Some people claim that if ordinary people were in positions of the super-rich they would be immoral as well. Because of the given status, they would have. In this article, I claim that the super-rich interest groups controlling America are less moral than ordinary Americans are (if we put them into such a position).
If we take society as a hierarchy, there are employees, entrepreneurs, journalists, lobbyists, politicians, political entrepreneurs, and finally our beloved super-rich families.
How to measure morality and the super-rich
If something such as a moral index existed, every group would score differently. Even though some people claim that morality’s distribution is even and it is only a matter of a given position.
The case is the morality distribution is normal (Gaussian curve), one percent are angels, and another one percent are sociopaths.
Despite common belief, it would be really hard for a true sociopath to step up the ladder into the top politics. There are factors such as impulsivity, and doing small immoral steps. But also enormous risk-taking, lack of long-term planning, personal relationships, and little or no emotional “intelligence”.
All of this would prevent any advance up the ladder. The angels cannot be in top politics as well because shaking hands with war criminals (and there are plenty of them) is simply immoral.
Morals of the common man
Your common journalist is less moral than an average person. Because writing for the super-rich you have to have a strong stomach.
I am not denying that “role-playing effect” or “role adaptation” does not exist. Put your average Joe close to the public funds, he will be stealing it. Put him into a position of a politician and he or she misuses the power. “Opportunity makes a thief.”
The super-rich have power struggles and the most immoral wins. Money and power. Even though if people wouldn’t mind they would be publicly known, it would also be fame.
You can apply the saying “nice guys finish last” to a lot of societal positions, but in “super-rich combat”, it is present more than ever (excluding organized crime).
Climbing the top ladder as a political entrepreneur, high-profile politician, or member of some super-rich family means you avoid decisions that are moral in order to do your job.
Complex social situations (in politics, the big business) must be goal-oriented, selfish, and immoral.
But the politicians are more moral than the members of the super-rich families. Because even people more moral than average enter politics and they are aware that 1000 patron-client networks exist, they must play them around, a single step in the constellation changes everything.
Do A step against interest group B and the media will go after you. You are trying to improve tax collection, however, you run into the wall (because everything is complicated).
So I want to say there is some morality. But the super-rich, compared to the old times, have no morality. Only those with the least conscience, morals, and political responsibility win.
Post 9/11 and Hitler
I couldn’t be a politician and do what they were doing (of course, some of it because of the super-rich and their morals). For example, Barack Obama and George W. Bush prepared their post-9/11 death score: “An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting. Over 432,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting. 38 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons.” Costs of War – here
I am not saying Hitler’s aftermath brought fewer casualties. However, they really wanted to be closer.
Maybe I could bear it better because of my lack of emotions. But I couldn’t bear it morally. And these two criminals are smiling and doing interviews.
So yes, people can get worse when put into positions that require the absence of morality. But an average person is far more moral than your average super-rich man.
Leave a Reply