Ethics and Values of Plutocracy - Term Paper Example

Ethics of plutocracy Plutocracy in general refers to wealth and power or, the exercise of power through wealth or by the wealthy. It has traditional applications in terms of the political control by the wealthy as was seen in the ancient plutocracies of the Roman Republic, as well as Ancient Greece. The more modern application of plutocracy can be seen in the City of London where the financial district has a distinct electoral system with majority of the voters coming from businesses and other establishments within the city. This study shall evaluate the ethics of plutocracy. An initial discussion for this paper shall include an overview of plutocracy and later a subsequent analysis of ethical applications and analysis of the plutocracy. This study is being undertaken in order to establish a comprehensive understanding of plutocracy, including its general and ethical analytical applications in the current society. In general, the wealthy minorities have always manifested their impact in the political arena. Politicians campaigning for positions have always included the backing and support from wealthy supporters (Blamires, p. 522). With advertising campaigns for politicians, the ultimate goal has always been on gaining monetary as well as electoral support for politicians, their plans, and their goals. Regardless of the source of monetary support, these donations have often been considered as a means of establishing crony systems, where the bigger donors have been expected for possible future rewards (Blamires, p. 522). Although campaign donations do not directly impact on laws and other legislative processes, donors naturally expect that their needs would be served more than the regular citizens. If their needs would not be served by their recipient politicians, then they would likely allocate their monetary support to other politicians. These mutually beneficial agreements also exist in democracies, however, proving the agreements to be illegal or unethical is an entirely different matter especially where the competencies of individuals placed into positions can be supported by competent resumes (Hermanutz). The ability of politicians to support policies which benefit their constituencies can also make it difficult to prove any crime committed in the appointment of donors to positions of power. Under these considerations, the existence of plutocracy can be considered a reality, regardless of the existing forms of government in countries concerned. In other words, the specific applications and elements of plutocracy can sometimes manifest regardless of the forms of government involved (The Economist). Various systems of government often apply financial patronage of candidates and various methods are used in order to reward individuals with whom values and interests are shared. Wealthy individuals often financially support their political campaigns and activities in order to further their political purposes (The Economist). In the US out of the 250 members of Congress, 57 are very wealthy. Corporations and interest groups also pay lobbyists to pressure officials for the purposes of seeking favorable laws. Media outlets are also able to gain advertising profits via their increased viewership and they can sometimes change the perception of issues, of political groups, and of candidates (The Economist). In these instances therefore, the role of wealth in the manifestation of power is even more significant. Under these circumstances, although the tenets of plutocracy may be deplorable to the general society, the general application of its principles is very much apparent. Based on a more palpable political label of plutocracy, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and western democratic countries have been labeled as plutocracies, implying that a small group of extremely wealthy individuals have been controlling these countries, and also holding these countries ransom (Winter). In these instances, plutocracy replaced democracy as well as capitalism as the main fascist term for the US and Britain during World War II. In its most current application, plutocracy has been used to refer to societies founded on state corporate capitalism or those which have focused on garnering wealth over other considerations (Winter). Political strategists also declare that the US is a plutocracy because it fuses money and governance and that at various points in its history, it has been applying twin capitalist parties controlling the main avenues for the masses, including the media (Winter). Plutocracies are only managed by a handful of the wealthy and are sometimes very rare in current times. The governments of most states however are very much influenced by wealth and by those who are wealthy. Wealth is equal to political power and can provide tools and resources for lobbying, for campaigning, for bribing, and for legal and illegal transactions (Hightower and Frazer, p. 3). Many countries have sought to control the impact of wealth and of money in politics and they have enacted laws to limit campaign finances and donations which politicians can legally accept. However, these laws can sometimes and have already been circumvented (Hightower and Frazer, p. 3). One of the primary qualities of plutocracy is blatant economic disparity. In countries controlled by the rich members of society, these rich individuals have a vested interest in wanting to retain their wealth and in supporting government policies which are meant to support their health lifestyles (Cox). As a result, people who do not have the resources might not be able to implement change in government. Economic inequality can cause social unrest as the lower classes would likely rebel against the upper classes. It is therefore in the better interest of the wealthy to placate the masses, instead of dominating and exploiting them (Cox). For which reason, the wealthy often attempt to make themselves likeable to the masses, portraying images in the media of being ‘one of them.’ And yet, their lifestyles are far too lavish to be actually pass as one of the masses. Nevertheless, the masses are often mollified by the wealthy politician’s efforts at identifying with their plight and their conditions, unaware of the greater wrongs being done against them. Plutocracy or the rule of the wealthy also often stays within the dominance of the minority due to the fact that their social mobility is only within their group, intermarrying amongst themselves, thereby causing little movement of wealth into other people (Herbert, p. 3). More importantly, social dominance and immobility also makes it difficult for the poor to improve their economic conditions. Unfortunately, as the rich people dominate society, their rule is also one which is riddled by economic and ethnic disparities and they have little understanding of the needs of the general population and of the ethnic groups in their society (Herbert, p. 2). Moreover, the extent of their protection and their understanding of politics and governance only goes as far as their own ethnicities and social classes are concerned. Their conception of poverty is relative, primarily based on their needs and resources as individuals (Herbert, p. 3). They would not understand what the basic needs of the people are, mostly because they have not experienced what it feels or it means to starve or to sleep in the streets, to be homeless, or to be unemployed. In any American presidential election, candidates who have earned millions in business and who have paid law taxes can gain much controversial attention. Americans have always considered wealth as admirable goals to pursue. However, presidential elections in the US are not ordinary elections, with much scrutiny being directed towards how the parties have amassed their fortune and how much taxes they have paid throughout the years (The Economist). In these instances, the application of plutocracy has gained much scrutiny and has not reached the levels of efficacy that it has normally gained in the past. In effect, it has become a liability for involved candidates. Barack Obama has not however been squeamish about using the wealth of wealthy to seek his own political ends (The Economist). He has appealed to the millionaires and the billionaires to pay their fair share and for which reason, he has expressed the need to pass increased tax rates for the wealthy. This move has been largely objected to by the Republicans, claiming how raised taxes for the rich would compromise jobs and business economic confidence (The Economist). Plutocracy creates a significant gap between the rich and those who are not rich and such a condition creates unstable economies. The US has already experienced how plutocracy can impact on its economy. The years of the depression caused majority of Americans to live in poverty while less than 1% of its population were able to enjoy more income than their poorer counterparts (Herbert, p. 2). This trend was duplicated at various points of America’s history with the population of the extremely wealth still being able to enjoy fruitful incomes in the face of significant hardships on the part of the majority of Americans. With the rich making even more money with each year, America’s money and wealth is only being concentrated on the hands of a small group of people – a group of people already being labeled as the American aristocracy (Herbert, p. 3). These individuals are paying their taxes, but the proportion of their taxes paid barely causes a dent on their considerable wealth; in the end, the burden of poverty and heavy taxes are still placed in the hands of the poor who can ill afford to feed themselves (Herbert, p. 3). In effect, although America may be one of the best standards of democracy, it is vulnerable to the pitfalls of plutocracy. From the very beginning, the basic tenets and foundations of plutocracy are already flawed, and basically unethical. The act of attributing power to hands of the few rich has historically yielded unfavorable results; moreover, it is also theoretically grounded on a flawed and unfair distribution of power. In assessing the ethics of plutocracy, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism can be applied (Brink). Utilitarianism basically evaluates actions and institutions in relation to their impact on human happiness, and declares the importance of carrying out actions in order to promote of support happiness (Brink). Utilitarianism also has a more universal scope based on the fact that it seeks the happiness of people and that it seeks the equal and impartial search for people’s happiness. Based on these general qualities of utilitarianism, its principles also challenged the social institutions of class and privilege (Brink). In applying utilitarianism, it is easily apparent how plutocracy is unethical because it negates the goals of governance – that of seeking and promoting happiness for as many constituents as possible. Plutocracy only seeks to secure the interests and the happiness of the wealthy and these interests exclude the interests of the general population, especially the majority of the people suffering from poverty (Brink). Utilitarianism claims that there must be an assessment of individuals, actions, as well as institutions, especially according to how well they ensure human happiness. Mill also emphasizes that moral reasoning must be based on secondary precepts as well as principles of fidelity, honesty, and fair play (Brink). As far as plutocracy is concerned, the principles of honesty and fair play do not apply because the social, political, and economic activities only exist based on the say so of a small group of individuals – the wealthy. Their actions and decisions seek to maintain the status quo, especially in terms of how they control and exercise power over constituents and other citizens (Brink). Utilitarianism is also founded on the need to seek the greatest good for the people. Plutocracy only seeks what is good for a small number of people, people who hardly need any more benefits or favors from society (American Hotel and Lodging Institute, 1). The impact of actions makes certain actions moral or immoral – ethical or unethical. Actions leading to benefits are often moral or ethical, and those which bring harm are wrong or unethical. Utilitarianism focuses on consequences, especially those which bring benefit or harm. A moral thing can be assessed as such based on the greatest net benefit it can provide (AH&LI, p. 1). Under plutocracy, benefits are also apparent, and very much present. However, their net benefit is very minimal and only limited to the wealthy. As a result, the impact of power being held by the wealthy few is very much minimal, hardly impacting on the needs of the greater population (AH & LI, p. 3). The ethics of Plutocracy applying utilitarianism principles