How Wealth Reduces Compassion.
Vastmind
Memphis, TN Veteran
I thought this article would make for a good discussion here. From, Scientific American, By Daisy Grewal
--As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline
Here's the paragraph that hit it for me....
.....But why would wealth and status decrease our feelings of compassion for others? After all, it seems more likely that having few resources would lead to selfishness. Piff and his colleagues suspect that the answer may have something to do with how wealth and abundance give us a sense of freedom and independence from others. The less we have to rely on others, the less we may care about their feelings. This leads us towards being more self-focused. Another reason has to do with our attitudes towards greed. Like Gordon Gekko, upper-class people may be more likely to endorse the idea that “greed is good.” Piff and his colleagues found that wealthier people are more likely to agree with statements that greed is justified, beneficial, and morally defensible. These attitudes ended up predicting participants’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior.
Here's the article....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
I'm posting this with the intention, not of giving up everything tomorrow and go for no money living....just maybe a reminder to all of us householders, that as/if we do make more money and climb up the material ladder....let's try to keep practicing compassion and connection with/to others.
Comments
That may be true for the unmindful, but we can make a choice to not be that way. The Buddha depended on the support of wealthy sponsors to keep his community functioning. Compassion and mindfulness can guide us in how to use our wealth to help bring about an end to suffering.
This reminds me of the oft-misquoted passage from the Bible, "Money is the root of all Evil."
The quotation is inaccurate.
The correct quotation is -
"The LOVE of money is the root of all Evil."
(1 Timothy 6:10.)
It goes on to state, ...."which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
Or as another quotation puts it, " "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
(Lord Acton.)
Bill Gates is a classic example of an exception which proves the rule....
I am reminded specifically of Anâthapindika, a very wealthy supporter of the Buddha, who, is presented as having a "sterling quality of heart" and who is mentioned several times in the Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King, the Chinese translation of Asvaghosha's "Life of Buddha."
Anâthapindika did plenty of charity work and when he shared his qualms about his fortune with the Buddha, the latter pointed out to him that he was more useful to his fellow human beings in his present station in life than leading a life of seclusion.
"He that cleaves to wealth, had better cast it away than allow his heart to be poisoned by it; but he who does not cleave to wealth, and possessing riches, uses them rightly, will be a blessing unto his fellow-beings.
"I say unto thee, remain in thy station of life and apply thyself with diligence to thy enterprises. It is not life and wealth and power that enslave men, but the cleaving to life and wealth and power.
"The dharma of the Tathâgata does not require a man to go into homelessness or to resign the world, unless he feels called upon to do so; but the dharma of the Tathâgata requires every man to free himself from the illusion of self, to cleanse his heart, to give up his thirst for pleasure, and lead a life of righteousness.
"And whatever men do, whether they remain in the world as artisans, merchants, and officers of the king, or retire from the world and devote themselves to a life of religious meditation, let them put their whole heart into their task; let them be diligent and energetic, and, if they are like the lotus, which, althought it grows in water, yet remains untouched by the water, if they struggle in life without cherishing envy or hatred, if they live in the world not a life of self but a life of truth, then surely joy, peace, and bliss will dwell in their minds."
There seems to be a disconnect between those that are wealthy and the much, much lower class. Of course, there are a exceptions. I don't think they outnumber the ones who are disconnected, though. Such names stand out for a reason....I think they are rare... I would like to think money wouldn't change me...but It's one of those easy things to say on the front end. It would change me....and like all states...it would be about awareness. I 've heard it say...money will explode any problems you already have and are a representation of how your state of mind is, emotional stability, maturity, etc. I agree...it IS the love of money. Don't you have to have it to love it? I think that's why it's an either extreme problem of after , like the high percentage of lottery winners here that are broke short after or their lives go downhill....or is constantly trying to get it because you need it, loving it?
For me...it's an interesting topic....and the way the different classes live here puts an emphasis on that.
Hmmm...Wealthy people vs the poorer people supporting/giving to the monastery....That can get interesting too....depending on location and for the most part, the elbow grease can do more for a monastery than writing a check...Churches/Temples will always have a few high dollar donors....that's what keeps them open...or like the mega churches here...it's alot of people giving only a few dollars.....and giving of their time or other resources to keep the whole thing going.
