Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
What Causes Wealth (and Dishonesty and Greed)?
What Causes Wealth (and Dishonesty and Greed)?
Nov 2, 2025 10:06 AM

A recent national Pew Research Center survey has found conflicting opinions regarding many Americans’ view of the rich:

As Republicans gather for their national convention in Tampa to nominate a presidential candidate known, in part, as a wealthy businessman, a new nationwide Pew Research Center survey finds that many Americans believe the rich are different than other people. They are viewed as more intelligent and more hardworking but also greedier and less honest.

Nearly six-in-ten survey respondents (58%) also say the rich pay too little in taxes, while 26% say they pay their fair share, and just 8% say they pay too much. Even among those who describe themselves as upper or upper-middle class … 52% say e Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.

In spite of these views, overwhelming majorities of self-described middle- and lower-class Americans say they admire people who get rich by working hard (92% and 84%, respectively).

Now, to be charitable, these statistics are not necessarily contradictory. We could conclude that people admire those who “get rich by working hard” but feel that, regrettably, many of the rich do not get there that way (though, according to the survey, 42% presume that the rich are more hard working than others).

However, one could take this another way. As Joe Carter recently pointed out, the “self described” middle class is quite large and poorly defined:

Ask the janitor sweeping pany’s floors and he’ll likely tell you he’s in ‘middle class.’ Query the vice-president of marketing and he will give you the same answer. The single girls down in accounts payable and the married attorneys in the legal department will give the same response. In the land of equal opportunity, it appears, we’re almost all middle class.

It seems that many people assume that they are part of the middle class and, simultaneously, assume that those above them got ahead of them through greed and dishonesty. I’m sure that, in fact, some people do find material success through greed and dishonesty, but this is hardly a charitable assumption of all the rich (or, as the case may be, of all those in a higher e bracket of any kind). Many inherit wealth and others really do work their way up. Given that this is the case, why not focus on leaving a better inheritance for our children and a legacy of hard work, rather than focusing on how much more others have than us and how they surely must have gotten “ahead” by dishonesty or greed?

Indeed, we must remember that, in general, people rise (or fall) to the standard that others set for them. If we expect the worst we will be likely to get it. Instead, we need a more charitable attitude that does not forget the good that business can and often does do (creating jobs, wealth, culture, etc.). As Rev. Robert Sirico writes,

The consequence of a divorce between the world of business and the world of faith would be disastrous in both arenas. For the world of business it would mean not acknowledging any values higher than expediency, profit, and utility, which would result in what has been described as bloody or savage capitalism….

If we are so dismayed by such results, let us not forget the causes.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
How Just Must a Just War Be?
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about just war, I’m passing along this TCS Daily piece by Prof. Bainbridge, “Just War for the Sake of Argument” (it’s also discussed at The Remedy and Bainbridge’s own blog). Bainbridge’s piece measures the current Lebanon/Israel conflict by the standards of just war, and finds it wanting. He makes the following important point: “Although Catholic scholars and theologians have thus made valuable contributions to the just war tradition down through the centuries, the principles...
Money for Nothing, or So it Seems
These kinds of stories make me sick, and they are all mon. In today’s Washington Post, a lengthy article examines the Livestock Compensation Program, which ran from 2002-2003, and cost over $1.2 billion. In “No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid,” Gilbert M. Gaul, Dan Morgan and Sarah Cohen report that over half of that money, “$635 million went to ranchers and dairy farmers in areas where there was moderate drought or none at all, according to an analysis of...
Businesspeople are Evil!
A very, very interesting piece in WSJ this week detailing a study by the Business and Media Institute that looks at how businesspeople are portrayed on television: The study, titled “Bad Company,” looked at the top 12 TV dramas during May and November in 2005, ranging from crime shows like “CSI” to the goofy “Desperate Housewives.” Out of 39 episodes that featured business-related plots, the study found, 77% advanced a negative view of the world merce and its practitioners. On...
Milosz
“…can one build something lasting if the goal is not truth, but power? The few, most penetrating minds of that time understood that what constitutes the sickness of contemporary culture is the repudiation of truth for the sake of action…” Czeslaw Milosz, 1942 ...
Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil
In this mentary, “Transcendence and Obsolescence: The Responsible Stewardship of Oil,” I ask the question: “Why did God create oil?” I raise the question within the context of debates about global warming and the burning of fossil fuels, including Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth and the work of the Evangelical Climate Initiative. I argue that nonrenewable resources, especially fossil fuels, “have the created purpose of providing relatively cheap and pervasive sources of energy. These limited and finite resources help...
Protestants and Natural Law, Part 6
If the mon Protestant objection to natural law revolves around sin, as we saw in Part 5, we should now address the second mon objection that natural law is a rival to God and Scripture. Contemporary evangelical critics, such as Carl Henry, object that natural law elevates autonomous human reason above divine revelation. Henry thinks the Thomist doctrine of natural law teaches a universally shared body of moral beliefs that exist independently of divine revelation. This contrasts, he thinks, with...
Debating the Ethics of Chimeras
My piece on the debate over chimera research and the relevance of your worldview to the debate appears today at BreakPoint, “A Monster Created in Man’s Image.” Drawing on the work of C.S. Lewis, and among the questions and conclusions included, I write, “Chimera research may indeed have some potential benefits, but we cannot ignore the question of potential costs. What toll does such research take on the dignity of human beings? Must we destroy the human person in order...
Answers to just war questions
After ruminating earlier this week about foreign policy and just war, I asked a series of interrelated questions yesterday about just war. Prof. Bainbridge was kind enough to respond, and offered the critically important distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, that is, justness up to war and justness in war. This gets at the difference between justification for the cause or occasion for war, causus belli, and the way in which that war is conducted. Bainbridge concludes,...
Politicizing Scripture
There’s some discussion at Mirror of Justice (here and here) of Martin Marty’s recent piece in The Christian Century, “Snookered,” which raises the issue of the validity of politicians invoking Scripture, using the example of Tom DeLay. The new progressive Christian approach seems to be to assert, rightly of course, that “God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat,” and is rather more nuanced and convincing than, say, “Jesus is a Liberal.” And since so much politics, aside from a...
Classical Liberalism, Foreign Policy, and Just War
One of the more lively and illuminating discussions at last week’s Advanced Studies in Freedom seminar revolved around the question whether and how classical liberalism is applicable to foreign policy, specifically with regard to questions of war. In the New York Times earlier this week, Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, wrote a lengthy op-ed that bears on the relevant questions, “An American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love With.” Wright...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved