The fairness of economic inequality has been debated for centuries. The dilemma itself is that for centuries when one builds a nation economic classes form. What to do about that and the justification for the economic hierarchy is the crux of the problem. The ethics of economic hierarchy and the central discussion can go one of two ways. The first way is that one justifies the hierarchy by using arguments like the divine right of kings. Or the argument that billionaires ”earned” their money. This answer disregards the suffering of the poor and working class.
The other way the discussion of economic hierarchy can go is a critique of the hierarchical system. One can use moral and ethical critique against the hierarchy. An example of a moral critique would be to use care ethics to say that economic hierarchy isn’t kind to the people at the bottom of the system which creates suffering. A moral analysis would be an analysis that involves an ethical critique using a moral philosophy like care ethics or Kantian ethics.
An Ethics of Care
Care ethics has a lot to say about the state of economic hierarchy under capitalism. “Care ethics emphasizes the value of people’s relationships, the universality of human dependence on others, the significance of emotions and the body, and the context-sensitive nature of ethical deliberation that does not merely follow abstract moral rules,” according to Santa Clara University. The blatant disregard for members of the working class present in capitalism goes directly against care ethics. The morality of the rich from a care ethics perspective is simple. The fact that people live through harsh economic environments while billionaires live like kings is wrong, according to care ethics.
The reason why is that the people living through this suffer for no real reason. Giving poor people money directly isn’t profitable, which is why it rarely happens without some other means of compensation. Care ethics disagree with the way that rich people donate money to nonprofits in return for a tax write-off.
Poverty Is Hard For Poor People
There are many reasons why living in poverty is hard. These reasons include the impacts on mental health, the fact that one is almost always tired from working multiple jobs, or even the fact that one misses out on fulfilling life experiences like being a parent because they are always at work.
All of these reasons are valid reasons to say that the simultaneous existence of rich people and people suffering in poverty is wrong. “In the U.S., the richest 1 percent of men lives 14.6 years longer on average than the poorest 1 percent of men, while among women in those wealth percentiles, the difference is 10.1 years on average,” according to MIT
Poor people suffer through unsafe neighborhoods, a dangerous lack of access to fruits and vegetables, have less fulfilling lives, and spend less time engaging in their hobbies all because they are poor. The way that poor people struggle to survive and have to scramble every month for money to make rent is inhumane. Care ethics condemns the opulence of the rich in favor of poor people’s humanity.
Kantian Ethics
The concern for the humanity of the working class is also held by Kantian ethics. The categorical imperative and its formulations are a major part of Kantian ethics. There is one formulation in particular that has a major problem with the simultaneous existence of the rich and poor.
Humanity as an end of itself formulation of the categorical imperative is the idea that people should never be used as a means to get something. “Kant’s ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone, ” according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What this means is that people should never be manipulated for any reason. Moreover, the existence of the rich is due to the rich having many workers that work for them. This large labor force creates value for their businesses. Humanity as an end of itself formulation of the categorical imperative would say that the use of a human being as a means to something else is wrong.
Wealth Accumulation Is Unethical
Since the wealth that rich people have is a result of using human beings as a means toward the end of profit, Kantian ethics say that the rich are wrong for profiting from worker’s labor. The universal law formulation of the categorical imperative says that one should take action based on whether or not it would be good for that to be a universal law.
Taking actions that result in the rich existing everywhere and poor people always suffering is a terrible universal law. This is because of the mass suffering described previously. All in all, both care ethics and Kantian ethics have major issues with the supreme wealth of rich people and the mass suffering experienced by poor people. Poor people shouldn’t have to suffer because rich people want another yacht. The state of economic inequality in modern times is bad.
Written by Kenneth Mazerat
Sources
CurrentAffairs: IT’S BASICALLY JUST IMMORAL TO BE RICH by A.Q. SMITH
IEPUTM: Immanuel Kant
NewsMIT: New study shows rich, poor have huge mortality gap in U.S. by
SCUEDU: Care Ethics by Jonathan Kwan
Featured and Top Image Courtesy of Roman Lashkin’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
First Inset Image Courtesy of Ikhlasul Amal’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
