Essay Sample on The Economic and Moral Progress

Introduction

Mohandas Gandhi is considered one of the most influential public figures in history with his peaceful ways of solving problems rather than engaging in fights (Gandhi 560). This is the reason he was offered a challenge by Mr. Kapildeva to address the issues of economic society (Gandhi 561). In his speech Economic and Moral Progress (Gandhi 560), he tries to differentiate between the economic progress and the real progress or the moral progress which he claims are two terms that have always been used interchangeably but with two distinct meaning. Despite the fact that he was not a political leader, he was highly regarded as a spiritual leader termed as Mahatma, and he was an authority to matters that required moral standing (Gandhi 560). He was a staunch believer of morality and in his speech; he uses moral lessons from his vast knowledge of the Bible, stories and rhetorical questions and quotes from scholars such as the British Scientist to support his theory and facts. His speech is characterized by the use of ethos and logos which makes it appealing to the rational mind.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In his speech, Gandhi asserts that economic progress is always associated with materialistic goods, and the more materials one owns, the wealthier he is perceived to be, and this makes them feel rich and happy. In this article, Gandhi explains that there is no guarantee that economic progress signifies moral progress, in fact, in most cases; economic progress has always been harmful to moral progress. Rich people always forget their moral and only strive to achieve material possession. He rhetorically asks whether moral progress increases in the same proportion as material progress, and according to him, these two have the same effect.

Gandhi wrote this article with the intention of informing and teaching the society that happiness is achieved through moral progress and not economic advancements. This article portrays how economic societies have always been driven with the desire to achieve more materials than uphold morality. He gives an example of how people in South Africa perceived economic and moral progress, and in his response, he says that in South Africa possession of material goods or riches was highly associated with high levels of immorality (Gandhi 565). Wealthy people are always selfish living in very expensive lifestyles forgetting to help the people in need. He claims that in as much as people need the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing; there is no evidence of assistance from the economists. According to him, the test of real progress is not measured by the number of rich millionaires a country has but by the absence of daily struggles such as the starvation of the masses.

Gandhi claims that the chase for material possession is important, but if it is the only goal in our lives, then morally we are decaying. Gandhi asserts that Western nations have been corrupted morally with materialism (Gandhi 565). He further claims that material possession make people happy compared to their religions and people have put material wealth over religions. He claims that we should put our morals above worldly pleasures. He quotes the Bible when Jesus was teaching about eternal life and asserts that in order to achieve eternal life, you have to put God first, which refers to as our morals, live according to the Ten Commandments and help the poor (Gandhi 564). This article portrays the importance of morality over material advancements, and from the Bible teachings, Gandhi quotes instances when Jesus asked a man to sell whatever he had and that he will receive treasure in heaven. From his quotes of the Bible, it is evident that God values morality and good deeds over material advancement and claims that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" (Gandhi 564). Gandhi also quotes the British Scientist, Wallace, who claims that as the country progresses in material wealth, it goes down morally (Gandhi 565).

Wealthier countries engage in illegal and immoral trades, corruption and gambling which corrupts moral standing. The society is fighting so hard to achieve material wealth that real progress is neglected (Gandhi 565). Gandhi claims that happiness is not achieved by the material possessions we own but rather by moral experience and the desire to help others. Material possessions give us comfort, luxury, and security but they fail to satisfy our individual needs. Society is capable of achieving more by putting more emphasis on moral progress and civilization that is only concentrating on material gain and wealth which only corrupts our morals.

Gandhi addresses the young group and urges on the need to be morally upright and discourages being caught in the chase for material possession. This speech is aimed to reach a diverse crowd as he uses both the Hindu and Christian teachings to support his theory (Gandhi 562). According to Gandhi, without moral wealth, economic wealth does not satisfy or give happiness. However, there are those who strive to become both morally and economically successful. Gandhi also asserts that there is a possibility of the two co-existing; however it is not an easy task to achieve both moral and economic success. Most people will be swayed by material possession and forget their moral obligations. This is why most wealthy people are associated with turpitude, but this does not mean that the poor are morally upright (Gandhi 563). Gandhi stresses the need to give back to society by the wealthy people as a show of their moral progress. He claims that wealthy people are so consumed and always have a limited time trying to chase the material possession and worldly pleasures, making them so selfish and ungrateful. Some even go the extremes of forgetting that God exists and wallow in their selfish nature and wealth.

Gandhi gives much emphasis on moral progress forgetting that economic progress also plays an important part in the overall growth of a society. Economic progress helps us come with new inventions of helping the poor, the sick and the needy people in society. In as much as the country is aiming for economic progress, it is advisable that they consider the moral progress too an engage in activities that help the poor. Economic progress and moral progress can co-exist, and it is a fine line between economic progress and moral progress. Gandhi overlooks the need for economic progress and instead sees how the Western world will crumble in their chase for economic progress. If a society was to focus and limit its growth to moral progress, it would limit its growth, and if a country was to rely on moral progress, then it would call for a perfect and selfless country.

Moral progress, however, would mean zero corruption cases, fewer poor and homeless people, and the implementation of laws would have strong moral grounds. Gandhi insinuates that the selfish nature of the wealthy class caused by economic success is one of the causes of poverty. The wealthy languish in rich lifestyles forgetting the poor who suffer and some even go without meals. Gandhi advice on the need to invest on moral progress and engage in giving back to society to help eradicate poverty, because, with moral progress, we will have a society guided on good morals and teachings and the practice of caring for one another. The rich need to take care of the poor.

However, there are are who oppose Gandhi's theory of helping the poor and having moral progress whereby people are not driven by their selfish desires to achieve economic progress. Garret Hardin in his essay he supports the notion against helping the poor and uses a lifeboat ethics analogy to defend his controversial case (Hardin 583). In his theory, Hardin compares the world to a lifeboat with a capacity of 60 people. However, only 50 people are on board which makes room for 10 more people (Hardin 583). The 50 people on board represent the rich countries while the poor nations are represented by the mass of people swimming in need of help (Hardin 583). The people on board are in a dilemma whether to help the people drowning in the ocean, or only save the few who can fit in the boat, but still, do not know what criteria to use in picking who to save and who not to save. He claims that by saving the drowning 100 people, the boat will eventually sink and kill everyone in a catastrophic death caused by the compassionate need of justice (Hardin 583).

Hardin's theory divides the world into rich countries and poor countries, with poor countries in constant need of help. This lifeboat metaphor explains the flow and distribution of resources explaining that the rich should refrain from helping the needy poor countries even in dire situations as this will cause catastrophic damage to both countries (Hardin 584). He claims that if the rich countries spend all their resources in helping the poor, they will eventually run out resources to even cater for their needs and this will bring disaster to both countries. Hardin states that we have two options to consider, whether to help the poor countries and live by the Christian ideal of brothers or let them perish according to Marxist ideal, where everyone cares for themselves (Hardin 583).

Hardin questions the concept of morality in helping people and the need for personal survival, and it needs a controversial concept. Morally, we are obligated to help everyone as they are all human beings and have inherent values. The questions of morality and guilty conscience are put to the test as humans with morals cannot sit back and watch fellow human beings suffer and die in anguish, while for those who choose not to help forever live in constant guilt of their actions (Hardin 584). Hardin triggered controversial questions of whether providing help to the poor countries was harmful to the existing resources and to the rich countries. It is evident that the available natural resources are not adequate to cater for everyone's needs, but then what does morality require of us? This lifeboat metaphor reflects the challenges we face today with the increasing population and the depleting resources, making it so hard to sustain everyone's needs. There need to be ways of solving this problem because sharing of resources proves to be disastrous with time. Critics of Hardin claim that helping is not disastrous, but instead, the rich countries should come up with strategies on how to help the poor with measures such as sustainable development and good management of the available natural resources.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in as much as Gandhi advocates for moral progress over the economic progress, we should strike a balance between the two and aim to achieve both. The moral progress reflects the real progress of a society and a country in general. People are advised not to be swayed by the material possession after achieving economic success, but rather strive for moral progress as well for the realization of happiness and individual satisfaction. We should avoid the selfish acts caused by the desire for more material possession, but aim to help the needy around us as we are obligated by our moral standing. It is wrong to put material possession over our religious beliefs and our morals. Economic success should not be associated with turpitude or the society evils. We should try as much as possible to achieve both to achieve real progress for full satisfaction and give back to society, because this is God's will, to help the poor. We should also disregard Hardin's lifeboat metaphor and engage in activities that will help the poor countries and come up with long term solutions that will reduce the problems that are likely to be caused by sharing of the available resources.

Works Cited

Gandhi, Mohandas. "Economic and Moral Progress." Reading the World, 3rd edition, edited by Michael Austin,...