Imagine a person has the greatest amount of wealth that is moral. Call that amount N.
How then can that person incrementally increase his wealth beyond that, to N+1, a value that is immoral?
- He can produce something of value and sell it for a mutually agreeable price to another person.
- He can provide a valuable service to another person for a mutually agreeable price.
- He can lend a portion of his money for someone who needs it at a mutually agreeable interest rate.
- He can invest his money in some risky venture which will make him money only if it provides something of value to someone else in one of the other ways described above.
Assume, for sake of argument, that he does nothing illegal, uses no force, conducts only voluntary transactions where both parties agree that they are both better off for the transactions. In other words, every transaction he does to increase his wealth is moral and benefits the other party equally.
Give those conditions, starting from a moral amount of wealth, and then only conducting moral transactions, it would be contradictory for the N+1 condition to then be labeled immoral. It would be a very odd view of morality if someone, conducting only moral acts, is then labeled immoral.
Read other related questions on Quora:
- Should there be a limit to how much personal wealth any one individual can accumulate?
- Why is killing fellow humans usually considered immoral?
- Are there examples of where allowing exorbitant wealth accumulation to an individual is beneficial to society?
from Quora https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-level-of-personal-wealth-accumulation-so-high-that-it-is-immoral-in-a-world-where-so-many-fellow-humans-are-in-need/answer/Rob-Weir
No comments:
Post a Comment