Economic Prosperity Vs. Moral degradation?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

Is it true in most cases that Economic Prosperity esp. excessive prosperity also cause Moral degradation which result increase in crime rates?

Best wishes.

[Puppycow]

No. And what is "excessive prosperity"?

[Aridas]

*raises an eyebrow* I see no good reason to say yes and good reason to say that the opposite is true, so no. I'd further say that anyone who was trying to make that claim has no easy task ahead of them in making it seem likely at anything other than a very biased level.

Was this a claim that someone else made, a random bit of wondering, or an attempt to lead to some larger argument?

[Puppycow]

Just a couple of statistical examples since you mentioned crime rates:

Corruption Perceptions Index

The 5 countries perceived to be most corrupt are:
Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea and Somalia.
In terms of GDP (PPP) per capita:
Uzbekistan: 3,302, Afghanistan: 956, Myanmar: 1325, Somalia: 600 (North Korea is not on the list at all, but it's well known that the people are practically starving and rely on shipments of humanitarian food from other countries).

The 5 countries perceived to be least corrupt are New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Singapore.
In terms of GDP (PPP) per capita:
New Zealand: 27,668, Denmark: 37,152, Finland: 36,236, Sweden: 40,394, and Singapore: 59,711.

Another statistical measure of crime is homicide rates:
The 5 countries with the highest rates of homicide are:
Honduras, El Salvador, Côte d'Ivoire, Jamaica and Venezuela
In terms of GDP (PPP) per capita:
Honduras: 4,345, El Salvador: 7,550, Côte d'Ivoire: 1,590, Jamaica: 9,029 and Venezuela: 12,568.
The 5 countries with the lowest rates of homicide are:
Singapore, Iceland, Hong Kong, Monaco and Palau
In terms of GDP (PPP) per capita:
Singapore: 59,711, Iceland: 38,061, Hong Kong: 49,137, Monaco: 63,400, Palau: 15,023

So, at least in terms of corruption and homicide, the opposite seems to be the case.
Prosperity leads to improved morality.

[Kumar]

Thanks. By Excessive prosperity I meant prosperity above normal.

Crime for basic need is somewhat different from crime for greed. One may get addiction, lust or greed for money eventhough he has sufficient to take care of his needs.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

No. And what is "excessive prosperity"?

And for that matter, what's 'moral degradation'?

That aside, I agree with Puppy Cow and Aridas: the opposite is true. Wealth allows countries to feed and educate their peoples. These are civilising forces.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Thanks. By Excessive prosperity I meant prosperity above normal.

What's normal? The global average mean earnings in $ ? Because that wouldn't make you very comfortable at all. Do you mean comparing individuals or states?

Originally Posted by Kumar

Crime for basic need is somewhat different from crime for greed. One may get addiction, lust or greed for money eventhough he has sufficient to take care of his needs.

One person's need is another person's luxury, or non-essential item. e.g. You try telling a heroin addict that his fix is not a need. In his world, he has no need greater.

What if you're a 'career' criminal? It's your job. You might steal on order. Putting aside the clear moral differences, that's like me going to work.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Though I have a bias for poverty causing more crime (moral degradation, one might say), most authors I read say the statistical evidence isn't there. I'll have to go back and check.

[Lowpro]

I imagine theres going to be an argument to link greed at the expense of others here

[timhau]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

That aside, I agree with Puppy Cow and Aridas: the opposite is true. Wealth allows countries to feed and educate their peoples. These are civilising forces.

Exactly. I know some people who have spent a lot of time in a couple of 3rd world countries, doing fieldwork. Every now and then, they'd get grad students as research assistants, and some of them were starry-eyed idealists who believed in the nobility of the poor; they were usually robbed blind within a day of their arrival.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Thanks. By Excessive prosperity I meant prosperity above normal.

What is normal prosperity? I drive a 2005 Corolla, am I above or below normal?

[Bikewer]

Economic downturns would seem to result in increased property crime, as the unemployed and underemployed seek to somehow get along. Shoplifting, "scrapping", check and credit card fraud....
We have seen an uptick in crimes like bank robbery committed by obviously inept/inexperienced types who are presumably desperate...

[asydhouse]

I suspect Kumar is trying to say that if everyone in a village is in the same ballpark for income, but one guy is a rich man with a conspicuous flaunting of his pleasures while everyone else is toiliing for hard subsistence, then resentment and consequent degradation of moral health in the poor may result, and the rich man may have his moral health brought down by being so bloody callous.... etc

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Kumar

excessive prosperity also cause Moral degradation which result increase in crime rates?