I do give more when I have less....I can't lie about that. I've noticed it...When I have overtime on my check, I use it to catch myself up, bills etc.Put more in savings for a rainy day..But when times are tight, I find myself giving in different and even in money ways more.....Anyway...maybe it's just me, but I found the article compelling....
@Vastmind, I'd like you to do me a favour: I'd like you to take a set number of adults in your age-group and of your acquaintance, and ask them: If they won $8,000,000, what would they do with it?
Then ask the same number of people under the age of 18, but older than 15, the same question.
I am almost 100% certain that most of those in the older age group will mention giving some of it away to either relatives or needy charities.
The majority of the younger folk will settle immediately on things they can do for themselves.
We're breeding a new society of "What's in it for me/whatever I can get" people.
We have to differentiate between mundane behaviour and the potential to be independent of circumstance.
In a very real sense many of us think in terms of what we cling to in our surroundings. Being independent of wealth is very enriching.
Nasruddin and the Two Beggars
_Nasruddin was walking down the street when he saw a beggar asking for money. Nasruddin asked him:
Are you extravagant? Oh yes, said the beggar.
Do you like to sit around and drink coffee? Yes, said the beggar.
Do you like to go to the baths every day? Oh yes, said the beggar.
And do you like to amuse yourself by going out with your friends, perhaps to dinner?
Yes, I like to do all those things, said the beggar.
Nasruddin gave the beggar a gold piece.
He met another beggar and who had noted the interchange and asked the same questions. The second beggar answered no to all of them. Nasruddin gave him a small copper coin.
The second beggar asked, why do you give me so little when you gave that other fellow so much?
Ah my friend, replied Nasruddin, his needs are greater than yours._
In having talked over the past year or so to some fairly wealthy people who hold poor attitudes of lower classes (ie anyone lower than them) they very much lack compassion and for those I spoke with, it is largely because they hold the view that "If I can work hard to get what I have, so can absolutely everyone. They are poor excuses for human beings who don't even deserve minimum wage because they don't work hard enough for." Those are pretty much exact quotes, too. When you ask them about their childhood and family life, the idea that they mostly lived in communities with money and came from families with money (thus had access to travel, tutors, the best schools and colleges and internships and so on) totally escapes them. They don't believe any of that had anything to do with their success, and it is only their hard work that got them there. It's very difficult to have a conversation with them, the ones I talked with. It was an eye opening conversation.
I think a lot of that though, comes from fear. They love their money and all their things and their lifestyles SO much, they cannot bring themselves to look at what others don't have without blaming those people so that they (the rich) can feel ok with hoarding what they have. They know so little of themselves that their entire identity is based on their wealth and if they lose that, what do they have? They have pretty much the same attitudes as fundamentalist religious people, and for the same reasons. They are afraid of what they will have left if the rug is pulled from underneath them, whether that rug is money or their beliefs. I feel bad for them, in that way. They lack a connection to themselves and the people they are closest too, so to ask them to have a connection to others separate from them is asking too much of them, a lot of the time. It's sad, they could do so much good for others and themselves with all their resources. They must have important karmic lessons to learn.
Wow, that is eye opening.
This is a mind set lacking empathy in general. And I agree with you that for them to suddenly 'lose' what makes them 'different people' from the minimum wage workers is what you are dealing with, rather than their use of their money or how they vote.
I've known people who are convinced the only reason they aren't renting a crack house is because they have some special 'virtue' that God has noticed and rewarded them for. They are simply . . . better quality than your average burger flipper. Obviously.
I think we have to be careful here to not stereotype people at either end of the spectrum. I've personally known a couple of very rich people who were extremely compassionate and passionate about helping the less fortunate. I've known people, like my sister, who was poor and lazy and talked all the time about compassion and didn't EVER actually lift a finger to help anyone that I ever knew of. I know people in the middle income group that do tons of stuff for others, and some who do nothing for others.
The most intriguing aspect of how some wealthy people I've know is the great lengths they go to conceal their charitable acts. They will not claim tax deductions either. They are the unknown servants of humanity. It seems a pure act.
@DhammaDragon Oh my gosh!! thank you for that, reading that really struck a chord in me.
Proportionately, I'd be surprised if rich people were any less compassionate or giving than poor people.
I suspect that if it were only poor people contributing to charity, most charities would have folded up long ago.
