- Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior
- Rich people more unethical, likely to cheat and steal, study finds
- Wealth And Ethics Study Finds Rich People More Likely To Cheat And Lie
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086
https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-02-28/rich-people-more-unethical-likely-cheat-and-steal-study-finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/27/rich-people-less-ethical-study_n_1304800.html
Not always. This is my experience in the USA. There are family owned businesses that have evolved and prospered because they are good companies that care about communities and employees. Some would fire unethical employees. Corporate America is mandated to follow governmental regulations and if these are violated, then the company executives may end up paying a heavy price including jail time. I agree there are many that behave unethically and cheat their way to the top. So it is mixed bag.
Not always. This is my experience in the USA. There are family owned businesses that have evolved and prospered because they are good companies that care about communities and employees. Some would fire unethical employees. Corporate America is mandated to follow governmental regulations and if these are violated, then the company executives may end up paying a heavy price including jail time. I agree there are many that behave unethically and cheat their way to the top. So it is mixed bag.
The overall important factor of belonging to the wealthier class of people is inherited income (unearned) opportunities, i.e. to being born in the economic position to develop your talents freely. Privatized nature (natural resources of land, location of real estate) is the foundation of the social pyramid; on the other side of the balance sheet stands the financial opportunity to receive credit and interest for these collaterals. On the top of all of these inherited privileges come the highly selective social networks of the 'rich'. Concerning unethical behavior, I found much more unethical behavior in the lower strata of any country than in the middle (professionals) and upper ('landlords') classes. The unethical thing is factually that the landlord's game (monopoly) is being played from generation to generation, with leaving only small gaps for talented 'newcomers' or 'outsiders'. Sometines, the 'underdog' can find a little whole in the fence to enter the 'territory'.
Stephen, its not necessary to play the game. The rich have their place but it is just one group or class, which serve in the end. Their privileges mean nothing, as we all end up the same way. Although this is not the only kind of recommendation, no more justified than any other, but who do we remember-high achievers like Bohr and Einstein, Rembrandt and Picasso (who was rich), Keats, Shakespeare. The rich in the end, like the poor, simply make up the numbers.
Alfred Noble was a rich man. So far I know he earned maximum money by marketing of his discovery - Dynamite.
So, it is not correct to everybody.
But most of the business houses perform business in not a totally ethical way.
Some act like criminals.
In India, they borrowed a huge amount of money from the nationalised banks and did not returned them. Total such Non Performing Assets reached almost 12% of the total capacity of all the banks. That makes the banks sick.
They manged politicians and so bank administration even can not disclose their names!
Suppose you’re standing on a footbridge over train tracks. On one side you see a trolley approaching, and on the other you see five railroad workers. Next to you is an overweight stranger. The trolley is out of control, and the workers can’t hear you yelling. The only way to save their lives is to push the fat man off the footbridge into the path of the trolley, killing him. Would you do it?
It seems you’d have to be pretty cold-hearted to shove someone off a bridge into the path of a train. But from another perspective, that is the most beneficial thing you could do, saving the most lives. Empathy, an important ingredient in morality, helps prevent us from assaulting others, which is normally a good thing. But maybe it’s sometimes a bad thing. New research shows that upper-class people have less empathy than lower-class people, but that sometimes this can lead them to do the most good for the most people when their bleeding-heart compatriots won’t.
to me Definitely not. Some people use it but actually it makes you morally poor
My Dear
I am sorry ,I do not agree with you to involve all people
Greeting
No not at all, on the other hand ethics stand as one of the biggest assets of human beings. There are several exceptions no doubt where unethical people have been rich and successful, be it in any field. However, sticking to your ethics, and being successful and rich is a special feeling that is away from any malice and fear.
Actually, the same can be said of the poor. It is not a set of attitudes limited to the rich. Perhaps, the major difference is that the greedy poor are less good at it.
Noooooo , look at Warren Buffet !!!
Elon Musk /Jack Ma .
Jack Ma founder of Alibaba distributors , struggled growing up !!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/30/jack-ma-dont-fear-making-mistakes-in-your-20s-and-30s.html
Thank you Lubna Aparna Murthy Monyer Al-Fatlawi Haitham Alshilby for your answers
Not always. It does help in making money quickly and efficiently.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology