Slashdot Mirror


Are Rich People Less Moral?

sciencehabit writes "New research suggests that the upper classes are more likely to behave dishonorably than those lower on the economic spectrum. The rich are more likely to cheat, steal, and even disobey traffic laws than those with less money and power (abstract). Curiously, in one experiment, Prius drivers also behaved badly, regardless of their wealth."

4 of 1,040 comments (clear)

  1. The rich are not without the need for morals by prgrmr · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
    Napoleon Bonaparte

  2. Re:Yes by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maybe it depends on context too. Ie, in the US if you're really rich a traffic ticket means nothing to you. There's no punitive value to it. So if you're rich and slightly immoral you don't worry about tickets (especially petty stuff like parking tickets), but if you're poor and slightly immoral you still don't want that ticket. However there are countries where traffic ticket fines are determined by your ability to pay. If you're rich you may get a very huge fine big enough to make you sit up and take notice and try not to repeat that mistake.

    In other words, even if everyone has the same level of ethics and morality, it will appear that the rich are less moral just because they're less affected by the penalties.

    Now with things with no financial benefit or penalty it may be more interesting. Ie, cheating at solitaire, cheating at a board game with your friends, fudging your D&D character sheet, etc. Are the rich more likely to do that type of cheating? (especially those who are wealthy but not so wealthy that they just buy new friends)

  3. Re:Wealth is Not Produced by Excess of Charity... by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 5, Informative

    At which point, they're no longer rich, right?

    Also, I've heard the "eye of a needle is figurative" argument before- what is the evidence that it wasn't intended literally?

    I mean, presumably they had needles with eyes at the time, or else they wouldn't have used the name for the walled city's door.

  4. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many people are not quite smart enough to understand the 30% rule for mortgage-to-income ratio. They also are not smart enough to understand the interest-only or ARM loan issues. They rely upon a lender or broker to help them understand.

    Normally, lenders have the borrowers interests in mind when making a loan because the lender will hold the loan for many years. However, with Mortgage Backed Securities (bundled home loans), a lender became a reseller of loans instead of a holder of loans. This meant that they no longer had a long term interest in how the borrower fared and instead only had a short term interest in issuing a mortgage... thus many lenders turned to predatory and illegal practices to obtain more borrowers. Many lenders knowingly approved loans that were traditionally deemed very risky, some falsified income verification paperwork, and still overs actively lied to clients and told them that the housing market never goes down and a home is the best investment you can make.

    I'd place the blame at 75% lenders and 25% borrowers. And I don't feel sorry for any lender... they got bailed out. Borrowers, however, got the shaft.