The people demanding deportation of children and other aliens, and curtailing of social programs are not only the rich ones.
Average folks can be very mean and uncompassionate. People are people.
When I was principal, we had a fairly unique boundary that ended up being about 1/3 relatively poor, 1/3 quite rich, and 1/3 middle income.
I know we weren't a "charity", but we did have fundraisers. The poor families rarely donated anything, as I guess you would expect. The middle income group were more likely to buy fundraising items (e.g., gift wrap or Christmas gift foods, etc.). The rich were more likely to appreciate the arm chair fundraising where all they had to do was write a check. I will say, however, that when some of our rich families gave a fairly large donation, they always insisted it be anonymous, whether it was an object (such as a new flower garden) or money, and when it was money, they would often ask, "What do you need some money for?" My answer was almost always to help poor kids in our school, and they always liked the idea.
It may be an act of giving to point out who is or is not [insert quality]. However I am endowed with a priceless finger that richly points back at my heart.
You can have that finger. :thumbsup: .
I work on peoples homes. Over the years most of the people I do work for are in the middle to upper working class. I've done a few jobs for the really wealthy, private tennis court not just lake home wealthy, and in general my experience of them has been that they are less appreciative and show a greater sense of entitlement to a good job. Working in peoples homes, even for just a short time, I'll take some time and talk with my clients and mostly I feel respected as an equal human being, from the wealthy though I get the sense that I'm not on the same level as them, that I'm just a lower class person who they're paying money to. Maybe they give money to charity, my experience is just in the day to day treatment and attitude of their fellow human beings.
That being said, I still spend $10 a month playing the lottery.
I certainly didn't mean my statement to stereotype, which is why I specified that is applied only to the few people who were involved in the conversation, just so that's clear
I know some fabulous rich people, too. People, rich or poor, come in all variety of big hearts as well as dark alleys.
@karasti, my post was not directed at you or any other specific poster. it was just a general comment.
I don't understand this at all, I'm hoping you can explain. My mind can't see the point, it doesn't make sense. If he'd given the second man a gold piece, it would have kept the man fed taken care of for a much longer time than the first man. So why did he give him less? This doesn't make any sense. Why punish someone for being modest and frugal?
Reminds me of our employment insurance program. The more you earn while working, the more you are entitled to when you are layed off. No accounting for how much more debt you might be carrying as a lower paid employee.
Obviously if you earn less you need less to live on.
Maybe he knew the second begger was lying?
Or maybe he was short on cash after giving the first so much?
Or perhaps the two beggers are not beggers at all but two subjects needing funds for some project...
Or maybe he was just joking.
Possibilities are endless...
The morals of the story would be welcome.
10And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12"For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.…
oops wrong religion . . .
As Victor says there are many possibilities.
Perhaps a relevant response might be, you have what you require, not what you want. Nobody is too rich or poor to study and apply the dharma.
Outer circumstance, wealth, class, education, appearance . . . Nothing. We are all beggars and bestower's of arbitrary 'generosity' . . .
What you are asking is for a teaching story to be explained one way.
A judge in a village court had gone on vacation. Nasrudin was asked to be temporary judge for a day. Nasrudin sat on the Judge's chair with a serious face, gazing around the public and ordered the first case be brought-up for hearing.
"You are right," said Nasrudin after hearing one side.
"You are right," he said after hearing the other side.
"But both cannot be right," said a member of public sitting in the audience.
"You are right, too" said Nasrudin.
. . . And now back to the sensible answers . . . :crazy: .
I don't know anyone who is rich so I can't comment
There are many stories like Nasrudin stories in SL about a court jester...
I sure thank you for it!, hahahaha
... for Abeena, my daughter. xoxo
We spent last week-end working on forms.....for The Hope scholarship and the TN Promise.....both from lotto money...
.....Happy 18th to her!!! .. :rockon: ...
Hey, today is my birthday too, do we share the same B-day?
Sure as shit! hahaha Well, let me bring you in on the party...!!!!!
Happy B day! ....
...
I read a similar article from the Atlantic last year that looked at the disparity in charitable giving between the wealthiest Americas (the top 20%) and the poorest (the bottom 20%) in terms of percentage of income—1.3% vs. 3.23% respectively.
