If we're such a civilised race, why do most consider money more important than other people's wellbeing?

Question

I mean, some of the nicest people I've ever met are homeless, and the biggest cu*ts I've ever met are well off (sorry for the c word, but they REALLY were). How are we going to evolve socially when all most people care about is obtaining what is effectively just numbers that are mostly spent in no useful way and promote selfishness to the extreme? It allows inferior people an advantage, thereby not only invalidating natural selection but meaning that those who should excel and lead the way for our race don't because they can't.

harryhotun: sorry but you're way off the mark. The mere existence of charitys both proves my point and contradicts yours; that those most in need have to rely on the generosity of the public and are NOT helped at all by anyone else higher up in society eg governments, the wealthy etc. I know there are exceptions but in my experience the selfish are in the majority.

Answer 1

Good question. Now here's the hard answer.

People are not equal, and life is not fair.

First off, natural selection has nothing to do with making money. The accumulation of wealth is not a feature of nature.
If I happen to have a talent and the drive (i.e. do work) to make money, where in nature does it say I am obligated to give my money (my labor) to people who don't have my talent or drive? Further, why am I obligated to give money to people who are simply lazy? Just because it's a nice thing to do? Sorry, but I need a better reason than that. If anything, the ability to acquire wealth is a better indicator of a modern humans ability to thrive and prosper in our current environment.

The fact is, superior people do lead the way. Wealth doesn't mean anything. Is Paris Hilton leading anything? I am fairly certain that if homeless people had what it took to lead ANYTHING, they wouldn't be homeless. Most of the the people who are shaping our world today came from ordinary, modest backgrounds. Take a look at the history of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Michael Dell. They weren't born billionaires, they WORKED for it.

Of course not all homeless people are lazy or inferior. Some are disabled. Some are mentally ill. Some are addicts. Some are victims of abuse, and it is well and good to help these people. But plenty are just misfits, or people who don't want to pull their weight, in society. Why are the rest of us responsible for their well being? Why must I feel obligated to help the populations that live in unarable parts of the world, or who don't want to fight against oppression. Is my success the reason why they live in a desert, or beneath a dictator?

If you look back far enough into history, EVERY PERSON'S ancestors, at one time or another, have been the oppressed. Three hundred years ago, EVERY African in this country was a slave, yet today, plenty of their descendants are multi-millionaires. How did this happen? Who helped them???

In every society, the ones who thrive are the ones who do what is necessary to succeed, no matter what the cost. This is the true spirit of natural selection. Even the people who have life handed to them on a silver platter had some distant relative that used their drive, talent and skill to succeed. It may not be fair, but life isn't fair.

To the "disenfranchised", I offer this message... stop making excuses! There is an old saying... "if you want something badly enough, you will find a way, if not you will find an excuse." This goes for individuals and societies.

(And for the record, the most successful individuals in our race are usually the most altruistic. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two richest Americans, have donated BILLIONS to other people's well being.)

Answer 2

Yes,It is called enterprise;if nobody created wealth where do you think the money to provide for the unemployable would come from?You have failed to realise where charities obtain their money which they use to help the disadvantaged.Taxes are collected by Government from the employed to pay for social services.I agree "some"may consider money more important than others well being,but fortunately they remain in the minority.

Answer 3

Do we really when it comes to the crunch?
If I had the choice between saving a life or getting a million
dollars I can honestly say that I would save the life. And I don't think that I would be alone in my choice. I coudn't live with myself otherwise. So I'm not so sure that we are all as uncivilised as we tend to think we are... but maybe I'm just brutally naive....

Answer 4

But this is how it has always been.Look at the so called upper class they are filthy rich but as thick as a plank and yat they look down on the rest of us and would never dream of giving a helping hand

Answer 5

the love of money is the root of all evil.not money itself but the love of money because people by our very sinful natures are selfish.it is hard for us to do what is for the good of others if it means less for us.there are people who are strong in their faith or other life convictions who are happiest taking care of and helping those less fortunate.those who do not have to be recognized in their efforts -they are happier just doing the right thing even if no one else knows about it.many people do good ,but for all the wrong reasons.just because people are better off it doesn't make them better or happier or more important,certainly not to our heavenly father who loves us all.good luck.

Answer 6

Maybe some of the people that you feel so sorry for should be trying to get more money.

Answer 7

,its what the govt wants