The pursuit of money results in an ungracious society. Discuss.

Where money is coveted, the pursuit of it necessarily involves evil deeds which tear families apart and destroy society, or so the quote ‘money is the root of all evil” suggests. This adage has been widely depicted on the silver screen. The depiction of moral degeneration that accompanies the pursuit of money in ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ which casts Leonardo DiCaprio as Belfort, the stockbroker, who became more immoral the richer he got is one example. These downright unkind acts have admittedly occurred in real life, but it is not necessarily inevitable that society is therefore devoid of kindness and consideration of others. To debunk that, several commonly held assumptions about the pursuit of money have to be evaluated.

To claim that the pursuit of money necessarily results in a society devoid of consideration for especially the less fortunate is to assume that such endeavours seek to benefit only the individual and disregard the impact on the rest of society. The pursuit of money is assumed to be a single-minded end pursued without regard for the means adopted. The Lehman Brothers Minibond saga is often cited to illustrate how in a desperate bid to sell these structured investment products, financial consultants chose to omit critical information about risk exposure to retail investors, many of whom were elderly and less educated. This example underscores the merciless and even underhanded corporate tactics employed in a bid to meet performance targets. To agree with this is to allow an over-generalisation to obliterate the corporate philanthropic endeavours in society. These philanthropic acts are not random sporadic feel-good efforts but coordinated and sustained corporate initiatives. Encouraging corporate social responsibility has in fact become an integral part of many companies’ culture and values. MasterCard runs financial literacy programmes to educate the public to promote financial inclusion and literacy so that the layperson could also benefit from financial services. The DBS (Development Bank of Singapore) has backed numerous community development initiatives. DBS nurtures social enterprises that creatively and effectively address social needs and provide jobs, goods and services to the disadvantaged and marginalised. With responsible corporate philosophy, the pursuit of money does not necessarily result in a cold-blooded pursuit of money. Graciousness is evident when corporations pursue money yet also give back to society in a win-win partnership.

A second assumption is that competition for limited funds is exclusive and it necessarily aims to drive out competition. Graciousness stands in the way of unfriendly and even hostile tactics to drive out competition. Classic examples of ungracious behaviour towards those that society deems to be a threat can be seen in hostility towards unwelcomed immigrants, often regarded as competitors for scarce jobs and whose appeal lies in their willingness to settle for lower pay. This is evident in the hardening of attitudes towards immigrants among the British. Those surveyed indicated that the resentment towards immigrants arose from the belief that they came to claim welfare benefit for which the British have to fund. This assumption fails to recognise the real cause of the hostility and reluctance to be inclusive. It is not the pursuit of money that drives such ungracious behaviour towards immigrants; it is the insecurity borne out of fear that the privilege and rights that come with citizenship are compromised by the presence of a large population of immigrants. These ungracious acts should be addressed, not by regarding it as an inevitable consequence of the pursuit of money, but as a reflection of a need for clearer policy communication of how immigrants benefit the British economy. According to a report released this year on London’s economic future commissioned by its mayor, the pressure to reduce immigration is threatening London’s status as one of the world’s leading cities. It is understandable for ungracious acts to manifest due to growing insecurity in the face of competition that threatens bread-and-butter issues. However, to attribute it to the inevitability of pursuit of money is to disregard the deeper underlying cause of the insecurity which, when addressed, could temper emotions and reduce the incidence of ungracious behaviours.

