Money or Morals - Which is a necessary to survive?

I've got a debate question on this, I'm eager to here your view points on what you think and why

 

Interesting question but what do you mean by survive?

 

That's the question, interpret how you want.

 

I'd say in everyday normal life morals > money until you have enough money to not give a fuck.

But taking the question literally you don't need either to "survive". You could spend no money and have 0 morals but live on your own and eat from food banks, trash or supermarket excess to live. Be it a shitty life but you'd be surviving.

 

I understand your point, but look let's say you want food and you have no money. You can either make it or grow it yourself, trade/barter it with someone who does or steal it. All of these are inefficient and ineffective ways of living.

I'm arguing for money - Look at the statistics between poverty and life expectancy. Yes different areas have different conditions which may have a factor but then look at the life expectancy between the rich and poor in any country. More money generally leads to longer life due to health care, education etc..

 

Of course. But your point was survival brother.

Money does lead to increased life expectancy. And in the future the rich will be able to buy treatments which could indefinitely inc our lifespan. food for thought

 

What do you mean future? The rich live longer than the poor in this day and age my friend. More money = better education, health care, quality of life. There is a huge correlation

 

You can survive without either.

Morality is defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong. clinical sociopaths get along just fine without a conscience.

Money is a social construct meant to instill order through a system of reward and positive reinforcement, social casting, and incentivized humanitarianism. There are tribes in Africa which to this day are living as hunter-gatherer societies with zero contact or influence from the outside world.

A sociopathic tribesman may be born to one of these tribes, and will in fact survive.

 

Well analyzed, Unique.

I would add that in our modern society, Morality is certainly not needed for survival. In fact, in dire situations where survival is both the imminent goal and the least likely, one might find that morality is often parallel with lesser outcomes.

Only where survival is less emphasized does the need for morality begin to increase, as in the case of survival of a community construct - even then there exists a law of diminishing returns whereby the less that survival is truly emphasized, as in the case of getting richer, the more a lack of morality will become a benefit.

 

I would say morals would probably make a lot of more modern day situations tougher for people. It would seem that people are only out for their own personal agenda and don't really care too much about others believe and in fact in most situations may even take advantage of them.

In the case of Morals VS Money I would say that people use moral values as a target. For example telephone scammers from last year. There was a huge number of people targeted based on religion, family, or other beliefs. That's just on the phone alone, not even sure I wanna know about the internet but I am sure you could use the RAS section as a good example.

 

Both of them are important, you can earn more if you focus on providing a legitimate service.

 

you need to have both of them

 

Why is this question posed as a dilemma with the inevitable implication being survivability

 

Is the implication of all philosophical considerations not survivability? Other than, of course, the direct antithesis of survival, that being nihilism.

 

No it's not. Morality has to do with good and bad.
How is the direct antithesis of survival nihilism?

 

I think that you should make the money with morals so that you can enjoy it knowing that you deserve it.