I had an interaction recently over the Biblical proverb money is the root of all evil. I corrected the original poster, noting that the saying is actually the love of money is the root of all evil.
The OP didn’t acknowledge a difference. I didn’t think anything more of it until I heard a radio discussion this morning where comedian Jim Breuer was relating the tribulations he was going through over the care of his mother, who was suffering from dementia. The point that struck home regarded one of his sisters, who hadn’t lifted a finger or offered a penny to help out, but who was claiming (falsely, according to Breuer) that she was monitoring their mother’s finances and that money was missing. Breuer, who by all accounts is a wonderful and caring son, “saw red” at the accusation of impropriety, especially since he was already $100K deep from his own pocket. As he related the story, the takeaway was that the sister was angling to ensure her inheritance was secure and implying that since Breuer was the successful one of the family he should cover their mother’s expenses out of his own pocket rather than using the mother’s assets.
The tale, as related, was reprehensible. It’s also one I’ve heard many times before. Families fracturing over assets accumulated by parents, over inheritance disputes, over comparative entitlement. People presuming that their siblings’ success should be shared. He who has less presumes those who have more don’t “need” what’s rightfully theirs.
With this in mind, I looked up the original quote. The King James version quotes 1 Timothy 6:10 as:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
The complete verse establishes a definition of “evil,” i.e. straying from faith and suffering as a result, but we can certainly secularize the admonition. Regarding the dispute over “money” vs “the love of money,” money itself is inanimate. It cannot act, it cannot do harm. It is a person’s attitude towards money that is of relevance. A person can have a little money or a lot of money, and in either case lead a happy and moral life. A person can have a little or a lot of money, and in either case can lead a miserable, unhappy life. In our current context, it is the covetousness of money, in particular other people’s money, that is the warned-of pitfall.
Who’s the bad person? The person who set out to become wealthy, and via work, frugality, responsibility and prioritization managed to achieve his goal, or the person who sees another’s wealth and feels it should be shared? If, when pressed by the latter to share, is the wealthy person guilty of greed for wanting to keep what he earned? Or is it the one demanding a piece of what he hasn’t earned, merely because he doesn’t have as much as the wealthy person, the immoral one? The former is accused of greed for not accepting the demand he share what he earned, but the latter is undeniably guilty of envy for making that demand.
The central tenet of communism is from each according to his ability to each according to his need. It’s been pointed out that most who quote this phrase, popularized by Karl Marx, have a tendency to focus on the latter part and ignore the implications of the first part. In a properly communist society, individuals would be expected to do the jobs they’re best able to do, to work hard at those jobs, and to subordinate any preference for a particular career to the needs of the collective. But, how many who clamor to be given the wealth that others have earned offer to work for it? How often do we hear of welfare recipients actually doing “any job” so that they fulfill their end of the social contract they’re invoking?
It’s also not hard to conclude that the “need” part of the quote is (falsely) conflated with “want.” Real “need” in our modern society is usually confused with “want,” as in “I want more money without having to work harder for it and I want more material goods without having to acquire them through my own effort.” There’s also the common demand that those who receive not even be asked to work in exchange. In modern political discourse, workfare is a dirty word. The demands for redistribution from the wealthy to the not-wealthy are often couched in terms of social justice, but if we consider them in that framework, they’re nothing more than malignant envy.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters