Morals are for middle-class people. If you're broke, you're worried about survival. If you're rich, morality doesn't apply to you. Agree or Disagree?

[MCheetah]

Tupac

Morals are for middle class people. Poor people need to do whatever they can do to survive, and aren't going to die in the name of self righteousness. While the rich control everyone below them and can change the rules whenever they wish, because according to them "what they do is for the greater good" and being a billionaire buys a lot of lawyers, or some other BS excuse.
"Whatever; I have money." - Bill Gates, probably.

Do you agree or disagree?

Agree / Mostly Agree.

Disagree.

[Mia-Wallace]

Nah. You don't have morals and don't teach them to your kids, your kids will lose your money in a few years. Another family will take your place and control theirs as well as your share of the wealth in society.

That's why so many new-rich people lose in the long run. They have an opportunity or just this one great guy in the family who pulls everyone up. Then they start spoiling themselves and their kids, and their dumb kids will eventually crap on everything that guy made.

Ditching morality is the first step towards poverty and poverty always amplifies immorality, because down there resources are few, demand is very high, and the rampant stress and trauma are the the icing on the cake. People must be both physically and mentally tough AND have discipline and morals in order to end up in a very good place, and unfortunately, the environment they live in makes all of those extremely hard for them.

Still, if you let them justify their immorality (even if it IS justifiable in a crappy setting where you're fighting for survival) it will only make their situation worse, because now they will not curb their egos, accept they can't have everything while they are alive, shut the hell up, and work together for a better future.

What will happen is total chaos and disintegration. This is exactly what happens during communist revolutions. The lower classes are told morality is meaningless and they must be able to achieve what they want (whatever it is) in one lifetime and they CAN do it if they just take over the government, kill this and that group of people, and implement this system. They always end up in a tornado of blood and death and frenzy and after a few years a new group of "political nobles" appear who have all the money and power. Their situation will either stay the same or worsens. Usually, they will even lose their chance of improving their lives in the course of a few generations.

For a person or a society, becoming wealthy is always the easy part (and it's not easy). What is hard is *staying* wealthy. And it can't be achieved by anything but discipline and morality.

This is also why I think our culture now, with the way family and morality is being ditched, is optimized for poverty, not for achieving wealth or staying wealthy.

And again, this will affect the working/lower classes most.

I don't usually use quotes, but this one is my favorite:

"The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty". Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute, get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed."

- Robert A. Heinlein

P. s.

"While the rich control everyone below them and can change the rules whenever they wish"

That wasn't always the case even when the aristocrats had almost all the money and power and everyone else was just a literal slave to them. You're saying this more than 200 years after the French revolution. Today's upper class try to escape laws by spending a lot of money, yes, that happens, but many of them still get caught. Saying they have absolute power is not true.

Their inability to control the population directly is why some of them are using other, softer means of control, like controlling the narrative.

Being immoral and controlling the people to be able to afford your unfettered freedom can be a means of staying rich (basically by creating an aristocracy and a slave class), but over time, it will destroy your society because it removes all competition and innovation.

Basically, you will have two polar opposite groups both displaying the cynical attitude of the lowest class of people imaginable. One group has all the money and power and one has none. Both are stuck together and have no way but to kill each other to "keep" or "gain" what they want. There's no dialogue, no progress, nothing. Just wasted energy and meaningless dominance.

Thankfully, many upper class people today know that would be a disaster. That's true at least where I live.

[MCheetah]

" You don't have morals and don't teach them to your kids, your kids will lose your money in a few years. Another family will take your place and control theirs as well as your share of the wealth in society. ... What is hard is *staying* wealthy. And it can't be achieved by anything but discipline and morality."

Then why do celebrities and the kids of celebrities do so well then? You take a family like Will Smith's and they still have money even now. Or Alec Baldwin's. Or Hulk Hogan's. Or Ozzy Osbourne's. Or most politicians, including the Bidens (or Trumps)? Or the ultimate family of f*ck-ups, the Kardashians. Why aren't any of them failing? Hunter Biden alone should be ruining the family legacy, right?

"People must be both physically and mentally tough AND have discipline and morals in order to end up in a very good place"

I never ended up in a very good place.

"The lower classes are told morality is meaningless and they must be able to achieve what they want (whatever it is) in one lifetime and they CAN do it"

This is what's going on in America right now with the socialist/Communist left. Except the government is telling them to simply obey and they can get everything. I forget what you call that...

"it will destroy your society because it removes all competition and innovation."

I've always believed this and I say you're right. Look at Disney, Amazon, and all the other monopolies.

"Thankfully, many upper class people today know that would be a disaster."

The rest of the Western world must be vastly different from Sweden/Germany/Switzerland then...

[Mia-Wallace]

You're basically refering to America and its crappy new culture that is leading us towards such a nightmare.

I said you can stay rich by controlling the population. And I said some people in the upper class, especially in certain countries, are trying softer means of control since they can't do now what the ancient aristocrats did to their slaves.

And yes, if that ever happens, you're "SOL". You'll be a slave and yes, those groups in the upper class who are now trying their best to escape the law with relaive success will be completely immune and all their actions will be protected by law, even if they rape your mom. That's how it was for most of human history and it's still that way in Iran and China. It obviously can happen again, unless there's awareness.

And yes, things are different in Germany. For one, the rich are invisible here and the people don't pay attention to them for farting or sucking a cock, like Americans do. If you pay people money because they inject shit in their lips and ass, repeat a stupid line on a reality tv show, or just fart and record it every morning, you bet they can "stay" rich by farting alone. Being moral wouln't be a requirement.

In any case, what I said is based on the assumption that people want to live in a healthy society where *every* group is progressing and society will stay healthy in the long run. If we want that, every single group must stay moral, loyal, dutiful, and disciplined.

If we don't, then we live in a jungle. One group will try to assert dominance by all means possible and gain unfettered freedom, and obviously the upper class has more chance to achieve that position. They will achieve it, and your best bet is to try and join them.

And no, I don't believe most upper class people I know like to live in a jungle.

[purplepoppy]

I once heard it said that behind every success story there's a criminal beginning. And I think there may be some truth to it. While the honest business will go under in it's first year it's the one who fiddles their taxes that survives, it's the one who doesn't question where the stock comes from that thrives. All too often I hear the money to actually start the business came from crime. No one ever proves these things but everyone seems to know the origin stories of certain businesses.

[RealMarek]

If your broke and think morality doesn’t apply to you, you are very apt to end up getting caught, unable to afford representation, and forced into a plea deal even though the prosecution’s case prep is probably riddled with holes. Now if you are wealthy AND your ideology is conformant with the ideology pushed by the elites, then it’s a different story.

[MCheetah]

But morality is subjective and mostly dependent on obedience and doing what those around you want you to do, even if it's to your own detriment. It applies to everyone, but not everyone is in the same situation. Not saying it's okay to rob people, but people do desperate things for a reason.

[RealMarek]

That’s true. If a person can’t put food on the table, they’re more apt to dispense with moral considerations.

[exitseven]

This is mostly true. Morals are just the result of a reaction to an environment. You change the environment and suddenly you have to change the rules.

[Fuentes]

Morals should be for everyone but law wise if you have a team if great lawyers or even one good big lawyer. You don't have to follow the laws.

[JesseJayNeak]

Disagree since you can lose your wealth in any moment

[msc545]

Seems a bit simplistic.