Is it possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul?

[stinkcat_14]

Now, why does it concern you so much? If you personally have no interest in building a business that earns $100 million, then I don’t see what possible importance it has for you.

I am an academic economist. My job is to think about the economic and moral consequences of people’s behavior. So when I ask is it possible to become filthy rich without losing one’s soul, the question is does the lust for extreme wealth that our society encourages, have potential negative consequences?

If you are interested in building a business that earns $100 million, then you should be able to assess your reasons for wanting to do it and, therefore, whether you would “lose your soul” in the process.

Sounds kind of like the argument made by pro-choicers. Let every woman make her own decision and everyone else just keep quiet. It would seem like in this case that we could determine whether or not there is the danger of losing your soul in the pursuit of extreme wealth. It seems that some people are offended by the question being raised, even by the wealthy.

One thing that can and does happen: people start a business because it is their particular interest and their way to make a living. It then becomes wildly successful and they earn $100 million. The money may not have come from greed, but rather from success. No problem there that I can see, unless you believe that business success = losing your soul.

I don’t equate business success with losing your soul. In addition, it is certainly possible that someone could make $100 million without being greedy. Although once again, there could be a sample selection bias at work here. If you have a bigger struggle with greed, you are probably going to be less likely to gravitate towards those areas where more money is being made.

I think we all need to assess our attachment to material things - rich, poor or “middle class.” You consider yourself to be “one of the rich people in the US,” which I find quite interesting. You picked $100 million, I’m guessing, because to you that is “filthy rich.” Guess what? Someone with much less money than you could ask the same question about whatever level of wealth you have. Have you lost your soul in the process of becoming “rich?”

You obviously didn’t read my initial post did you? I admitted that my number was arbitrary. What I wanted to distinguish is the person who puts $500 a month into index funds for 40 years and ends up with a few million. That in my opinion is different from the person who sets out to make $100 million. If I want to make $100 million, will there be a greater incentive to cheat, to make money a god, to neglect the other important things in my life? I think there is a qualitative difference between those two numbers. If you have a better number, please feel free to suggest it.

 

[JRKH]

I am an academic economist. My job is to think about the economic and moral consequences of people’s behavior. So when I ask is it possible to become filthy rich without losing one’s soul, the question is does the lust for extreme wealth that our society encourages, have potential negative consequences?

I would say you have answered your own question here, but at the same time you are trying to hedge it a bit.

As you ask the question here the answer is Clearly NO, one cannot Lust after extreme wealth without losing one’s soul.
Lust for extreme wealth is sinful. Such Lust will, without a doubt, lead to any number of other sins as one attempts to satisfy that lust.

The idea that this lust may have “potential negative consequences” indicates a incorrectly formed conscience since it shows that you do not consider the Lust to be sinful in and of itself.

Peace
James

 

[jman507]

It is not probable for anyone to achieve a net worth of $100 million. Probably less than 0.01% of the people in this country will achieve that level of wealth.

But that’s not the point. The point is, is such a person likely to be any more immoral than anyone else?

I suggest walking through the poorest part of your city and watching what goes on. Those muggers, dope dealers, drug addicts, prostitutes and so on are not multi-millionaires.

Can you show that the rate of crime is higher for people who make more than say, $10 million a year, than for people on welfare?

I don’t think crime rate would be the best direct measure. The process of having that money can help you avoid crime. Chances are the person that can earn that type of money is rather smart, and may figure out how to avoid doing criminal acts. That person may also have legal council to help guide the legal issues. That person may also be able to do things that are not criminal, but are nevertheless sinful.

As to the OP, I think there are all kinds of pitfalls for a person who may amass that type of money, but that doesn’t mean they will lose their soul. Others without that type of money also have many pitfalls themselves. I think the person who’s always had comfort is more at risk than a person with hardships to humble the spirit, but just because a person has money doesn’t mean they will not have hardships.

Of course that’s all speculation, since we don’t really have a great idea of who has lost their soul eternally. We do have ideas about sin though.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Excellent points Vern!

To be even more specific, I would say that it is probably just as likely (possibly even more likely…I don’t know) for someone in the bottom 50% to “worship mammon” as it is for the top 1%. Wealth is not the issue. Love of money is the issue.