It is also assumed that because the pursuit of money seeks to maximise profit and stretch every single dollar, all eyes are trained on the bottom line and exploitative acts are ignored or even deemed justified. This mentality is said to manifest in a less empathetic society and in extreme situations, have a dehumanising effect on how labour is regarded: labourers as money-making tools. Regarded as such, workers’ exploitation is evident. Sweatshop exploitation of workers and abuse of live-in domestic workers are not unheard of depictions of an ungracious society’s treatment of menial labour. The tragedy of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh drew the international spotlight on an industry where workers are not just subjected to harassment, violence and abuse, but whose basic guarantees of safety have also been thrown to the wind, to the extent that a building can collapse on top of thousands of workers. Closer to home, news reports of unkind treatment of domestic helpers are not unheard of. Yet, for a very long time, Singapore society fails to recognise such ungracious acts practised in theirs and their neighbours’ homes. Are these acts an inevitable outcome of the pursuit of money? Could the lives lost at this garment factory not have been prevented? Has society been so bent on making every dollar paid to the domestic helper count that it would not even allow her a day off a week? Thankfully not. What is witnessed is a twin trend of ground-up initiatives to check such behaviour and both national and international efforts to institute safeguards. Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) in Singapore is one non-profit organisation that seeks to improve social attitudes towards transient workers and advocate the protection of migrant workers. Increasingly, we also see society being more forthcoming in showing appreciation to construction workers in the form of lunch treats on special occasions. Even as the Singapore society strives to develop her economy and pursue money, there are visible efforts by pockets of people in the society to counter acts of ungraciousness and drive the development of a gracious society. Laws are also important to ensure inclusivity and check exploitative acts in the absence of natural graciousness in society. A combination of civil group advocacy and legislation will act to counter the development of an ungracious society even as society pursues money, however obsessively.

It assumes that the pursuit of money and graciousness are mutually exclusive notions. The two endeavours are deemed to be at odds because while one seeks to accumulate wealth, the other seeks to share the wealth, thereby reducing rather than increasing one’s possession of it. In fact, they can be complementary and the pursuit of money, in turn, encourages acts of graciousness. The pursuit of money is perhaps necessary to engender a gracious society as it places more individuals in positions to exercise grace to uplift society. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs demonstrates that when the physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, individuals seek to fulfil higher-order needs of love and belonging, esteem and self-actualisation, with the highest level being self-transcendence when the self only finds its actualisation in giving itself to some higher goals, in altruism and spirituality. Love and belonging, esteem and self-transcendence are concomitants of acts of graciousness when the individual looks beyond the self to enrich the lives of others. The public outpouring of support in words or in-kind whenever disasters strike, as seen in the regional aid for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, or Nepal’s earthquake; and the generous donation garnered at the last minute to make it possible for the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum to purchase the three dinosaur fossils to contribute to the education of natural history heritage are all evidence of how wealth amassed is used to display care and consideration for others.

While there are seemingly persuasive grounds to suspect that the pursuit of money must mean giving little consideration to others, they are premised on debatable assumptions that the pursuit is singular, the tactics employed are cut-throat and the pursuit is an end in itself. This pursuit does not necessarily breed evil because of the existence of social and legal mechanisms to counter any such evil and to cultivate desired graciousness. We should also not doubt the human capacity to both seek to enrich the self and others at the same time.

Can international peace and stability really be attained today?

The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.

One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.

The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights.  The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.

However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.

Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible.  The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.

The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.

If we are pushed far enough, we are all capable of acting aggressively, but we are not all equally aggressive. Discuss what makes some people more aggressive than others.

For and against arguments for aggression and aggressive behaviour

  • aggression is an expression of the survival instinct
  • people respond differently to triggers but are all capable of acting aggressively, even the most passive
  • people learn to be aggressive or to control it as a result of their upbringing
  • aggression management techniques can be taught to help people control their aggression
  • aggression may be channelled into competitive sports
  • aggression is sometimes necessary for the greater good
  • aggression can be an uncontrolled response; non-aggression is more likely to be a rational choice based on beliefs.

How far can poorer countries benefit from scientific developments?

For and against points for poorer countries benefit from science

  • Present a broad interpretation of ‘poorer’.
  • Present a broad interpretation of ‘scientific’ to embrace technology/medicine etc.
  • the extent to which difficulties posed by pricing are insurmountable/avoidable, eg, declining prices; increasing affordability of new technologies; pricing of medicines may be slower to decline
  • ways in which companies/countries might not see it in their financial/political interests for poorer countries to profit
  • the problem of the ‘brain drain’ of talented scientists being attracted to richer countries for study, practice and research
  • the main beneficiaries actually are within a country – the state/individuals/particular groups
  • Poor countries may have other urgencies

How far is it possible for societies to provide equal opportunities for all their citizens?

Equal opportunities for all citizens is an unrealistic goal.

