Originally posted by frontal lobe: The study was that the "rich" have lower ethics, are greedy, and have lost moral character.
The thread title concluded those behaviors are evil. I guess if you want to give another interpretation to those characteristics other than evil, that is completely legitimate and please feel free to express what your conclusion is.
Still, then let me rephrase the question so there is zero contextual ambiguity.
So are there any other groups besides the rich that we want to study to prove they have lower ethics?
NO the study posed the question Which social class is the more likely provenance of unethical behavior, the upper class or the lower class?
. . .
quote
Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lowerclass individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods fromothers (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lowerclass individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.
Why is it surprising or insulting to so many. It does not say ALL it merely states and proves it is more likely.
Many here have defended greed as a great motivator, this proves it!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2014).]
Greed, in turn, is a robust determinant of unethical behavior. Plato and Aristotle deemed greed to be at the root of personal immorality, arguing that greed drives desires for material gain at the expense of ethical standards.
[QUOTE]Greed, in turn, is a robust determinant of unethical behavior. Plato and Aristotle deemed greed to be at the root of personal immorality, arguing that greed drives desires for material gain at the expense of ethical standards.
Sure, selfishness. Probably becoming more common today I am sure with the devaluing of human life, that is taught daily. Combine that with "I'm ok your'e ok, til you get in my way, there is no right and wrong", and we are teaching our children that we are all out to eliminate competition and get ours and that is it.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-23-2014).]
Sure, selfishness. Probably becoming more common today I am sure with the devaluing of human life, that is taught daily. Combine that with "I'm ok your'e ok, til you get in my way, there is no right and wrong", and we are teaching our children that we are all out to eliminate competition and get ours and that is it.
I see the personal responsibility mantra only applies when convenient. Sorry not trying to pcik on you personally
"that's not they way I was raised but you know the kids today..." Guess who raised the parents of today?
Sorry not trying to pcik on you personally it's more of a general comment really
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2014).]
ug.... while I beleive the overall topic, I find the blanket statement to be a fail.
coming froma "Freudian" point of view - everything one does in one way or another is a step towards making oneself more attractive to a potential mate.
if your "hook" is money - well - thats that - it is the male equivalent of a boob job. gotta remember, some of these people we are talking about would be nothing without their DD's, so, they must do whatever it takes to keep them silicones inflated. so, in that scenario - of course there will be "evil" involved to keep it going.
but, thats just a single example. and a easy one for most to take. people also get rich for doing great things. and then they do great things with their richness.
and combinations of both. and many more scenarios. all day long with scenarios. how about the Heirs? most have a pretty distastleful view of the Paris Hiltons, yet, is "passing it on" a good thing? most would say OF COURSE! why else do we do what we do if not for the kids? well, back to Freud - we do what we do to make the kids. beyond that things get wonky again. and, of course - WTF does Freud do with "the gays"?.......
I see the personal responsibility mantra only applies when convenient. Sorry not trying to pcik on you personally
"that's not they way I was raised but you know the kids today..." Guess who raised the parents of today?
Sorry not trying to pcik on you personally it's more of a general comment really
I'm not sure if you mean kids have to take personal responsibility? Sure they do as they grow, but you cant deny parents responsibility, or teh influence of school or media.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-23-2014).]
I'm not sure if you mean kids have to take personal responsibility? Sure they do as they grow, but you cant deny parents responsibility, or teh influence of school or media.
You seemed to infer that children are being taught to be greedy. The studies, I'm faily certain were conducted on adults. Most adults should easily be able to discern from greed, need, right and wrong no matter what their childhood was.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-23-2014).]
You seemed to infer that children are being taught to be greedy. The studies, I'm faily certain were conducted on adults. Most adults should easily be able to discern from greed, need, right and wrong no matter what their childhood was.
Youd think so, but no. They are being taught that, adults even are. Saying that adultsshould be able to discern would be saying adults suddenly think clearly and correctly regardless of what happened before they became adults, which for some really doesnt even happen Many adults dont think there is a right and wrong even in their old age, some even come to that conclusion late in life.
Why is it surprising or insulting to so many. It does not say ALL it merely states and proves it is more likely.
It is neither surprising or insulting to me.
The problem I have with the study is that I have a pretty solid guess as to why to do a study in which the conclusions were essentially predictable beforehand. As I stated, it is to portray a certain social class in a light that is negative, which wuold make people feel more justified in pushing for a government to confiscate their money and redistribute it to other classes.
That is the foundation for my question. Anyone else we want to try to do a study on to try to portray in a negative light?
Want to do the study with politicians vs. non-politicians?
Democrats and republicans?
Single mothers vs. married women?
Welfare recipients vs low income employed?
I could go on all day, Berkeley. Looking for more "research" to do?
I know what their answer would be. "Uh, no thanks. We only want to do research we think will make certain groups look bad."
Originally posted by frontal lobe: It is neither surprising or insulting to me.
The problem I have with the study is that I have a pretty solid guess as to why to do a study in which the conclusions were essentially predictable beforehand. As I stated, it is to portray a certain social class in a light that is negative, which wuold make people feel more justified in pushing for a government to confiscate their money and redistribute it to other classes.
That is the foundation for my question. Anyone else we want to try to do a study on to try to portray in a negative light?
Want to do the study with politicians vs. non-politicians?
Democrats and republicans?
Single mothers vs. married women?
Welfare recipients vs low income employed?
I could go on all day, Berkeley. Looking for more "research" to do?
I know what their answer would be. "Uh, no thanks. We only want to do research we think will make certain groups look bad."
Yes.....Why do a study about a subject where one "thinks" the answer is predictable?
I don't think it makes either group look bad, it shows how wealth and power CAN corrupt a portion of society.