It is also very likely that those who are overly critical of the possibility of the “filthy rich” to be saved are in jeopardy themselves due to envy.

I believe you’ve broken the code!

 

[stinkcat_14]

It is not probable for anyone to achieve a net worth of $100 million. Probably less than 0.01% of the people in this country will achieve that level of wealth.

But that’s not the point. The point is, is such a person likely to be any more immoral than anyone else?

I never said that people who seek extreme wealth are more immoral, just whether the pursuit of extreme wealth is more likely to lead a fall from the state of grace, or to avoid getting into the to state of grace in the first place.

For example, a Mother Teresa who had an abortion would be less immoral than Hitler. Killing one is not as bad as killing millions. However, assuming neither confessed, they would both have the same eternal fate.

I suggest walking through the poorest part of your city and watching what goes on. Those muggers, dope dealers, drug addicts, prostitutes and so on are not multi-millionaires.

Can you show that the rate of crime is higher for people who make more than say, $10 million a year, than for people on welfare?]

And who are more likely to cheat on the income taxes, and who causes more damage to the economy when they do?

Also, crime is only a subset of immorality. The criteria for getting into heaven is not whether or not you committed criminal acts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never said that people who seek extreme wealth are more immoral, just whether the pursuit of extreme wealth is more likely to lead a fall from the state of grace, or to avoid getting into the to state of grace in the first place.

Then how do you explain the murders, muggings, prostitution, drug sales and abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and so on in the lowest socio-economic groups?

Clearly, there is no correlation between wealth and immorality.

For example, a Mother Teresa who had an abortion would be less immoral than Hitler. Killing one is not as bad as killing millions. However, assuming neither confessed, they would both have the same eternal fate.

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

I
And who are more likely to cheat on the income taxes, and who causes more damage to the economy when they do?

How are taxes vital to the economy?

I
Also, crime is only a subset of immorality. The criteria for getting into heaven is not whether or not you committed criminal acts.

I suggest a serial killer would be less likely to arrive in heaven than a person who fudged his tax return.

 

[rlg94086]

I am an academic economist. My job is to think about the economic and moral consequences of people’s behavior. So when I ask is it possible to become filthy rich without losing one’s soul, the question is does the lust for extreme wealth that our society encourages, have potential negative consequences?

If that was the real question, then you should have posed it that way. It is the “lust” (e.g. greed) that is an issue, not the extreme wealth. If you have nothing and seek to gain $1000 out of greed, then you have “lost your soul…” at least until you repent, confess and receive absolution.

stinkcat_14:

Sounds kind of like the argument made by pro-choicers. Let every woman make her own decision and everyone else just keep quiet. It would seem like in this case that we could determine whether or not there is the danger of losing your soul in the pursuit of extreme wealth. It seems that some people are offended by the question being raised, even by the wealthy.

I agree with Vern, this is totally irrelevant. Do you wish to make accumulation of wealth illegal?

stinkcat_14:

I don’t equate business success with losing your soul. In addition, it is certainly possible that someone could make $100 million without being greedy. Although once again, there could be a sample selection bias at work here. If you have a bigger struggle with greed, you are probably going to be less likely to gravitate towards those areas where more money is being made.

I disagree. Greed is a common struggle. It occurs at all strata of society and in most professions.

stinkcat_14:

You obviously didn’t read my initial post did you? I admitted that my number was arbitrary. What I wanted to distinguish is the person who puts $500 a month into index funds for 40 years and ends up with a few million. That in my opinion is different from the person who sets out to make $100 million. If I want to make $100 million, will there be a greater incentive to cheat, to make money a god, to neglect the other important things in my life? I think there is a qualitative difference between those two numbers. If you have a better number, please feel free to suggest it.

I did read your original post. If someone has no money whatsoever, and they seek $100 out of greed and lies, cheats or steals to get it, then they have sinned. The number is meaningless. If a bum on the streets kills another man for his cigarettes or booze, then he is also acting out of greed. I’m not offended by your question, but I’m not sure why you don’t get this.