  • What do we mean by ‘equal opportunities’ (a reference to gender, ethnicity, class etc.)
  • Economic and social factors at work in particular societies
  • How the provision of equal opportunities might be monitored
  • The obstacle of resistance to equal opportunities when rooted in cultural/religious issues
  • What about physically vs mentally disabled people?
  • Prisoners?

Can education solve all problems?

While education empowers individuals and provides them with access to more opportunities, education cannot stand alone or solve all problems. We are now living in a world that is vulnerable, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Unlike the past, the challenges of today prevent education from being the silver bullet that cuts through all problems.

Supporters of the prowess of education will opine that education can catalyse positive social change through enlightening and empowering individuals. Through formal education, individuals gain a better understanding of the world around them and their place in the world. Besides enlightening individuals,  education can empower one to improve one’s community or to surmount one’s unique challenges. For instance, with respect to gender inequality, studies have revealed that women in developing countries who have been educated are unlikely to marry early or undergo harmful cultural practices such as female genital mutilation. Educated women are better able to understand healthcare, family planning and see the merit of education for their own children. It is evident in this small example that education is one of the most effective ways to help individuals adopt new mindsets and perspectives.

In addition, education levels the playing field of the disadvantaged by providing them access to opportunities to improve their standard of living and overcome the problems their communities might face. It does so by equipping people with the necessary knowledge and skills which are needed to seek employment. Notwithstanding the fact that education has been effective in solving problems like women’s rights and poverty, education should not be seen as a panacea to all problems. There are still many obstacles and aggravating factors which might limit the effectiveness of education. Education can only begin to tackle a problem if education is possible in the first place, for instance. The poor and impoverished cannot afford tuition fees, much less other learning tools and resources. The problem of education still persists in remote areas of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asian republics. While it is easy to pour millions into education to change mindsets and empower people, the lack of quality teachers, educational materials and infrastructure will continue to trap large swaths of people living in developing countries.

In addition, there are certain problems which education would be unable to resolve alone. Climate change is one such factor. While education can highlight the issues concerning climate change, the runaway pollution cannot be stopped by education alone. Political will and economic leadership would be more effective in mitigating climate change. Some of the problems which form a whirlwind of socioeconomic issues require a multidimensional and a multi-pronged approach. Education can only be one avenue to solve the issue.

Most significantly education has its own inherent limitations, which may render it ineffective and even counterproductive in solving social problems. On the surface, it may seem that education is a social leveller that empowers individuals and improves lives. This, however, does not seem to hold true in increasingly stratified developed countries, where the presence of generational wealth is a critical determinant of academic success. The wealthy are able to send their children to better schools and avail themselves to better resources. Those in better schools network with people of the same social background. Given that the education system ultimately feeds into the job market, the differences in access to educational opportunities from young inevitably result in severely hampered social mobility.

In short, while education can act as a catalyst to solve problems like poverty and discrimination, education is not the panacea to all the problems of the modern world because of the fact that there are people who cannot afford education. In addition, there are multi-dimensional and multi-faceted challenges that prevent education from being the magic lamp that solves all problems.

To what extent do law and punishment work in the interests of everyone?

  • the law applies to all regardless of background
  • courts have a variety of punishments available to them depending on the particular factors of each individual case
  • many are uncertain that punishment works
  • prisoners and prisons are divided into categories to protect society and those being punished
  • freedoms cannot be guaranteed, despite the law
  • government and government institutions sometimes operate beyond the law and degrade and torture those whom they believe to be a threat
  • the law is enforced by people and they can be fallible, prejudiced and dishonest
  • income can determine the outcome of a trial with better legal advice available for the more wealthy.

How far do you agree that we must have rules and regulations in order to maintain a civilised society?

  • rules are necessary for social and political control
  • rules are in place to control experimenters because of previous failures to recognise subjects’ rights
  • rules and regulations are needed to protect the vulnerable
  • history shows us that exploitation and abuse occur when rules and regulations are not in place
  • we need rules and regulations so that companies do not ignore the well-being of others in the pursuit of profits
  • when rules and regulations are not in place, TNCs are free to adopt different standards from when operating within defined boundaries
  • rules and regulations allow transgressions to be clearly identified and penalties to be imposed.