English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Or should he refrain from using his wealth to gain an edge because it's unfair and immoral?

2007-12-02 09:56:28 · 14 answers · asked by Lioness 6 in Social Science Gender Studies

Tera: My psychologist of 2 years did that with me and you know the psychologist/patient relationship, when your in the middle of a divorce, completely isolated, and the process of father/daughter emotions. Needless to say, I let him pay the price for all his manipulations, as anybody who takes advantage of people in such vulnerable positions should have. His license was taken away and the lawsuit helped me buy my house, which is why people need to be careful not to play with fire.

2007-12-02 10:21:57 · update #1

14 answers

Well that's the primary reason why people seek out wealth in the first place. I think it's only natural that people seek out any advantage for themselves and their kin over their competitors in life. Depending on the specific example, this can either be moral or immoral.

For example, giving your kid or yourself an expensive private education to get him/yourself ahead because you have the money to gain that advantage is perfectly moral. Hiring someone to break your opponents legs so you can win a competition would be immoral on the other hand.

2007-12-02 10:10:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Puma: Wealth is not always a sign of achievement. Much of the wealth in this country (the U.S.) is inherited, not earned. I don't see how one can say it's OK to use money to his advantage instead of hard work (like Rio's example of someone who gets their kid into college despite his poor grades because they're wealthy, thereby taking that place away from a kid who might not have a lot of money but has worked hard *coughbushcough*) but it's not OK for someone to use their looks.

Edit to Puma: You should read "An Underground Education." (though if you really irritated to learn "facts about US [history]", you might want to skip it ). There's a great chapter on how some of the wealthiest families in the US made their fortune through some rather skeevy, underhanded ways (one of the more famous ones poisoned a Native American tribe so they could build a railroad through their land without having to deal with them. There's a heartbreaking account written by a railroad worker describing the bodies of near-dead women and children being kicked aside). Hardly anything to be proud of. And there's plenty more I think would leave quite surprised.

And besides, just because your great great grandfather made a fortune in 1880, that's hardly something you could take credit for over a century later. It's been handed to you, just like being conventionally attractive is handed to someone else. It's purely a matter of luck, and one is no more "earned" than the other.

2007-12-02 10:09:08 · answer #2 · answered by Priscilla B 5 · 1 0

Since I didn't say the other was unfair and immoral, I will limit myself to defending a consistent attitude toward both matters.

People who have inherited wealth (which is more analogous to physical appearance than earned wealth) also succumb to the trap of not developing other capacities and having very little else going for them, unless their parents actively discourage it. And using wealth to one's advantage can easily lead to failing to develop other attributes.

Furthermore (again by analogy with the matter of physical appearance), the wealthy man who uses his wealth to gain an edge but then shows moral outrage that people are holding out their hands for a tip or asking for loans and are not true friends is ALSO a hypocrite.

2007-12-02 10:10:18 · answer #3 · answered by Gnu Diddy! 5 · 2 1

Case via case foundation. i'm a Caucasian British Catholic, my spouse is a Bangladeshi Muslim. we've been togather 6 years, married 3. so a ways so sturdy. custom themes are extra of a controversy than race themes, the latter of which we've none, yet we are living right here far extra desirable than we are living than there. on your case, i might usually see/propose alarm bells and propose against some form of immigration rip-off. yet once you have particularly ordinary him for 5 years, it must be on the up and up. question: why the surprising rush to be married once you're nevertheless in 2 diverse countries? (in case you have in basic terms lived jointly each and every week at a time then that's little extra desirable than a ordinary holiday/holiday!) sturdy suggestion: make him deserve you, or vice versa. a million) elect which u . s . to stay in. 2) earn the striking to stay there *before* marriage. 3) See the way it is going.

2016-12-17 05:00:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Depends... for instance in certain countries I've lived people bribe someone to get a job. So, while an educated person, with qualifications gets no job, some jack@ss with money will get it.

Perfect example - have you ever traveled Tarom? You don't want to. Most of those people got their jobs in that exact way. Customer service sucks because those ppl are not qualified, they just "knew" somebody.

2007-12-02 10:22:32 · answer #5 · answered by Fex 6 · 3 0

It is essential that wealthy people use their money to their advantage. It's also essential that poor people do that as well. I intend to gain every edge that I can, for me and my family and to the benefit of the causes that I care about!

Wealth and power are not immoral. In our society it's not unfair either. You are thinking of communism. That hasn't worked so well.

2007-12-02 10:13:23 · answer #6 · answered by ∞ sky3000 ∞ 5 · 1 2

I once hired an attorney to represent me in a lawsuit. At the time, I was not well off financially-speaking. However, the case was taken on the basis on a contingency: if we won, the lawyer got his fees directly from the settlement. During the process, this lawyer (who knew my financial status) made several sexual comments to me- he talked of how his wife no longer sexually pleased him. He talked of how long it had been since he had a "********." He came over to my house on two occasions on the pretense of discussing the court case, and brought with him a bottle of expensive tequila both times. He tried to get me drunk. He tried to get in my pants. He drank a lot of the tequila himself, right in front of me. And after doing so, he made it a point to pull out his wallet and flash hundred dollar bills....saying that he could buy me anything I wanted. He even offered to buy me a diamond ring. (No joke.) I refused this, and his advances. He, on occasion, did buy me things- little things....and I think he actually believed that his wealth would impress me enough to sleep with him. On another occasion, he told me that if I would come to his home and help him with some household chores, he would pay me handsomely for it. I think he was trying to bait me into coming to his house with the intent of trying to seduce me. The more I rejected his advances, the more he tried to use money as a means of persuading me to become sexual with him. He knew I was financially struggling, and what's more, he knew I was going through a nasty divorce at the time, and that I had been the victim of domestic violence. He knew, in other words, that I was in a very vulnerable state: emotionally, and psychologically. Eventually, after a year of putting up with his crap, I finally got smart and fired him. This was just after I found out that he had not filed any of the paperwork regarding my lawsuit.

So, YES it is wrong, in my opinion, for a man to use his money as an "advantage." A man who does this, assumes that a woman is shallow, weak, materialistic, easily influenced, and as immoral as he is.

This guy ended up apologizing to me for his behavior. But I think he only did that because he was afraid I'd find another lawyer and sue him for sexual harassment. And had I not been going through so much already, I probably would have. I wonder if there's a statute of limitations on a case like that?

2007-12-02 10:15:38 · answer #7 · answered by It's Ms. Fusion if you're Nasty! 7 · 3 1

In most cases it would be immoral, unless of course he won an auction or something or as someone mentioned you used the money to put your child in private school. But it is unethical to use it as a bribe, to gain something you have not worked for or do not truly deserve.

2007-12-02 12:54:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, people who do not money sometimes gain unfair and immoral edges...is the question inclusive of this group or are you only targeting the wealthy

2007-12-02 10:03:38 · answer #9 · answered by Patti_Ja 5 · 0 1

Depends on the advantage... Is it immoral for him to buy a new car every year, I don't think so. Is it immoral for him to buy a heart when there are other people more ill on the waiting list, I think it is. You must recognize there are advantages you can "buy" and advantages that are immoral to purchase.

2007-12-02 10:13:58 · answer #10 · answered by Libby anne 2 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers