virgin this is likely to be the case. she may want to change her life around- give her a chance. 'he's quite a catch for the ladies' you have double standards. ure son could be riddled with disease- get him an std check. also plenty of guys have cars and their own money and plenty of girls do too- i would not think of this as being an incentive for me to date a guy.