Besides, regardless of the individual’s wealth, greed is something that can be overcome, so the original question is really a silly one. You only really “lose your soul” if you die unrepentant. The assumption made in the question is that the person who has a strong desire to become “filthy rich” will be forever greedy. Anyone can have a change of heart, but for those who struggle with envy I guess it is more comfortable to condemn those who struggle with greed than to work on their own sins.

What Jesus asked the rich man to do was to give away everything he had and follow Him. The man went away because he couldn’t do it. It has nothing to do with his wealth. We all need to look at our attachment to material goods.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Then how do you explain the murders, muggings, prostitution, drug sales and abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and so on in the lowest socio-economic groups?

Clearly, there is no correlation between wealth and immorality.

But there could be a correlation between the pursuit of wealth, especially extreme levels of wealth and immorality. That is the issue that I am raising.

How is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

The point is that you only need one mortal sin to go to hell. We are not judged relatively to someone else, we are judged according to God’s law.

How are taxes vital to the economy?

If people don’t pay their taxes that they owe, the government will have to borrow the difference. After all, spending is set in anticipation of expected tax revenue. If we get less taxes due to people cheating on their taxes, then the government has to borrow money. When the government borrows, interest rates are driven up and it crowds out private investment, and of course lower private investment means lower economic growth.

I suggest a serial killer would be less likely to arrive in heaven than a person who fudged his tax return.

I like your term fudged. It seems to suggest that you don’t think cheating on your taxes is a mortal sin. I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am. Now I think that we can agree that at least two of the conditions for a mortal sin exist for cheating on your taxes. That is: full knowledge and free consent. After all, nobody is coerced into cheating on their taxes and everybody knows that it is wrong. The question then is whether it is a grave matter. Let’s think of it this way, if I owed you $10,000 but only paid you $9,000 would that be me fudging, or would that be a grave matter called stealing? What if I paid you $100 less than I owed you, would that still be grave? Would you let your bank get away with paying you $100 less than they owed you? Would you just say: “oh, they are just fudging, its no big deal”.

If cheating on your taxes is a mortal sin, then it doesn’t matter whether you cheat on your taxes or are a serial killer, they both remove you from the state of grace.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But there could be a correlation between the pursuit of wealth, especially extreme levels of wealth and immorality. That is the issue that I am raising.

There could be a correlation between the length of someone’s nose and his IQ. But there isn’t.

The point is that you only need one mortal sin to go to hell. We are not judged relatively to someone else, we are judgedaccording to God’s law.

The point is prejudice is a sin, too. To automatically assume – without proof – that one class of people is more sinful than another is the sin of prejudice.

If people don’t pay their taxes that they owe, the government will have to borrow the difference.

It’s called an income tax because it’s based on your income. It has no direct relation to need.

After all, spending is set in anticipation of expected tax revenue.

No, it’s not. If it were, we use a zero-base budget and wouldn’t be running deficits.

If we get less taxes due to people cheating on their taxes, then the government has to borrow money. When the government borrows, interest rates are driven up and it crowds out private investment, and of course lower private investment means lower economic growth.

The government borrows money because the government spends like a drunken sailor. If revenue were to double tomorrow, the deficit would still go up.

Let me point out something every storekeeper knows – there is a certain amount of loss, due to spoilage, pilfering, and so on. When working up a budget, the storekeeper allows for that. If he didn’t, he’d go bankrupt.

I like your term fudged. It seems to suggest that you don’t think cheating on your taxes is a mortal sin. I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am.

You are wrong.

I don’t deduct charitable giving. But some people do. Some people – like a former president – donate used clothing and so on and deduct that from their taxes. Isn’t that fudging?

Now I think that we can agree that at least two of the conditions for a mortal sin exist for cheating on your taxes. That is: full knowledge and free consent. After all, nobody is coerced into cheating on their taxes and everybody knows that it is wrong.

Is it wrong to take a deduction for charitable giving? I think it is.

Is it wrong to take a deduction for giving something that would otherwise wind up in the landfill? I think it is.

The question then is whether it is a grave matter. Let’s think of it this way, if I owed you $10,000 but only paid you $9,000 would that be me fudging, or would that be a grave matter called stealing? What if I paid you $100 less than I owed you, would that still be grave? Would you let your bank get away with paying you $100 less than they owed you? Would you just say: “oh, they are just fudging, its no big deal”.