No, but only because excessively prosperous people are able change the law to make their immoral actions legal. Most western countries are totally corrupt and their citizens indulge in immoral behavior on a daily basis, but they have managed to legalize heinous crimes such as usury, idolatry and blasphemy.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The 5 countries perceived to be least corrupt are New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Singapore.

But that's only their perception, not a measure of actual corruption. How can we believe them, when those countries have large numbers of godless atheists who are so lacking moral sense that they can't see the corruption happening everywhere?

Quote:

The 5 countries with the highest rates of homicide are:
Honduras, El Salvador, Côte d'Ivoire, Jamaica and Venezuela

Sure, but how many of the 'victims' were actually depraved criminals who needed killing? And even if all those homicides were real crimes, that still only accounts for a very small percentage of the population. The other 99% are probably extremely moral, as can be gauged by the high proportion of religious people in those countries (eg. Honduras: 86% Christian vs. Singapore: 14.6%).

No doubt some will argue that my application of Biblical moral code to this subject is is not appropriate, but to them I say: How can you relate "economic prosperity" to "moral degradation" if you can't even agree on an objective moral standard?

[sackett]

Hell, all,

Too true in most cases that excessive Kumar cause mental degradation esp. on intronet postings TTTT which result in blub blub?

Sum kinda wishes.

[Twiggett]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No, but only because excessively prosperous people are able change the law to make their immoral actions legal. Most western countries are totally corrupt and their citizens indulge in immoral behavior on a daily basis, but they have managed to legalize heinous crimes such as usury, idolatry and blasphemy.

But that's only their perception, not a measure of actual corruption. How can we believe them, when those countries have large numbers of godless atheists who are so lacking moral sense that they can't see the corruption happening everywhere?

Sure, but how many of the 'victims' were actually depraved criminals who needed killing? And even if all those homicides were real crimes, that still only accounts for a very small percentage of the population. The other 99% are probably extremely moral, as can be gauged by the high proportion of religious people in those countries (eg. Honduras: 86% Christian vs. Singapore: 14.6%).

No doubt some will argue that my application of Biblical moral code to this subject is is not appropriate, but to them I say: How can you relate "economic prosperity" to "moral degradation" if you can't even agree on an objective moral standard?

I am so very, very glad that we have protections here in the U.S. against your sort of thinking.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No, but only because excessively prosperous people are able change the law to make their immoral actions legal. Most western countries are totally corrupt and their citizens indulge in immoral behavior on a daily basis, but they have managed to legalize heinous crimes such as usury, idolatry and blasphemy.

But that's only their perception, not a measure of actual corruption. How can we believe them, when those countries have large numbers of godless atheists who are so lacking moral sense that they can't see the corruption happening everywhere?

Sure, but how many of the 'victims' were actually depraved criminals who needed killing? And even if all those homicides were real crimes, that still only accounts for a very small percentage of the population. The other 99% are probably extremely moral, as can be gauged by the high proportion of religious people in those countries (eg. Honduras: 86% Christian vs. Singapore: 14.6%).

No doubt some will argue that my application of Biblical moral code to this subject is is not appropriate, but to them I say: How can you relate "economic prosperity" to "moral degradation" if you can't even agree on an objective moral standard?

Feel free to define an objective, measurable standard of corruption. We can discuss details later, but at least let's get an idea on the table.

[Kumar]

Thanks all. I think now that moral degradation is both way and individual. Provery can cause it for need whereas richness can cause it for greed. Better to be normal or balanced. Ok?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Feel free to define an objective, measurable standard of corruption.

I can't, but supposedly there must be one, otherwise how could a 'Corruption Perceptions Index' have any weight? Unless of course it doesn't...

But anyway it's irrelevant. Corruption as defined by the CPI is "the misuse of public power for private benefit." Obviously this applies to public officials only, and any correlation to a supposed 'Moral Degradation' of the general population may be purely coincidental.

It might be interesting to see the results of a 'Moral Degradation' survey where people were asked to rate other cultures against their own. Would their own group tend to come out on top simply because they agree with its moral values? What if different groups have morals which are incompatible?

To the average American, prosperity is Good and attaining it is a moral goal. Yet the average American also claims to be a follower of Christ, who said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" and "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven".

Jesus taught that being prosperous is an impediment to improving your moral worth, yet many of the 78% of Americans who call themselves Christians seem to think otherwise. Somewhere there is a disconnect between the desire for wealth, and the moral hazard that it brings. How can a country's conspicuous prosperity not be in itself a Moral Degradation, when it violates the very code of ethics that its citizens profess to follow?

