It is innately human to err, as the popular adage states, especially in prejudging people’s characteristics that have a direct impact on an individual’s prestige, esteem and intellect. As such, there seems to be a predisposition to measure actions of others based on existing social norms, and that veering away from such norms allows a person to be evaluated, accurately or otherwise. In this regard, the main categories for prejudging other people fall under wealth, social status and level of intelligence; all of which seem to serve as norms for the society to evaluate a person’s level of morality. Hence, there is an ethical factor that has to be considered in every act performed or quality exuded by an individual. In this context, people tend to judge others based merely on overt observations of their wealth, social status and intellect, and deem people who exhibit these aspects as superior than others who are less endowed.
The accumulation of wealth per se presents no problem, unless when the wealth of those who possess too much are contrasted with those who have very few. This dilemma on social ethics is not a new issue, given that numerous scholars have already noticed this discrepancy even at the turn of the previous century. In this manner, the esteemed sociologist Thomas Francis Moran has observed in 1901 that “the individual is under certain moral obligations to use his abilities for the general good—for the good of the state” (Moran, 1901, p. 823). What is implied in this statement is the argument that acquiring things in abundance when there are so many who cannot even purchase the bare necessities naturally leads to conflicts on ethics. Another scholar puts it this way: “it makes sense that her good would consist in those thingsthat respond to her value byenhancing her functioning. What is good for a person responds to the goodness of a person” (Rosati, 2006, p. 128). As such, owning things should reflect the goodness of the person and not amplify the boastful and narcissistic nature of humanity, and that it is in overabundance of goods that ethical questions arise that questions the goodness of that person.
Other than wealth, there is also an argument that social class is a strong indicator and predictor of social ethical standards. This indeed directly correlates with the ‘wealth’ factor discussed in the previous paragraph, since “Greater resources, freedomamong the upper class give rise to self-focused social-cognitive tendencies, which we predict will facilitate unethical behavior” (Piff, Stancato, Cote, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner, 2012, p. 4086). More so, inclusion to the upper class of the social hierarchy, thus having access to more privileges, increases the onset of greed, of which great philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle have defined as “the root of personal immorality” (Piff et al., 2012, p. 4086). A good basis for this is that those in the upper class can enjoy more benefits than the people in the lower caste, in terms of finances, career opportunities, and even certain perks with regards to the laws of the land. Hence, it is because the society holds the upper class in an elevated pedestal, so to speak, that greed sets in so much so that, according to the identical findings of seven different and independent studies, “the upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals” (Piff et al., 2012, 4086). In considering these arguments, it becomes clear that while there are indeed advantages that the upper social members enjoy, these same advantages are the very reasons why they become unethical due to greed, and also the reason why other members of the society view them with a certain level of aloofness and even contempt.
The last social aspect that causes ethical conflict is intelligence. This is different from the two aspects previously discussed because intelligence is non-physical and cannot be immediately evaluated based purely on ostensible or overt things. In this regard, moral conflicts occur in the field of intelligence when other people exhibits faster learning abilities than others, in that the former view the latter as being less endowed with intellectual skills than them, thus exhibiting forms of narcissism and a misplaced sense of superiority. In this respect, it can be said that the moral problem begins with the developmental criterion stating that, “The abilities of the intelligence should develop with age and experience” (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000, p. 270), specifically in cases where those who have been taught longer fails to comprehend the instruction, while the newer ones immediately acquire understanding. Consequently, this form of ethics-based dilemma is most apparent in universities and corporate settings, understandably since it is in these environments that instructions are given at a much faster pace than in a normal or ‘civilian’ setting.
Conclusion
There is an underlying tendency to associate unethical behavior on people who seems to have more when compared to the other sectors of the society who have less, specifically on matters of wealth, social status and intelligence. More so, it is also true that the very individuals who have more in life tend to be more susceptible in fostering a wrong sense of self-superiority. In this respect, it can be said that the advantages enjoyed by individuals are the very causes by which they are inclined to act unethically, which can also be said in some aspects that have not been discussed in this paper yet are unquestionably true, such as physical beauty, superior self-confidence, excellence in fields of endeavors, and others. In all of these, what becomes clear is that social inequality brings about two aspects of moral lack; the belief of the less-fortunate that they are being discriminated, and the others’ viewpoint that they are special and have the right to prejudice those who have less.
References
Mayer, J.C., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
Moran, T.F. (1901). The ethics of wealth. American Journal of Sociology, 6(6), 823-838.
Piff, P.K., Stancato, D.M., Cote, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086-4091.
Rosati, C.S. (2006). “Personal Good”. Metaethics after Moore. (T. Horgan & M. Timmons, Eds). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