What did I buy from the government?

If cheating on your taxes is a mortal sin, then it doesn’t matter whether you cheat on your taxes or are a serial killer, they both remove you from the state of grace.

Which is the old “sin is sin” fallacy. The Church, however, sees degrees of sinfulness.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Which is the old “sin is sin” fallacy. The Church, however, sees degrees of sinfulness.

What I said was that if cheating on your taxes is a mortal sin, then it is enough to get you into hell. You didn’t argue that it was not a mortal sin, so I can only assume that you don’t dispute that. If you do dispute that, please tell us why cheating on your taxes is not a mortal sin.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The point is prejudice is a sin, too. To automatically assume – without proof – that one class of people is more sinful than another is the sin of prejudice.

Where did I say that one class of people were more sinful than another?

 

[vern_humphrey]

What I said was that if cheating on your taxes is a mortal sin, then it is enough to get you into hell. You didn’t argue that it was not a mortal sin, so I can only assume that you don’t dispute that. If you do dispute that, please tell us why cheating on your taxes is not a mortal sin.

Since I pay more taxes than I am required by law to pay (because I do not deduct charitable donations) I have no problems here.

For others, who work the tax laws so as to look generous and pay less (e.g., Ted Turner and his billion dollar donation to the UN which saved him more than a billion in taxes), I leave that to their consciences.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Since I pay more taxes than I am required by law to pay (because I do not deduct charitable donations) I have no problems here.

For others, who work the tax laws so as to look generous and pay less (e.g., Ted Turner and his billion dollar donation to the UN which saved him more than a billion in taxes), I leave that to their consciences.

I am glad that we agree that cheating on your taxes can be a mortal sin. Now who is more likely to cheat on their taxes, the poor or the wealthy?

 

[Jefferson7]

I know a man who is almost a billionare. Know one would ever know by looking at him that he had that much money and he doesn’t act like it either. He gives a lot of money to charities and has used a lot of his money to start two seperate home schooling companies. He is a great man who is just very smart and made it big. So to answer your question I think it really depends on the morals of the person as how they will act when they are rich.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where did I say that one class of people were more sinful than another?

You said things like:

Is it possible to become filthy rich without losing your soul?

Which even you admit shows prejudice against the “filthy rich.”

You also said:

So when I ask is it possible to become filthy rich without losing one’s soul, the question is does the lust for extreme wealth that our society encourages, have potential negative consequences?

And:

But there could be a correlation between the pursuit of wealth, especially extreme levels of wealth and immorality. That is the issue that I am raising.

(And of course you did not offer any evidence of such a correlation.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I am glad that we agree that cheating on your taxes can be a mortal sin. Now who is more likely to cheat on their taxes, the poor or the wealthy?

The poor. For example, I know several people who will quit work each year so as to draw money from the government through the EITC instead of paying taxes.

But all the millionaires I know have an accountant do their taxes, and the accountant follows the law scruplously.

 

[JRKH]

The envy card again. My angle is not envy. I personally don’t care how much anyone has. After all, I consider myself to be one of the rich people in the US. I don’t envy someone with $100 million, because I will never spend what I have. In that situation, what good would it do for me to be envious?

However, I think some legitamite questions can be raised, such as:

1. Can you make $100 million without making money your god?
2. Can you earn $100 million without losing the humility that Christians should have?

Now, personally I don’t feel guilty for being rich, but I think it is reasonable to raise certain questions as to the potential hazards of the pursuit of wealth.

The above post caught my eye when I read it but I didn’t want to get too “personal” in the discussion. However I would like to raise a point or two in general that relates to the bolded sections.

If one is rich enough that they, “will never spend what (they) have” it seems to indicate that they have more than is necessary for a comfortable and secure life. In that case, they should endevour to either spend the money charitably, or make such charitable provision for after they pass on. If one holds onto the excess money, thus hoarding it, then one may guilty of the sin of greed and “not doing to the least of them”.
The Question for such a person, and I am not trying to be personal here, is if you do not feel guilty for being rich - for having more than you’ll ever need - why not? Why doesn’t this person feel there is more they can and should do?