This dilemma obviously doesn't apply to those of us who don't believe in Christ, but we may also hold other views which are widely recognized as immoral (eg. supporting Abortion on Demand, Gay Marriage, raising Taxes). The question that must then be answered is; Which values should be considered when measuring 'Moral Degradation'? Unless we can all agree on exactly what constitutes 'degraded' morals, how can we possibly determine whether they have any relationship to Economic Prosperity?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Thanks all. I think now that moral degradation is both way and individual. Poverty can cause it for need whereas richness can cause it for greed.

It all depends on what you consider to be moral.

If you're poor and your family is starving, 'stealing' a loaf of bread from someone who doesn't need it may be considered a moral act. Conversely, supporters of Capitalism believe that greed is good and selfishness is a virtue. A classic example is the Great Depression, where children starved while farmers poured milk down the drain to keep prices up.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Thanks all. I think now that moral degradation is both way and individual. Provery can cause it for need whereas richness can cause it for greed. Better to be normal or balanced. Ok?

So, it sounds like the third option and that you haven't actually changed much about your position. I could, of course, be wrong.

Now, that said, your failure to define what normal or balanced actually is is a serious flaw to your statement. "Normal" for much of human existence has been distinctly "poor," economically, by the standards of today. Another flaw is that you appear to be focusing on specific cases as opposed to general trends. A third is the failure to consider other factors, such as the prevalent philosophies of a society and related upbringing issues and their effects. Fourth, moral degradation is poorly defined. Moral degradation measured by what standards and what time period? Personally, I'd say that the people of today are, overall, a fair bit more moral than at just about any point in history, by my standards.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by Twiggett

I am so very, very glad that we have protections here in the U.S. against your sort of thinking.

I believe the post you were quoting was satire. At least, I hope so...

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

No, but only because excessively prosperous people are able change the law to make their immoral actions legal. Most western countries are totally corrupt and their citizens indulge in immoral behavior on a daily basis, but they have managed to legalize heinous crimes such as usury, idolatry and blasphemy.

A quick question. What would Western countries be like if the laws legalizing idolatry were repealed? I am not asking in order to start an argument. I really have no idea what the answer is.

[Ladewig]

As for moral degradation. There are folks who say that legalized discrimination against homosexuals is a form of moral degradation. Others say laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination is a sign of moral degradation. The same dichotomy applies to universal heath care in the U.S.


As for me, I'll simply agree with the American anthropologist Professor Harold Hill.
degradation: Playing pool for money while wearing a pinch-back suit and listening to some out of town jasper talk about betting on horse races.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

A quick question. What would Western countries be like if the laws legalizing idolatry were repealed? I am not asking in order to start an argument. I really have no idea what the answer is.

Untenable, as one man's religion is another man's idolatry. Even protestants and catholics would be unable to live in the same country, let alone the myriad of beliefs present in western countries nowadays.

[fagin]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Hello all,

Is it true in most cases that Economic Prosperity esp. excessive prosperity also cause Moral degradation which result increase in crime rates?

Best wishes.

Yes. Now what?

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Feel free to define an objective, measurable standard of corruption. We can discuss details later, but at least let's get an idea on the table.

I don't believe the OP mentioned corruption. His concern was "crime rate" which might be a superset of corruption.

When I hear corruption, I think of someone who pays money to someone charged with enforcing the rules, to obtain favorable treatment to which one is not entitled. An objective, measurable standard for such corruption might be the number of instances of it, the amount of money paid, or some weighted amalgamation of those two plus other factors (number of people impacted, degree of impact, etc.). But those are details.

In general I would expect economic prosperity might decrease corruption, because people who are prosperous would be less likely to risk their reputation for incremental monetary gains. On the other hand, economic prosperity can enable the prosperous to change the rules, as Ramjets noted, making the system of rules itself corrupt. I'd argue that repealing Glass-Steagal was an example of this.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

A classic example is the Great Depression, where children starved while farmers poured milk down the drain to keep prices up.

Way too simple an explanation of milk dumping during the Great Depression. Milk farmers faced bankruptcy; should their own families have starved so they could pay to have milk shipped to say New York City? In addition, there was a powerful milk trust operating in New York State, it had little to do with what milk farmers wanted.

[Twiggett]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

I believe the post you were quoting was satire. At least, I hope so...

Yep, I think you are right after seeing some further posts that were not up. My apologies to Roger.

To restate properly, I am so very, very glad that we have protections here in the U.S. against that sort of thinking.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Untenable, as one man's religion is another man's idolatry. Even protestants and catholics would be unable to live in the same country, let alone the myriad of beliefs present in western countries nowadays.

That was my take on it as well, but I figured I must be missing some critical piece of the puzzle - hence the question.