Being rich is not an obligation?

MoneyI wondered if there was no obligation to try to become rich, following the line of thought Wallace Wattles and western morals, call it somehow. I refer to the following, I will try to explain.Our Western education have taught us that we must be good. That means must be good socially. That we must refine our spirit. That we must cultivate our virtues. That we must exercise our social solidarity, either in your personal life or in the corporate. That must be environmentally friendly. That must be open without discrimination to the disabled or people with different abilities.

All this is fine. But we should not teach us to be rich too? Because otherwise, we are giving a wealth of targets and obligations, but no giving us the means for them. Or seen another way, is much easier to comply with all these personal and social obligations if we are rich then if we battle in poverty and needs. Instead, every step we see as the rich are given the “luxury” of being well educated or socially solidarity.

On the other hand, require a poor that is killing himself to get a piece of bread for his family and ask him to be friendly with the environment or to refine his spirit studying philosophy, is more like a mockery than a sincere and honest education.

Could be that we educate to suffer? Or that money and wealth remain part of the human hypocrisy, that it punishes socially but personally wish passionately?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s