The striking feature of this vote was how decisively the chamber rejected the premise without settling the argument about wealth itself. No won, taking 125 votes to 27, but the debate was chiefly over whether “inherently evil” was a serious political category at all.
The No case treated the question as both philosophically empty and politically hazardous. Its most-respected voices called it “far too open to interpretation” and warned that “Othering” a group could prepare the ground for “stealing their assets”; another said it was “patently ridiculous to brand anyone as inherently evil or good based on what they have rather than how they act.”
The losing Yes side supplied the debate’s most carefully made argument, and the floor rated it accordingly. Its strongest voice said the issue “boils down to behaviour rather than fact of wealth”, while another argued that “power corrupts, and in a capitalist society, money is power”; the two sides were often answering different questions, one about moral character and the other about what concentrated wealth permits.
That distinction echoes the live tax-and-spend fault line: whether inequality should be challenged through institutions and obligations, or understood as evidence of a class’s moral character. One No voice cast the opposing position as “politics of ENVY , Resentment& Hate”, while another accepted the case for a fairer society and for the wealthy to contribute to “the common good”; inherited wealth, earned wealth and the conduct of individuals remained blurred together.
The chamber’s rougher tail was openly contemptuous — “Many more stupid questions like this and I’m deleting this site” — with replies ranging from agreement to “Ooofffff” and the claim that democracy produces stupid questions. The verdict was clear; the argument was that the question had failed before the rich had even reached the witness box.
13 Opinions
The proposition here is ghat ultra-wealth changes incentives to cause people to behave in ways that can be described as 'evil'. This isn't an absolute: someone who behaves in this way would almost certainly not continue to do so if the were no longer rich. The reciprocal is that the desire to own, say, a trillion dollars, is functionally sociopathic and no moral person would strive to do this.
if you are left you suffer from the politics of ENVY , Resentment& Hate. Proven time and time again , let's take the middle classes savings& anything else we can take , because why should they have all this money,(which they want by working hard) because we have never been successful , so let's take theirs off them because inequality blah blah blah .
Many more stupid questions like this and I’m deleting this site
Even while seeking a fairer society where thr rich pay their share into the common good, it is patently ridiculous to brand anyone as inherently evil or good based on what they have rather than how they act.
"Othering" any group is the first step to hatemongering against them, and which prepares the ground for stealing their assets. This is not the Russian Revolution. They are not evil czars and we are not serfs. Stop this nonsensical rhetoric. It's dangerous.
Is this even a serious question. Some rich people do bad stuff, most got lucky. Whether any human can be inherently evil is a religious / philosophical question not a political one
Not sure this is a helpful question, beyond - presumably - giving those of a left-leaning persuasion grounds to 'punish' the wealthy. One might alternatively ask "Are the poor inherently good?" with as much validity i.e. not much.
I don't believe anyone is inherently evil. No-one has evil at their core, from their birth. But power corrupts, and in a capitalist society, money is power. And I believe that the 1% would do anything to keep that power once they have it. It's a badly phrased question. I understand what it's getting at, but it's still badly phrased.
This is a question that is far too open to interpretation. The word “inherently” is particularly problematic. Is someone who is born into wealth and doesn’t know any better but to obliviously hoard wealth at others’ expense “inherently” evil? Probably not in the same way as someone who makes me the conscious moral choice. It also boils down to behaviour rather than fact of wealth. See for example Dolly Parton. Also, for this question I focus on the 1%.