By Dr George Askwith
George is a member of our editorial team and a volunteer for Faith to Faithless, which is Humanists UK's programme to support people leaving high-control religions. She lives in Peterborough, UK.
The short version
“Are values and ethics just for the wealthy?”
“No.”
The longer version
“Oh, you wanted more... nuance? OK, let’s explore how ethics, values, and socioeconomic factors intersect.”
Values and ethics are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this issue of Humanistically Speaking but, broadly speaking, ethics are the moral principles or rules that guide individuals in discerning right from wrong, often reflecting broader societal standards. They form an external framework for decision-making, particularly in situations involving conflicting interests or rights. Values are more personal, encompassing deeply-held beliefs and standards, shaping individual behaviour and decisions. Ethics and values are woven into the human experience. While ethics are externally informed, values are personal and unique to the individual. Values are often instilled early in life by family, culture, and community, and whilst cultural and economic capital may differ, ethical choices and responsibilities rely on personal integrity.
Ethics and values are also conveyed through religious and philosophical frameworks. For example, humanist values emphasise inclusivity, empathy, and rationality, with a commitment to human welfare that aligns with universal ethical principles. At their core, humanist values, such as equality, social justice, environmental responsibility, and community cooperation, are accessible to everyone and form the foundation for a fairer society. However, to promote a genuinely inclusive ethical culture, we must consider how social structures, resource distribution, and public policies can support everyone in making ethical choices.
People of all economic backgrounds face ethical choices daily, acting ethically within their capacity and often with resilience and compassion. Wealth may afford people more options or a higher level of influence, but it does not inherently lead to superior ethics. Many are driven by a commitment to their community, family, and societal well-being.
But how do we judge ethical living? Values and ethics manifest in everyday decisions. For example, consider the challenge of making environmentally sustainable choices. While sustainable travel and ethical shopping may be within reach for the wealthy, these options can be impractical or entirely out of reach for those on limited budgets.
Vimes’ “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness
As recounted in this extract, Captain Samuel Vimes, a character in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels, articulates a theory of socioeconomic unfairness through his personal experience with boots:
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.” (Men at Arms, 1993)
On a tight budget, what options are possible for clothing and shoes? Probably second-hand or worse, “pre-loved”, or fast-fashion companies, even though they are not environmentally-friendly. The greater cost of items which need to be replaced more often is environmental as well as financial, but it is also inevitable for those on a limited budget. Similarly, filling bellies with food that a family will eat is more important than food that is organic or locally-sourced, and prioritising immediate needs such as housing or paying bills takes precedence over an idealistic ethical standard. Ethical and sustainable practices are important, but expecting everyone to act in the same way regardless of financial circumstances is exclusionary.
Double standards
However, higher ethical expectations are often placed on people with less capital, while the affluent benefit from more leniency, especially when this is magnified in the media. When a family books an affordable holiday flight, their choice may be judged for its environmental impact, while luxury yachts and frequent flights by the wealthy receive less criticism. Indeed, it is easier to blame individuals for choosing fast fashion instead of addressing the broader issues of child labour, industry exploitation, wage disparity, and slavery.
Take smartphones. Where would we be without them? I can edit this article whilst sitting on the train with my phone. I use it to get directions, check where to eat, get my news, look at cat memes, and sometimes to stay in touch with friends and family. There are nearly 5 billion smart phone users in the world, but their use is fraught with ethical implications. They are among the most polluting consumer electronics in terms of carbon footprint.
Conflict minerals
The manufacture of smartphones involves “conflict minerals”, that is minerals sourced from war-torn or unstable regions, such as the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sudan. The mining of materials such as tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold is essential for modern electronics, but contributes to violence, corruption, slavery, child labour and severe human rights abuses in these countries. According to a Harvard Business Review study, 80% of companies do not know if their products contain conflict minerals, and smartphone manufacturers often lack transparency in their supply chains. In 2019, International Rights Advocates brought a class action suit on behalf of children killed or injured in tunnel or wall collapses while mining cobalt – used in lithium-ion batteries - in the DRC. The lawsuit named Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla. In March of this year, the suit was dismissed on the grounds that there needed to be a more explicit connection between the tech companies and the mining operations, not on the basis of whether or not children were maimed and killed.
Conclusion
Values and ethics are not reserved for the wealthy; they are universally accessible principles that shape our behaviour, choices, and community. While financial resources can provide additional opportunities for ethical expression, people of all backgrounds display values like compassion, integrity, and resilience in countless ways. Ethical choices on a restricted budget often involve navigating limited options in creative, resourceful ways. When communities come together to support each other, we see the benefit of values such as compassion, cooperation, and resilience, which transcend economic constraints. Ultimately, building a fairer, more sustainable society will require us to rethink how we enable and support ethical choices for everyone, through empathy, policy, and collective responsibility, rather than reinforcing a divide between the “ethically privileged” and the rest of society.
Comments