Peace
James

 

[stinkcat_14]

If that was the real question, then you should have posed it that way. It is the “lust” (e.g. greed) that is an issue, not the extreme wealth. If you have nothing and seek to gain $1000 out of greed, then you have “lost your soul…” at least until you repent, confess and receive absolution.

I think there is a qualitative difference between the two situations though. If you want to make $1000, there are more ways to make $1000 without being greedy and falling into sin than if you want to make $100 million. I am not saying that it is not possible to make $100 million without sinning, but I would imagine that if that was your goal, there would be plenty of opportunities to sin along the way.

I agree with Vern, this is totally irrelevant. Do you wish to make accumulation of wealth illegal?

No, I am not against the accumulation of wealth, although I think it is not unreasonable to warn people of the dangers of the accumulation of wealth. Believe me, it is harder to be humble when you are wealthy than when you are poor.

I disagree. Greed is a common struggle. It occurs at all strata of society and in most professions.

I think there may be a sample selection bias which skews the data a bit, but if we are honest, I think we all struggle with greed to some extent. Although, the you would be amazed that the envy I see among some of my wealthier friends. Being rich is no cure for envy.

I did read your original post. If someone has no money whatsoever, and they seek $100 out of greed and lies, cheats or steals to get it, then they have sinned. The number is meaningless. If a bum on the streets kills another man for his cigarettes or booze, then he is also acting out of greed. I’m not offended by your question, but I’m not sure why you don’t get this.

It’s not that I don’t get this, it is just that I limited the scope of my question.

Besides, regardless of the individual’s wealth, greed is something that can be overcome, so the original question is really a silly one. You only really “lose your soul” if you die unrepentant. The assumption made in the question is that the person who has a strong desire to become “filthy rich” will be forever greedy. Anyone can have a change of heart, but for those who struggle with envy I guess it is more comfortable to condemn those who struggle with greed than to work on their own sins.

What Jesus asked the rich man to do was to give away everything he had and follow Him. The man went away because he couldn’t do it. It has nothing to do with his wealth. We all need to look at our attachment to material goods.

I do think however, if someone is pursuing a path to extreme wealth, it is reasonable to warn them of the dangers. And after all, there are many dangers that come along with wealth. Like I said, it is harder to be humble, when you know you can get your way many times by threatening to take your business elsewhere. When you are poor, you have much less leverage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The above post caught my eye when I read it but I didn’t want to get too “personal” in the discussion. However I would like to raise a point or two in general that relates to the bolded sections.

If one is rich enough that they, “will never spend what (they) have” it seems to indicate that they have more than is necessary for a comfortable and secure life. In that case, they should endevour to either spend the money charitably, or make such charitable provision for after they pass on. If one holds onto the excess money, thus hoarding it, then one may guilty of the sin of greed and “not doing to the least of them”.
The Question for such a person, and I am not trying to be personal here, is if you do not feel guilty for being rich - for having more than you’ll ever need - why not? Why doesn’t this person feel there is more they can and should do?

Peace
James

This seems to be as good a place as any to point out that it is a false assumption that the rich have lots of money.

Most rich people have lots of property. For example, a friend of mine has a small factory. Now that property is valued at more than he can spend – but he doesn’t have that in cash.

So the idea that he should “spend the money charitably” raises a strange image – should he sell a lathe and put a machinist out of work? Or should he rather manage his business so as to keep his employees and even expand it to add more?

 

[rlg94086]

I do think however, if someone is pursuing a path to extreme wealth, it is reasonable to warn them of the dangers. And after all, there are many dangers that come along with wealth. Like I said, it is harder to be humble, when you know you can get your way many times by threatening to take your business elsewhere. When you are poor, you have much less leverage.

I’m sorry, but I have to correct you. The saying goes: “Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble, when you’re perfect in every way.”

Seriously though, humility is also a problem at every strata of society. A poor man with a fancy coat can suffer pride just as much as a rich man. And, I agree with your earlier statement regarding envy. Wealthy people can be as envious as a poor person.

The lesson today class is that we all are capable of and in danger of committing the same sins - rich or poor.