Ethics Of Wealth

Today, Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft, is worth some 50 billion dollars (Verdin)! Much speculation has arisen as to whether someone could ever amount so much wealth without under minding society. Gates has appeared in court several times in the recent years because of this assumption, as government and society have tried to strip Gates of his personal property and rights. Should there be limits on the amount of wealth one person can accumulate and can such wealth come through moral means?

This paper will discuss why there should be limits placed on property rights in order to fulfill certain moral rights that are entitled to society. Upon establishing the need for property rights, a discussion of wealth morality will follow. The vast amount of wealth Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft, has accumulated will be looked at through the eyes of John Locke and explain why it is morally acceptable for one to gain such wealth in his or her lifetime. Finally, I will address why I think Bill Gates' vast amount of wealth has no reason to be viewed as morally suspect within the realm of today's society.

"Moral rights are defined as those activities or interests than an individual is empowered to pursue, or must be left to pursue, or must be helped to pursue, as he or she chooses (Velasquez, 91)." Relative to this, throughout history, American law has "held to the theory that individuals have an absolute right to do whatever they want with their property and that government has no right to interfere with or confiscate an individual's property even for the good of society (Velasquez, 177)." However, it becomes apparent by exercising these rights individuals often interfere with certain moral rights of society. It is important to note that along with exercising one's rights, especially property; there is also a duty to society. Kant states, "Everyone has a moral right to such treatment (as equal to everyone else), and everyone has the correlative duty to treat each other that way (Velasquez, 97)." Although Kant did not establish a hierarchy of rights his point should be taken into great consideration. For example, when a corporation pollutes the air or water in the interest of financial gain it is apparent the right to a healthy life for many is being imposed upon. As a corporation, there is a certain duty of care that must be established, not only for its employees, but society as a whole. In essence, everyone has certain rights to which they are entitled, but at some point "when losses of society become great enough, they might be sufficient to breach the protective walls the right sets up (Velasquez, 93)" thereby rendering others in society unable to execute their own rights and interests. Therefore, it is essential government embed certain legal rights in relation to property so that the greater percent of the population is able to pursue their interests over the interests of one individual or corporation.

Although it is evident there should be certain limits placed on personal property rights there are those who believe there need be no legal rights. John Locke attests that free markets "are supposed to preserve the right to private property insofar as each individual is free to decide what will be done with what he or she owns without interference from government (Velasquez, 176)." Locke enlightened the world with what he calls "natural rights" that are inherent in every individual. In this state of nature Locke concludes, "a state of equality" would emerge wherein "no one would have to subject himself or herself to another (Velasquez, 176)." For Locke, everyone is entitled to something they have had a "mix in", "at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others (Velasquez, 176)." Relating Locke's thoughts to the world of today it is my assumption he would find the wealth of Bill Gates morally sound. Critics of Locke state his visions of the free market create unjust inequalities, such as disparity of income, and that government should be able to interfere in an effort to help those who own no property, who are unable to work, or who are unskilled (Velasquez, 179). However, Locke would argue that Gates is justified in his actions so long as there is opportunity for all humanity to achieve the same success. Who is to say Gates should have been the one to create Microsoft? For Locke, the opportunity would have been seen as readily available for anyone to pursue. Locke remarked, "Government does not grant or create private property rights. Instead it must respect and protect the property rights that are naturally generated through labor and trade (Velasquez, 177)." Gates earned his wealth by means of labor and trade and therefore Locke would argue that Gates has a justifiable right to his wealth and should not be stripped of it so long as it does not interfere with the property of others. Locke's views on property and wealth still have an impact on the world of today and have lead to assumptions I myself have on wealth and whether it is morally acceptable.

In today's society much of humanity associates wealth with immoral acts. Rich people are often easy targets for moral criticism whether backed by rational thought or that of inherent jealousy. However, being wealthy does not point to the fact that