RoR: Forum

The poll is ambiguous. Is the "unearned" wealth in option two undeserved? Inherited? Found? Winnings? The result of crime? Aristocratic?

The poll can be modified if no one has voted yet.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 3:38am

"Unearned" implies all of those things Ted mentioned. Criminal earnings are immoral. Earnings from the others are amoral. I'm not sure what aristocratic earnings are.

#1 could get very deep very fast, especially over the view of what is "criminal." Ragnar's theft was "criminal" within the context of law outlined in AS.

I'm tempted to vote for #2 as it implies the accumulation of wealth is possible.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/21, 3:41am)

Post 2

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 4:24am

Define 'wealth'......

Post 3

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 5:52am

It's kind of a strange poll. I went for #1, thinking of the Hank Rearden type. He has earned wealth through being moral, but doesn't realize that he's been moral. This type can later learn that he has indeed been moral all along. And, he's got money, which is a "preferred state of being."

Post 4

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 9:53am

I vote for earned wealth with knowledge of the morality of productiveness.

Post 5

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 11:39am

Earned wealth = morality of productiveness

At least it is so in my mind. The key is in the word "earned", as opposed to "unearned". On the other hand, "morality of productiveness" does not necessarily lead to wealth.

Post 6

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 12:15pm

Guilty Conscience?

All wealth is earned. By SOMEBODY. Poll question number two does not specify by whom. If I inherit $1,000,000.00 from an aunt I never met, I did not earn the money.

By aristocratic, I meant the kind of money that nobility receives from its estates. Elizabeth II has been rumored to be the most wealthy woman in the world. Obviously Objectivists find this bad in principle.

I have voted for option number two, because there is no reason to assume that just because I did not earn the wealth it was ill-gotten. Perhaps I inherited it or found it on the street and no one claimed it. If I possess the moral knowledge, (and assume that I will put it to use) as well as the wealth, without guilt, then I am ahead of the game.

To assume that unearned wealth, with no definition given, is undeserved, is to fall into the trap set by those who would tax inheritance, capital gains, interest, and any money that doesn't count as a wage or salary.

I don't have a guilty conscience, so I won't assume that wealth that is characterized as unearned is necessarily ill-gotten.

Ted Keer

Post 7

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 2:38pm

I'd rather be the idiot that earned his keep than the smart ass that never does.

-- Brede

Post 8

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 3:50pm

But the poll doesn't say that, Brede, you assume. I figure the 67% of you who voted 1 or 3 are assuming guilt without evidence.

Post 9

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 7:24pm

Option 2 in itself smacks of the sort of crap that my sister would say in a little less elegant form, which is why I'd rather to be the person to earn what I own even if I was a dullard. Those that earn their keep can learn to know why earning their keep is best. But the know that knows that productive work and earning of one's keep is best, yet never do so or steal from others is worse off than the dullard as s/he has decided of his/her free will to be a thief and a leech. Option 3 seems like an ascetic's way out, and wouldn't work. I choose Option 1 (obviously) because I know people who would tend toward it in their actions (they earn what they own, but don't understand why it's best, at least at a conscious level), and they tend to be moral folks by comparison to the Option 2 and 3 sort of folks that I know. Especially Option 2.

(edit) Also, preferred state of being is None of these, because none of these fulfill what I've seen happen in the real world: people who earned their wealth and know it's moral. The poll itself sets up a "no win" situation, and I don't believe in them with good reason as such situations only exist on paper, but never in real life.

-- Brede
(Edited by Bridget Armozel on 5/23, 7:27pm)

Post 10

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 7:59pm

The Poll is the Problem

Brede, a smart 17 y/o objectivist suddenly inherits $50,000 from an aunt he never met and subsequently founds a company based on his knowledge. (Else why have the knowledge?) The $50,000 was unearned. This is a no-brainer: virtue plus good fortune. Why does everyone here assume vice rather than luck?

Who posted this anyway? Explain yourself.

Post 11

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 10:40pm