does not indicate that moral action maximizes the benefits or happiness of the person acting. The happiness must be based on the happiness of all with each person having an equal role to play. Plutocracy cannot make the claim to happiness applying to all people equally because happiness seems to be claimed only by a few wealthy people in power (AH & LI, p. 3). Attempting to use utilitarianism in order to justify behavior at the expense of the greater good is an inappropriate application of the utilitarian principle. As this seems to be the trend for plutocracy, such a behavior cannot be justified. Another misconception is based on the perception that utilitarianism considers the immediate impact of various actions (AH & LI, p. 2). This cannot be accepted because utilitarianism seeks to consider all the consequences of actions – from the short to the long term impact as well as the unforeseen consequences. In considering all the consequences of plutocracy, it is apparent to note that its impact is very much widespread and such impact covers various negative consequences for the general population (AH & LI, p. 2). This is very much against the utilitarian principles which seek to ensure better conditions for the general population. Another ethical theory which can be used to evaluate the ethics of plutocracy is the Rawlsian ethics, which is the ethics which highlights justice and fairness (AH & LI, p. 3). Justice is one of the most common ethical standards being applied in politics and economics. Justice is about protecting individual rights and preventing any injustice on various constituents. Justice is also about comparing cases and avoiding discrimination or ill-treatment of other individuals who may be different in some respects (AH & LI, p. 3). In other words, justice is about fair treatment. In applying these elements to plutocracy, justice is definitely not upheld. In fact, it is being unfairly served because there is no justice in the unequal share to financial resources for the majority of the people. Instead, due to their financial difficulties, they are made to suffer poverty, injustice, unfair treatment, unequal opportunities, and discrimination (AH & LI, p. 3). In general, there is distributive injustice in plutocracy, where the most basic concerns of the people are unfairly and unequally distributed to the people. There is also compensatory injustice in plutocracy, where individuals who are wronged are not receiving compensation for their suffering and for the wrong doing or damage. Fairness under Rawl’s theory also emphasizes the importance applying fair and equal opportunity not based on racial, sexual, and nationality considerations (AH & LI, p. 4). In plutocracy, the distribution of power is often based on wealth and the majority of the people holding such wealth. The impact of the minorities, of gender, and nationality are often used in order to discriminate individuals from sharing in economic activities, and consequently on any impact on wealth, the economy or politics. The Aristotelian ethics is also applicable to this analysis of plutocracy. This theory is considered as virtue ethics where the main element is on doing the right thing and avoiding wrong (AH & LI, p. 4). This disposition is developed with time and training with a good character also leads to favorable achievement. Doing right is based on inherent qualities, and most people are tasked with the need to achieve virtuous characterizations and such virtues can be reached by developing good characters (AH & LI, p. 4). Virtues come natural to most people and this often implies a middle ground – where there is no excess of deficiency. The middle ground is about not going too far or not far enough. Therefore, a person who avoids excesses, and also avoids deficiencies is also leading a virtuous life, and therefore has a fulfilled life. Based on Aristotelian principles, plutocracy is unethical because generally, it is a life lived in excess for the wealthy and deprivation for the poor (AH & LI, p. 4). Plutocracy is very much far removed from the virtuous life being sought by Aristotelian ethics. Plutocracy sees excesses among the wealthy, and such excesses are very much in contrast to the deprived lifestyles being lived by the general population. Based on the above discussion, plutocracy refers to a life where the wealthy are the ones in power and the wealthy controls the economic, political, and social activities in society, at great detriment to the rest of the population. Plutocracy is present in most governments, even the democratic states, especially when money and wealth becomes a major consideration in political power play and leverage. Plutocracy is generally unethical. In applying the utilitarian ethics, it is apparent to note that plutocracy does not benefit the most number of people, moreover, its impact is generally negative and unfavorable for the people. Based on Rawlsian ethics, justice and fairness is not being applied under plutocracy because the powerful wealthy people in society are taking advantage of the weak and the vulnerable. Finally, according to the Aristotelian virtuous perceptions, plutocracy is unethical and not virtuous because of the major excesses sought and maintained by the people, as well as the deprivation felt by the general population. In other words, virtuous lives cannot be seen among the plutocrats and under a plutocracy. In effect, plutocracy is unethical and does not have any logical support from ethical theories and principles. Works Cited American Hotel and Lodging Institute. Major ethical theories. n.d. Web. 12 June 2012. Blamires, Cyprian. World fascism: a historical encyclopedia. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Brink, David. Mill's moral and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007. Web. 12 June 2012 Cox, William. Challenging America’s plutocracy: the power of individual voters to transform their government. 2012. Web. 12 June 2012. Herbert, Walter. Plutocracy in America. n.d. Web. 12 June 2012. Hermanutz, Derryl. Plutocracy vs. Democracy. 2011. Web. 12 June 2012. Hightower, Jim and Frazer, Phillip. The plutocrats who bankrolled the GOP primaries—and what they want in return. The Hightower Lowdown 14.6 (2012): pp. 1-4. The Economist. The politics of plutocracy. 2012. Web. 12 June 2012. Winter, Rhonda. Plutocracy Reborn: U.S. Wealth Inequality Gap Largest since 1928. Eco localizer. 2010. Web. 12 June 2012. Read More