In particular, the article noted that while lower-income Americans are presumably no more intrinsically generous than anyone else, "some experts have speculated that the wealthy may be less generous—that the personal drive to accumulate wealth may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support."
My thinking was that, if true, part of the reason may be due to the logic of what Marx called the 'coercive laws of competition,' which compel individual capitals to compete with one another and exploit labour as much as they can in the pursuit of the accumulation of profit; and the fact that this systematic drive, much like the personal drive to accumulate wealth, may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support.
The working class and poor, on the other, are not only more exposed to, and familiar with, privation, but they're predominately compelled by the ever-pressing need of acquiring their means of subsistence rather than the drive to accumulate capital/personal wealth, giving them a greater feeling of solidarity with those struggling to get by and encouraging them to give more in terms of percentage of income even though they have less to give.
I'm sure there are other reasons and motivations, such as the fact that many poorer and less-educated people tend to be more religious and may be inspired to give due to religious encouragements to give to the less fortunate; but that was my initial sentiment.
Keeping good company I see . . .
Some Sufis have been very rich but independent of the wealth. They would still consider themselves 'of the poor' in other words poverty and richness are an attitude. Some beggars, including enlightened holy monks, would be considered 'kings'.
Worth is internal. Many rich people are impoverished by their wealth. Many poor, set free by their lack.
Be generous, not just signing checks. Many forms available. Become enlightened. That would be kind. Mr Cushion enjoys the company . . . :thumbsup: .
Happens on both sides of the spectrum.
I know poor people who are very resented towards other people's more lucky status, but would never budge to take responsibility over their own lives and search for solutions on how to improve their personal situation.
Some rich people have scrambled their way up the ladder through hard work.
In the case of Argentina, my country, we have the case of Evita Peron.
She gave poor people the fish but never actually taught them to fish for themselves.
Fifty years later, we're still suffering the consequences, with people in shanty-towns who live off polititians' good-will but would never get up early to go to work.
I know poor people who are very resented towards other people's more lucky status, but would never budge to take responsibility over their own lives and search for solutions on how to improve their personal situation.
Some rich people have scrambled their way up the ladder through hard work.
I agree. I was brought up in a small town with few good job opportunities. We were, for all intent and purposes, "poor" growing up. All of my family still lives in that same small town and are still poor despite the fact that there are now more opportunities for work and fair wages. I now live in a city, sought out and paid for post-secondary education, struggled for many, many years, financially, to put husband through doctorate school. Now I would consider us fairly affluent.
However, while my husband and I are very giving individuals and both work in caring fields where we directly serve others who are in need of care, we are resented by my family. My family refers to anyone from the city (who they equate city life with automatic wealth :rolleyes: ) as "cidiots" (idiots from the city). In short, they live in a desperation mindset with absolutely no ambition to seek better employment while judging those who have taken that path.
I am not saying one or the other is better. We all have our own level of comfort with regard to income and we certainly all have choices in how much and where we chose to work. But to judge someone and be resentful of them simply because they made different choices is unfair.
I believe there are plenty of people of wealth who do a lot of good in the world. No economic class is either ALL good or ALL bad.
I don't think one's wealth really has any impact on compassion. If you are broke and a compassionate person, you're likely to be compassionate if you acquire wealth. The advantage of being compassionate AND wealthy is that you can really have a positive impact on whatever cause you choose to support.
Happy birthday, @person!!! ..
:wave: ..
There's plenty of meanness to go around among the non-wealthy as well. A night stroll through the streets of a "ghetto" in a large American city should confirm that.
Objects, be it money or something else, do not matter in and of themselves, they are empty in that sense. Our relationship to them is what matters. If we crave them, get attached to them-- suffering always arises. If we are generous with them, ready to let go of them-- suffering ceases. That is Buddhism, in a nutshell.
I do not want to discount the article, though. To accumulate serious wealth (as in millions), one often needs to do ethically dubious things. Just think about corporations, where an awful lot of serious money is made. I believe it is that fact that the article really points to.
A thought inspired by @shadowleaver; Wealth can and does just 'happen', and is not always created using ethical means, how can it be? Especially enormous wealth. I wonder if it is even possible?
The advantage of being compassionate AND wealthy is that you can really have a positive impact on whatever cause you choose to support.
That's true. So if you all want to send me some money I'll make a start.